[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 never forget my own father's battle against Alzheimer's and
how his slow deterioration and passing impacted our family. Their
personal health battles took on a new meaning as the public debate
heated up over the merits and ethics of embryonic stem cell research.
As we look towards the future of medical research, we must always
proceed with strict ethical caution. I believe the Castle/DeGette
legislation meets this criteria by establishing strict requirements for
which new embryonic stem cell lines would be eligible for federal
funding. Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research would mean
that research could advance at a faster pace while providing stringent
requirements and oversight of the research. National and international
involvement is needed to ensure research institutions and companies do
not intentionally or unintentionally overreach their bounds.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of H.R. 810, the
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, I rise in strong support of
this legislation. H.R. 810 is essential legislation that will expand
opportunities for scientists to treat spinal cord injuries,
[[Page 11035]]
multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes,
and other devastating diseases.
There are ethical concerns over the use of embryonic stem cells in
research, and we should not treat stem cells as just another laboratory
product. We must strongly prohibit unethical practices, such as human
cloning. And we should not allow embryos to be bought and sold.
But it is important to recognize that, as part of the process of in
vitro fertilization, many embryos are created that are never used and
are slated to be destroyed. With the stringent moral safeguards
established by this legislation, including the required written consent
of the donors, I believe we should permit the use of stem cells from
these embryos. The use of embryos for research that would otherwise be
destroyed strikes a responsible balance between the ethical and medical
values associated with stem cell research.
The current state of stem cell research suggests that there is
significant progress to be made if we move forward in this area.
Leading scientists have testified that adult stem cells and umbilical
cord stem cells do not share the ability of embryonic stem cells to
replicate all other cells in the human body. If we don't invest in stem
cell research, millions of Americans with some of the most debilitating
diseases will not be able to avail themselves of the treatments or
cures that might result.
In addition, if we fail to invest federal resources in embryonic stem
cell research, the U.S. will lose its competitive advantage in this
essential area of science. The limited federal support for stem cell
research is just one area of science in which the U.S. is falling
behind. Last year China produced 160,000 more engineers than we did.
Nearly 40 percent of U.S. jobs in science or technology requiring a
Ph.D. are now filled by people born abroad--that's up from 25 percent
in 1990. We now rank below 13 other countries--including Japan,
Germany, and South Korea--in the percentage of 24-year olds with a
college degree in a science or engineering field--that's down from
third in the world 25 years ago.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation will help the U.S. to move forward on
our moral imperative to perform stem cell research in an ethically
responsible way. I urge all of my colleagues to support it.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, the promise for curing a whole host of
debilitating diseases is brighter than it's ever been. Today, Congress
has the opportunity to capitalize on breakthrough scientific research
to help millions across our country.
Representatives Castle and DeGette have crafted this bill
meticulously, which would allow the use of surplus embryos from in
vitro fertilization treatments and require donor consent. It does not
allow stem cells to be sold for profit. This legislation takes an
ethical and moral approach to a challenging subject, and throughout is
respectful of the value of life.
Real political courage and leadership--on both sides of the aisle, in
the House and Senate--was required to bring us to this point. People
from every point along the political spectrum--from Nancy Reagan to the
late Christopher Reeve--have embraced the promise and potential of stem
cell research.
Parkinson's, cancer, Alzheimer's, juvenile diabetes, spinal cord
injuries--cures for these and other serious ailments may lie in stem
cell research. We owe it to generations of suffering Americans and
their families to help find treatments that could lead to full
recovery.
Many in this body like to talk about ``values.'' Today, I say to
them: using discarded embryos to find scientific cures for fatal
diseases is our moral obligation. Saving life is precisely what we all
care about.
Mr. Speaker, a vote for H.R. 810 is a vote to save lives. I urge all
my colleagues to support this bipartisan, bicameral legislation.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I have been watching today's
proceedings from California as I recuperate from surgery. I feel
compelled to reach out to my colleagues to underscore the utmost
importance of H.R. 810, the ``Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.''
H.R. 810 is a comprehensive bill that fully balances the ethical
concerns associated with stem cell research with the incalculable
benefits such research can confer upon millions of Americans.
Now is the time for action! We must continue to expand the scope of
embryonic stem cell research. We must not tie the hands of researchers
who will hopefully deliver to our communities cures for these life
threatening diseases.
Research on adult stem cells is important. However, I think we need
to recognize the limitations that are inherent in that type of
research. While adult stem cells are being used to treat blood diseases
such as leukemia and lymphoma, adult stem cells cannot be used to form
any cell. Experts believe that adult stem cells are not going to
produce the answers to diseases like sickle cell disease, Multiple
Sclerosis, heart disease, liver disease, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and
numerous kinds of cancers we so desperately seek. Adult stem cells are
not a substitute for embryonic stems cells.
I would like to speak specifically to the large numbers of African
Americans and other minorities who will hugely benefit from this
potentially lifesaving research. Too many of my constituents are
disproportionally affected by many of the diseases researchers hope to
cure with information gleaned from embryonic stem cell research.
In particular, diabetes, Parkinson's, and especially sickle cell
disease run rampant in our communities. I want to be able to look at
every single one of my constituents who is afflicted with a disease
that researchers believe they can treat eventually based on research
done on embryonic stem cells and tell them that here in Washington we
are doing absolutely everything we can to save their lives and assuage
their pain.
I introduced bills over the last two Congresses to bring awareness to
the need for expanding the number of stem cell lines because I
recognize that we must embrace groundbreaking solutions to the problems
posed by fatal diseases.
The research has progressed so far since 1998, when scientists first
isolated human embryonic stem cells. Amazing discoveries have been made
in such a short time. What sense would there be in restricting the
ability of researchers to, within the boundaries set by, strict ethical
guidelines, progress with this research as far as is possible? Why are
we tying the hands of our scientific community to save lives on the
basis of an arbitrary date, while across the world this research will
be used to save lives?
This bill answers those questions resoundingly: we will not unduly
restrict the essential research that could save the lives of millions.
We will move forward. We will find an end to suffering that could be
prevented, in my community and nationwide.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say that I will be casting
my vote for H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005.
I am voting for this legislation with the face of Ashley Dahly on my
mind. Ashley is a 17-year-old high school junior from Devils Lake,
North Dakota. She is a happy teenager with an adoring family. She likes
school, enjoys Student Congress and speech class, and loves ice
skating.
Ashley also has juvenile diabetes. In fact, today she is at home
missing her finals because of high blood sugars. Ashley is North
Dakota's delegate for Children's Congress through the Juvenile Diabetes
Research Foundation, taking place here in Washington on June 18-22nd.
Ashley's goal is to enter a health-related field such as a nurse or
diabetes educator, because as Ashley has said, ``I know the pain that
children diagnosed with diabetes go through, and I think I could help
in relieving that pain.''
There is currently no cure for juvenile diabetes, a disease that
affects another child every hour of every day. Embryonic stem cell
research offers great potential for advancing treatments or even curing
diabetes, as well as many other diseases such as Parkinson's disease,
cancer, ALS, paralysis and others. Particularly in the case of
diabetes, embryonic stem cell research holds the greatest possibility
for understanding and curing this disease, since adult stem cells are
not present in the pancreas, the organ attacked by diabetes.
Embryonic stem cell research is an extremely difficult issue,
involving the potential for critical medical breakthroughs on the one
hand, and very complex bio-ethical issues on the other. The bill
requires that research only be conducted on stem cells derived from
embryos created for fertility treatments that were in excess of the
need of the mother and would otherwise have been destroyed. My vote
today is supported by over 200 major patient groups, scientists, and
medical research groups, and I believe that my vote can provide hope to
families in North Dakota like Ashley's who are suffering through the
illness of a loved one.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, on the birthday of my daughter, Katy, who
was born 8-10 weeks prematurely, but still lives and blesses my life.
There are so many well-meaning people who want to see others cured. We,
everyone of us in this body, want that. We know that. It is being said
that no one will be harmed by the use or destruction of human embryos
that were going to be waste anyway. Dear friends, when you use the
product of the callous mistreatment of life, even though you use
sterilized gloves, you nonetheless are an accomplice after the fact in
encouraging future
[[Page 11036]]
such destruction and mistreatment--even though you have the very very
best of intentions. How many times as a judge have I heard, ``But, I
never meant to hurt anyone. I thought I was just helping.''
In the recent past, we lost a great American who had been injured in
an accident and who encouraged the use of embryonic stem cells. That
man had a heart as big as all outdoors and is an inspiration to so very
many of us. His strength and courage and perseverance in the face of
unsurmountable odds should be an encouragement for all who face
adversity. He is quoted as saying something that others have said, but
as a justification for embryonic stem cell usage--basically that we
should be about doing the greatest good for the greatest number of
people. That is the utilitarian way.
It is worth noting that if a society only did what was the greatest
good for the greatest number of people, that society would kill off the
elderly who were no longer productive and kill off the young who were
not likely to ever be very productive. That would also be a society
that did not spend time trying to fix something that had been extremely
broken. That is a society that would simply weigh the cost to repair a
human, decide that such person was ``Totaled'' then clone a new one to
replace it. That society would be killing its very soul.
That is not the American way. We want to be a help to the helpless,
and speak for those who can't speak. A moral society should do that. To
demand money from American taxpayers so that we as a Congress can
encourage the destructive use of life under the guise that it may be
thrown away anyway, is not a direction that this America should go. Our
history has been that, rather than destroying life, we go to all kinds
of extremes to save it. If a child is in a deep hole, America sends all
the resources it has to try to save it regardless of cost. When someone
may not return from a trip to the moon, we use every available resource
to try to bring them home. When a soldier is captured or out on the
battlefield wounded, many others often risk their lives to save the
one. That has been, that should be our legacy. What a legacy! But to
demand money with the full force of the federal government's
enforcement and the IRS so that the beginning of life can be destroyed,
will add such a darkness on the conscience of this society, we simply
should go no farther down that road.
It is a bit offensive that some would come forward and assert that we
are telling individuals with Lou Gehrigs disease and other terribly
debilitating diseases that we will not look for a cure--that we
basically do not care. We are looking for cures and we are doing so
with the most promising avenues available and that is with stem cells
that do not destroy life.
It is extremely offensive that some would come forward and say
basically that in the name of religion, Christian and Jewish groups
support the federal government's certain destruction of embryos under
the possibility that at some point it somehow may lead to possibly
saving a life or lives. If we are going to invoke the thought of, as
our forefathers' put it, our Creator, then let's at least invoke our
Creator's unwavering honesty. The truth is that this bill is not
determining whether embryonic stem cell research will go on. If it is
so incredibly and amazingly promising, do you know who would be all
over this? Private pharmaceutical and health care industries would be
in pursuit knowing that if they find a cure, they will be the most
profitable company on the face of the earth.
But it is not private investment capital that is being sought. It is
people wanting grants that will be torn from the pockets of taxpayers
against the will of perhaps half of them or more (polling data from
those with an agenda is not all that trustworthy) and putting it into
someone else's pocket in the name of destroying embryos.
Embryonic stem cell research can go on and has gone on with billions
of dollars from some states and from some private money. What many of
us are saying about this legislation is, if it is so promising, you go
raise the capital privately by buying stock to use in embryonic stem
cell research, and let our tax dollars go to the stem cell research
that seeks to both save and make lives better. I know this is a matter
of conscience, and I do so know and believe in the integrity and great
intentions of many of those who disagree, but please do not take my tax
dollars for money to destroy life. Let those who feel so compelled,
spend your own, but I would hope even then you would spend your own
money on the lines with the most promise and not take life in the name
of helping life.
May God not only bless, but have mercy on us all.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 810, the Stem
Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005. This legislation takes the
critical first step in expanding the number of stem cell lines that are
eligible for federally funded research.
For years, the United States has been the preeminent world leader in
the field of biotechnology. We have made extraordinary advancements in
the treatment, management and prevention of a wide range of
disabilities. It's nearly impossible to read a newspaper without
hearing of some new breakthrough--drug cocktails for AIDS patients;
gene therapy treatments; new medical devices.
These advancements are cause for celebration. Our mothers and
fathers, our spouses, children and grandchildren are benefiting like
never before. They are living longer, healthier lives due to our
investments in scientific research.
Much like this earlier research, the potential benefits from stem
cells are almost limitless. And as policymakers, we have the rare
opportunity to help further scientific innovation that, with the proper
research and development, could produce better treatments--or even
cures--for diseases like diabetes, Parkinson's Disease, and cancer.
Despite some arguments that we have heard today, recent developments
have proven that we are not far off from recognizing the true potential
of this research. In fact, just last week, scientists in South Korea
successfully created the world's first human embryonic stem cells that
are patient-specific. This advancement was applauded around the world
as a major step in the effort to produce cell-based therapies that
won't be rejected by the body's immune system.
And in my home state of Massachusetts, ViaCell and New World
Laboratories, two small biotech companies, have made notable progress
in their research on spinal cord injuries and tissue regeneration.
Though no one can predict the outcome of embryonic stem cell research,
what is certain is that without federal support, we will never fully
recognize it's potential.
We are at a pivotal point in our nation's history, and I hope that my
colleagues will carefully consider this issue, leaving out partisan
politics. With federal support, this research could have a real and
tangible impact on millions of lives in this country. Our Nation's
current policy severely limits scientific research, and we must not
continue on this dangerous course. I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting H.R. 810.
Mr DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 810, the ``Stem Cell Research
and Enhancement Act of 2005.''
Let us be very clear about why we are here today. We are here to
decide whether our Nation will move forward in the search for
treatments and therapies that will cure a multitude of dreaded diseases
that afflict an estimated 128 million Americans.
Today, millions of Americans suffer from Alzheimer's disease,
Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries or spinal dysfunction, and
diabetes. And today, along with the tremendous number of Americans
living with cancer, approximately 1.5 million new cases were diagnosed
in the United States last year. Today, we can vote for H.R. 810, and in
doing so, choose to save lives and help to end the suffering of so many
Americans.
Stem cells are the foundation cells for every organ, tissue, and cell
in the body. Embryonic stem cells, unlike adult stem cells, possess a
unique ability to develop into any type of cell. Embryonic stem cell
research holds the potential for treating a variety of diseases such as
Lou Gehrig's disease, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, autism,
cystic fibrosis, heart disease, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, and
osteoporosis, as well as spinal cord injuries.
H.R. 810 would impose strict ethical guidelines for embryonic stem
cell research and would lift the arbitrary restriction limiting funds
to only some embryonic stem cell lines created before August 10, 2001.
By removing this arbitrary restriction, H.R. 810 will ensure that
researchers can not only continue their work to prolong or save lives,
but also conduct such research using newer, less contaminated, more
diverse, and more numerous embryonic stem cells.
H.R. 810 does not allow Federal funding for the creation or
destruction of embryos. This bill only allows for research on embryonic
stem cell lines retrieved from embryos created for reproductive
purposes that would otherwise be discarded. This point is critical: If
these embryos are not used for stem cell research, they will be
destroyed.
Former first lady Nancy Reagan once said, ``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.''
Let us not turn our backs on this important research and the 128
million Americans who
[[Page 11037]]
could benefit from it. Let us not lose any more time. Let us pass H.R.
810, the ``Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005.''
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor and
strong supporter of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. I
am pleased that the House leadership brought this important legislation
to the floor and am proud to be a part of the important debate
occurring today.
Mr. Speaker, embryonic stem cells have the ability to develop into
virtually any cell in the body, and many believe they may have the
potential to treat many illnesses such as Parkinson's disease, juvenile
diabetes, Alzheimer's, blindness, sickle cell anemia and many other
medical conditions, including spinal cord injuries. Like many other
issues facing us today, however, stem cell research forces us to
confront the challenge of balancing long-standing ethical questions
with the possibilities presented by scientific and technological
advancements. The remarks made on the floor today by my colleagues have
reflected the difficulty in dealing with this issue, as many members
wrestle with their beliefs and emotions.
Most familiar with this issue know that in August 2001, President
Bush announced that federal funds for the first time would be used to
support research on human embryonic stem cells. However, the funding
would be limited to ``existing stem cell lines.'' The National
Institutes of Health (NIH) has established the Human Embryonic Stem
Cell Registry, which lists stem cell lines that are eligible for use in
federally funded research. Although 78 cell lines are listed, 22
embryonic stem cell lines are currently available. Scientists are
concerned about the quality, longevity, and availability of the
eligible stem cell lines.
That is why I am a cosponsor of H.R. 810, and strongly support its
passage. This important legislation increases the number of lines of
stem cells that would be eligible to be used in federally funded
research. It does so, however, by requiring that the stem cells meet
certain requirements. Specifically, the stem cells must be derived from
human embryos donated from in vitro fertilization clinics. They also
must have been created for the purpose of fertility treatment, but were
in excess of the clinical need. The embryos must also not have been
intended for use in fertility treatment, and would otherwise be
discarded. Finally, under H.R. 810, the embryos must have been donated
by individuals seeking fertility treatment with informed written
consent and without any financial payment or other inducement to make
the donation.
Mr. Speaker, I have listened as member after member has come to the
floor to tell a personal tale of a loved one suffering from a disease
that, with additional research, stem cells could help cure. We all have
our stories Mr. Speaker. My uncle, Morris K. Udall, who served in this
body for decades, suffered from Parkinson's disease. There are too many
people across the world suffering from devastating diseases for which
stem cells hold great hope and promise. We need to foster additional
research that is conducted in an ethically responsible way. H.R. 810
does just that.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research
Enhancement Act of 2005.
H.R. 810 is the safest, most ethically and morally sound way to
proceed with this potentially life-saving scientific advancement. This
debate is not about whether or not embryonic stem cell research should
occur. The Administration is not stopping private embryonic stem cell
research. It just opposes the expansion of public stem cell research.
The private sector is not restricted from such research. The private
sector currently uses frozen embryos which would otherwise be
discarded. Corporate entities already have access to 125 new and better
embryonic stem cell lines, created after August 9, 2001, when the
President announced his new stem cell policy.
H.R. 810 expands the number of frozen embryos to be used for stem
cell research by the Federal Government. Federally sponsored research
is subject to greater oversight and safeguards and higher ethical
standards. Ethical controls over privately funded research are limited.
Recent scientific breakthroughs have demonstrated that embryonic stem
cell research has life saving potential. It could result in saving
millions of lives. It could be the answer to the prayers of those who
suffer from Parkinson's, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, spinal cord
injuries and other debilitating conditions. Recent studies have set
back the case for the efficacy of adult stem cells.
Embryonic stem cell research will continue with or without the
federal government. This bill expands federal research, which will be
subject to greater oversight and safeguards.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of
the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which will expand the federal
policy and implement stricter ethical guidelines for this research.
Embryonic stem cell research is necessary in discovering the causes
of a myriad of genetic diseases, to testing new drug therapies more
efficiently on laboratory tissue instead of human volunteers, and to
staving off the ravages of disease with the regeneration of our bodies'
essential organs.
President George W. Bush's policy on stem cell research limits
federal funding only to embryonic stem cell lines that were derived by
August 9, 2001, the date of his policy announcement.
Of the 78 stem cell lines promised by President Bush, only 22 are
available to researchers.
Unfortunately these stem cell lines are aged and contaminated with
mouse feeder cells, making their therapeutic use for humans uncertain.
According to the majority of scientists, if these stem cell lines were
transplanted into people, they would provoke dangerous viruses in
humans.
What is even more disturbing is the fact that there are at least 125
new stem cell lines, which are more pristine than the lines currently
available on the National Institutes of Health registry, which are
ineligible for federally-funded research because they were derived
after August 9, 2001.
This restrictive embryonic stem cell research policy is making it
increasingly more difficult to attract new scientists to this area of
research because of concerns that funding restrictions will keep this
research from being successful.
The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act does not change the current
policy on the use of federal funds; this measure simply seeks to lift
the cutoff date for lines available for research.
H.R. 810 will also strengthen the ethical standards guiding the
federal research on stem cell lines and will ensure that embryos
donated for stem cell research were created for the purposes of in
vitro fertilization, in excess of clinical need, would have otherwise
be discarded and involved no financial inducement.
Contrary to what opponents have been saying, the Stem Cell Research
Enhancement Act will not federally fund the destruction of embryos.
H.R. 810 is clear that unused embryos will be used for embryonic stem
cell research only by decision of the donor. No federally-funded
research will be supported by this measure if the embryos were created
and destroyed solely for this purpose.
In February 2005, the Civil Society Institute conducted a nationwide
survey of 1,022 adults and found that 70 percent supported bipartisan
federal legislation to promote embryonic stem cell research.
Let public interest triumph over ideological special interests.
Public interest is best served when the medical and the scientific
community is free to exercise their professional judgment in extending
and enhancing human life.
I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of the Stem Cell Research
Enhancement Act.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in
strong support of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of
2005.
Stem cells have tremendous promise to treat a myriad of devastating
diseases and disorders.
Embryonic stem cells can become any cell type in the body, and their
promise lies in the ability to tailor-make cellular treatments, heart
muscle for heart disease, pancreas cells for diabetes, or nervous
system cells for spinal cord injury.
Stem cells are relatively new on the research scene; it was only in
1998 that the techniques were developed to isolate stem cells from
humans, and we have a lot to learn about how to make the cells develop
in the ways that will be essential for therapeutic application.
Today, I would like to highlight how the Reeve-Irvine Research Center
has made significant head way in making the promise of embryonic stem
cells a reality.
Work recently published by Dr. Hans Keirstead and his group has shown
that they are able to turn human embryonic stem cells into a clinically
useful cell type.
To use embryonic stem cells for therapy, it is critical to devise
ways to cause them to turn into particular cell types. If un-
differentiated stem cells are transplanted into the brain or spinal
cord, they may become a teratoma, a tumor made of many different cells
like bone, muscle, and hair.
So, to be useful for therapy, embryonic stem cells must be
``restricted'' to differentiate into
[[Page 11038]]
the desired cell types. That is, they must be told what specific cell
type to turn into as they mature.
Dr. Keirstead's group has developed a unique method to create these
differentiated cells.
Moreover, as report in Journal of Neuroscience, his group has been
successful in transplanting these cells into an acute spinal cord
injury.
Once transplanted, these cells have been able to survive in a living
organism, move to areas where they are needed, and do what they are
supposed to.
The result is a significant improvement in walking ability, at least
at an early time point post injury. This finding is proof of principle
that human embryonic stem cells can be a viable therapeutic agent.
Dr. Keirstead's cells are on the federally approved list. They are
among the very few lines that are actually usable, and he is among the
very few who have had access to human embryonic stem cells.
Dr. Keirstead's progress since 2001 when he received the cells has
been remarkable. His group has learned how to maintain the embryonic
stem cells, no small feat in itself. They have learned how to transform
the cells into differentiated cells, they have learned how to use the
cells to treat new spinal cord injury in animals.
All this in less than 4 years, and in one lab.
Imagine the progress that could have been made with, 100 labs working
with embryonic stem cells on not only spinal cord injury but
Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, and so many others.
The Reeve-Irvine Research Center is one of a handful of places in the
U.S. that has the know-how to use embryonic stem cells.
With more lines available, we could readily address issues related to
paralysis by developing new cell populations, like motor neurons, or by
testing the therapeutic quality of other lines.
In addition, more researchers would be able to devote their talents
to this area of research.
My father is suffering from Alzheimer's. I know that my family would
do anything to find a cure for this horribly degenerative disease. I
would ask my colleagues, would your family do any differently? Would
the families of your constituents do any differently?
The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 before Congress today,
if passed, would open the door to our country's brightest scientists to
find the treatments that Dr. Keirstead's work suggests are really there
waiting to be discovered.
I urge my colleagues to support this research and to vote for H.R.
810.
Ms. CARSON. Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my strong, principled and
hopeful support of H.R. 810. I commend the vital leadership of my brave
colleagues, Representatives Castle and DeGette, for bringing this
urgent issue to the floor.
Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is needed to help
American scientists move this research forward, research which has the
potential to revolutionize medicine and save countless lives.
While adult stem cells have been very useful in treating some
cancers, embryonic stem cells appear to have a far greater potential
for treating disease than adult stem cells. Scientists regard embryonic
stem cell research as one of the greatest hopes for the cure of medical
conditions such as Parkinson's disease and diabetes due to their unique
ability to develop into virtually any type of cell in the body.
Recently, researchers at the University of Miami came up with a
technique to transform embryonic stem cells into the insulin-producing
cells destroyed by Type-l diabetes. Such research may also help us
better understand the causes of birth defects, genetic abnormalities,
and other conditions that arise during the critical period of early
human growth. Other possible medical applications include the repair of
crippling injuries such as spinal cord damage and the ability to
correct the damaging side effects of existing medical treatments like
chemotherapy.
This debate is not about whether or not embryonic stem cell research
will progress, for it surely will. This research is already taking
place around the globe, and right here in America. The question is:
will we lead the way? This debate is about American leadership in this
world. For generations America has led the world in scientific
advances. We must continue to support the work of our brilliant
scientists and help them once again lead the world in this vitally
important new field.
This bipartisan legislation would expand the scope of stem cell
research while enacting stringent procedural guidelines. All activities
would be subject to the strict ethical guidelines of the National
Institutes of Health. No federal funds would be used to conduct
research on unapproved stem cell lines. The cells used in this research
will be donated voluntarily by patients of in-vitro fertilization
clinics. It makes no sense, and it is just plain wrong to ban research
using embryos that are being simply thrown away today.
Mr. Speaker, it is not our place as legislators to decide which
medical research does and does not have merit. We must not block
advances in life-saving and ethically conducted science. I commend my
colleagues for supporting this critical legislation.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of the Stem Cell Research
Enhancement Act of 2005, I believe that stem cell research holds the
promise of scientific breakthroughs that could improve the lives of
millions of Americans. This bi-partisan legislation would provide
federal funding for a wider range of research while establishing
ethical guidelines.
The most compelling arguments for expanding federal funding for stem
cell research can be heard in the heart wrenching stories of
individuals suffering from debilitating diseases for which there are
currently no cures or treatments. While it is too late for the
countless Americans who have passed away from terrible diseases, it is
not too late for the millions of other Americans hoping this House will
support funding for this potentially life-saving resource. For these
patients and their families stem cell research is the last hope for a
cure.
This bill provides that embryos that are otherwise likely to be
discarded can be used to help develop treatments for debilitating
diseases and life saving cures. We should allow federally supported
research to proceed to find such treatments and cures.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 810,
the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005. This bill would expand
the current Federal policy on embryonic stem cell research by allowing
federally funded research on stem cell lines derived after August 9,
2001, while implementing strong ethical guidelines to ensure Federal
oversight of the research.
Most of the scientific community believes that for the full potential
of embryonic stem cell research to be reached, the number of cell lines
readily available to scientists must increase. Just last month, a
number of NIH directors testified before the Senate Appropriations
Committee that the current policy is restrictive and hinders scientific
progress. We are already at risk of losing our scientific and
technological edge because of increasing competition around the world.
Other countries--such as China, India, and the United Kingdom--are
forging ahead with embryonic stem cell research because of less
restrictive policies. India, for example, has an extensive stem cell
regulatory system, yet allows the derivation of new stem cells from
surplus embryos at fertility clinics. Our restrictive policy not only
puts us at risk of losing our scientific edge, we are also at risk of
losing some of the best American scientists to other countries where
policies are less restrictive.
Important advances in the science of embryonic stem cell research
have been made since the August 2001 policy was set. Earlier this year,
researchers at the University of Wisconsin in Madison figured out how
to grow human embryonic stem cells without using mouse feeder cells.
This is exciting news since mouse feeder cells are thought to be a
source of contamination if the cells are ever to be used
therapeutically in humans.
From its earliest days, stem cell research has been important to the
people of Wisconsin. In fact, Dr. James Thomson, a researcher at the
University of Wisconsin, was the first to isolate and culture embryonic
stem cells.
In 2003, this esteemed researcher received the Frank Annunzio award,
given to recognize the innovative research of American scientists who
devote their careers to improving the lives of people through their
work in science. Wisconsin has been at the forefront of embryonic stem
cell research from the beginning. This legislation is essential to make
sure the important work of our scientists is not unnecessarily
sidetracked by politics.
But this legislation is not only important because of the potential
for advances in science and technology. More important is the fact that
embryonic stem cell research could lead to new treatments and cures for
the many Americans afflicted with life-threatening and debilitating
diseases. Scientists believe these cells could be used to treat many
diseases, including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, and spinal cord
injuries. However, the promise of this research may not be reached if
the Federal policy is not expanded.
Mr. Speaker, it has become increasingly clear that the American
public supports expanding the Federal stem cell policy. Just yesterday,
results from a survey of Wisconsin voters were released showing
overwhelming support for embryonic stem cell research. Nearly
[[Page 11039]]
two-thirds of those polled support expanding Federal policies to
support more research--regardless of party affiliation.
I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important
legislation that will allow science to move forward unimpeded, has the
potential to revolutionize the practice of medicine, and can offer hope
to the millions of Americans suffering from debilitating diseases.
Mr. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill and
all of the promise that comes with funding embryonic stem cell
research. This bill represents an important step forward for the
scientific and medical communities in our country, offering hope to the
millions of Americans who suffer from diseases that stem cell therapies
may be able to cure.
Unfortunately, President Bush has threatened to veto this bill when
it arrives on his desk. I am appalled that a President who talks so
much about embracing a ``culture of life'' would deny funding for a
possible cure that could save a child from suffering from juvenile
diabetes; repair a damaged spinal cord to allow a person to walk again;
save a grandparent from the onset of Alzheimer's disease; or put a halt
to the ravages of Parkinson's disease.
The potential benefits from embryonic stem cell research are almost
boundless and would certainly touch the life of a friend or family
member of everyone in America. Mr. Bush's ban on providing Federal
funds for stem cell research has seriously damaged our Nation's efforts
to be a leading voice in the development of this new technology.
Allowing Federal funding for research on stem cells is vital to
making real progress as quickly as possible to find real cures. I urge
my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill that will certainly
have long-lasting effects in improving the health and well being of
millions of Americans.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, as a physician I'm certain of one
thing: Science is not Republican or Democrat, Science is not
conservative or liberal. Science is science. Decisions in science
should be based on the scientific method--a standardized method of
evaluation and implementation of a solution or treatment of a disease.
When followed, it allows for the greatest amount of critical thinking
about any issue. If followed, it results in the best outcome. This
would be true in public policy as well. If not followed in a
legislative body, then decisions tend to be made based upon who has the
largest group of supporters or greatest passion and emotion. Now there
is nothing wrong with numbers, passion or emotion, it just may not get
you to the correct solution--especially in the scientific arena.
There has been significant misrepresentation of science today and in
this debate, because ``science is not a policy or a political program.
Science is a systematic method for developing and testing hypotheses
about the physical world. It does not promise miracle cures based on
scanty evidence. . . . statements . . . made regarding the purported
medical applications of embryonic stem cells reach far beyond any
credible evidence, ignoring the limited state of our knowledge about
embryonic stem cells and the advances in other areas of research that
may render use of these cells unnecessary for many applications. To
make such exaggerated claims, at this stage of our knowledge, is not
only scientifically irresponsible--it is deceptive and cruel to
millions of patients and their families who hope desperately for cures
and have come to rely on the scientific community for accurate
information. . . . Non-embryonic stem cells'' on the other hand have a
history ``very different from that of embryonic stem cells.'' Cord and
adult stem cells are ``Producing undoubted clinical benefits and . . .
(b) one marrow transplants'' have benefited ``patients with various
forms of cancer for many years before it was understood that the active
ingredients in these transplants are stem cells. . . . Use of these
cells poses no serious ethical problem, and may avoid all problems of
tissue rejection if stem cells can be obtained from a patient for use
in that same patient. . . . In contrast to embryonic stem cells, adult
stem cells are in established or experimental use to treat human
patients with several dozen conditions. . . . They have been or are
being assessed in human trials for treatment of spinal cord injury,
Parkinson's disease, stroke, cardiac damage, multiple sclerosis,''
juvenile diabetes ``and so on. . . .
``Therefore . . . to declare that'' embryonic stem cell research
``will . . . receive any particular amount of federal funding,
regardless of future evidence or the usual scientific peer review
process--is . . . irresponsible. It is, in fact, a subordination of
science to ideology.
``Because politicians, biotechnology interests and even some
scientists have publicly exaggerated the ``promise'' of embryonic stem
cells, public perceptions of this avenue have become skewed and
unrealistic. Politicians may hope to benefit from these false hopes to
win elections. . . . The scientific and medical professions have no
such luxury. When desperate patients discover that they have been
subjected to a salesman's pitch rather than an objective and candid
assessment of possibilities, we have reason to fear public backlash
against the credibility of our profession. We urge you not to
exacerbate this problem now by repeating false promises that exploit
patients' hopes for political gain.''
I have quoted from a letter signed by 57 scientists--MD's and PhD's--
written during last year's presidential campaign. It expressed real
concern about a cavalier public posture and policy during a debate on
such a sensitive ethical matter.
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 ES 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 ES cells.
And adult stem cells carry none of the ethical questions or dilemma
of ES cells.
I support stem cell research--active, aggressive, scientifically
based--with respect for the difficult ethical questions we face today.
I urge my colleagues to join me in respecting current 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.
October 27, 2004.
Senator John F. Kerry,
John Kerry for President,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kerry: Recently you have made the promotion of
embryonic stem cell research, including the cloning of human
embryos for research purposes, into a centerpiece of your
campaign. You have said you will make such research a ``top
priority'' for government, academia and medicine (Los Angeles
Times, 10/17/04). You have even equated support for this
research with respect for ``science,'' and said that science
must be freed from ``ideology'' to produce miracle cures for
numerous diseases.
As professionals trained in the life sciences we are
alarmed at these statements.
First, your statements misrepresent science. In itself,
science is not a policy or a political program. Science is a
systematic method for developing and testing hypotheses about
the physical world. It does not ``promise'' miracle cures
based on scanty evidence. When scientists make such
assertions, they are acting as individuals, out of their own
personal faith and hopes, not as the voice of ``science''. If
such scientists allow their individual faith in the future of
embryonic stem cell research to be interpreted as a reliable
prediction of the outcome of this research, they are acting
irresponsibly.
Second, it is no mere ``ideology'' to be concerned about
the possible misuse of humans in scientific research. Federal
bioethics advisory groups, serving under both Democratic and
Republican presidents, have affirmed that the human embryo is
a developing form of human life that deserves respect. Indeed
you have said that human life begins at conception, that
fertilization produces a ``human being.'' To equate concern
for these beings with mere ``ideology'' is to dismiss the
entire history of efforts to protect human subjects from
research abuse.
Third, the statements you have made regarding the purported
medical applications of embryonic stem cells reach far beyond
any credible evidence, ignoring the limited state of our
knowledge about embryonic stem cells and the advances in
other areas of research that may render use of these cells
unnecessary for many applications. To make such exaggerated
claims, at this stage of our knowledge, is not only
scientifically irresponsible--it is deceptive and cruel to
millions of patients and their families who hope desperately
for cures and have come to rely on the scientific community
for accurate information.
What does science tell us about embryonic stem cells? The
facts can be summed up as follows:
At present these cells can be obtained only by destroying
live human embryos at the blastocyst (4-7 days old) stage.
They proliferate rapidly and are extremely versatile,
ultimately capable (in an embryonic environment) of forming
any kind of cell found in the developed human body. Yet there
is scant scientific evidence that embryonic stem cells will
form normal tissues in a culture dish, and the very
versatility of these cells is now known to be a disadvantage
as well--embryonic stem cells are difficult to develop into a
stable cell line, spontaneously
[[Page 11040]]
accumulate genetic abnormalities in culture, and are prone to
uncontrollable growth and tumor formation when placed in
animals.
Almost 25 years of research using mouse embryonic stem
cells have produced limited indications of clinical benefit
in some animals, as well as indications of serious and
potentially lethal side-effects. Based on this evidence,
claims of a safe and reliable treatment for any disease in
humans are premature at best.
Embryonic stem cells obtained by destroying cloned human
embryos pose an additional ethical issue--that of creating
human lives solely to destroy them for research--and may pose
added practical problems as well. The cloning process is now
known to produce many problems of chaotic gene expression,
and this may affect the usefulness and safety of these cells.
Nor is it proven that cloning will prevent all rejection of
embryonic stem cells, as even genetically matched stem cells
from cloning are sometimes rejected by animal hosts. Some
animal trials in research cloning have required placing
cloned embryos in a womb and developing them to the fetal
stage, then destroying them for their more developed tissues,
to provide clinical benefit--surely an approach that poses
horrific ethical issues if applied to humans.
Non-embryonic stem cells have also received increasing
scientific attention. Here the trajectory has been very
different from that of embryonic stem cells: Instead of
developing these cells and deducing that they may someday
have a clinical use, researchers have discovered them
producing undoubted clinical benefits and then sought to
better understand how and why they work so they can be put to
more uses. Bone marrow transplants were benefiting patients
with various forms of cancer for many years before it was
understood that the active ingredients in these transplants
are stem cells. Non-embryonic stem cells have been discovered
in many unexpected tissues--in blood, nerve, fat, skin,
muscle, umbilical cord blood, placenta, even dental pulp--and
dozens of studies indicate that they are far more versatile
than once thought. Use of these cells poses no serious
ethical problem, and may avoid all problems of tissue
rejection if stem cells can be obtained from a patient for
use in that same patient. Clinical use of non-embryonic stem
cells has grown greatly in recent years. In contrast to
embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells are in established or
experimental use to treat human patients with several dozen
conditions, according to the National Institutes of Health
and the National Marrow Donor Program (Cong. Record,
September 9, 2004, pages H6956-7). They have been or are
being assessed in human trials for treatment of spinal cord
injury, Parkinson's disease, stroke, cardiac damage, multiple
sclerosis, and so on. The results of these experimental
trials will help us better assess the medical prospects for
stem cell therapies.
In the case of many conditions, advances are likely to come
from sources other than any kind of stem cell. For example,
there is a strong scientific consensus that complex diseases
such as Alzheimer's are unlikely to be treated by any stem
cell therapy. When asked recently why so many people
nonetheless believe that embryonic stem cells will provide a
cure for Alzheimer's disease, NIH stem cell expert Ron McKay
commented that ``people need a fairy tale'' (Washington Post,
June 10, 2004, page A3). Similarly, autoimmune diseases like
juvenile diabetes, lupus and MS are unlikely to benefit from
simple addition of new cells unless the underlying problem--a
faulty immune system that attacks the body's own cells as
though they were foreign invaders--is corrected.
In short, embryonic stem cells pose one especially
controversial avenue toward understanding and (perhaps)
someday treating various degenerative diseases. Based on the
available evidence, no one can predict with certainty whether
they will ever produce clinical benefits--much less whether
they will produce benefits unobtainable by other, less
ethically problematic means.
Therefore, to turn this one approach into a political
campaign--even more, to declare that it will be a ``top
priority'' or receive any particular amount of federal
funding, regardless of future evidence or the usual
scientific peer review process--is, in our view,
irresponsible. It is, in fact, a subordination of science to
ideology.
Because politicians, biotechnology interests and even some
scientists have publicly exaggerated the ``promise'' of
embryonic stem cells, public perceptions of this avenue have
become skewed and unrealistic. Politicians may hope to
benefit from these false hopes to win elections, knowing that
the collision of these hopes with reality will come only
after they win their races. The scientific and medical
professions have no such luxury. When desperate patients
discover that they have been subjected to a salesman's pitch
rather than an objective and candid assessment of
possibilities, we have reason to fear a public backlash
against the credibility of our professions. We urge you not
to exacerbate this problem now by repeating false promises
that exploit patients' hopes for political gain.
Signed,
Rodney D. Adam, M.D., Professor of Medicine and
Microbiology/Immunology, University of Arizona College of
Medicine.
Michael J. Behe, Ph.D., Professor of Biological Sciences,
Lehigh University.
Thomas G. Benoit, Ph.D., Professor and Chairman of Biology,
McMurry University, Abilene, TX.
David L. Bolender, Ph.D., Department of Cell Biology,
Neurobiology and Anatomy, Medical College of Wisconsin.
Daniel L. Burden, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Chemistry,
Wheaton College.
William J. Burke, M.D., Ph.D., Professor in Neurology,
Associate Professor in Medicine, Associate Professor in
Neurobiology, Saint Louis University Medical Center.
Mark W. Burket, M.D., Professor of Medicine, Division of
Cardiology, Medical College of Ohio.
W. Malcolm Byrnes, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department
of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Howard University
College of Medicine.
Steven Calvin, M.D., Assistant Professor of OB/GYN and
Women's Health, Co-Chair, Program in Human Rights in
Medicine, University of Minnesota School of Medicine.
James Carroll, M.D., Professor of Neurology, Pediatrics,
and Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Medical College of
Georgia.
John R. Chaffee, M.D., Assistant Clinical Professor,
Department of Family Medicine, University of Washington.
Robert Chasuk, M.D., Clinical Assistant Professor,
Department of Family Medicine, Tulane University.
William P. Cheshire, Jr., M.D., Associate Professor of
Neurology, Mayo Clinic.
Richard A. Chole, M.D., Ph.D., Professor and Head of
Otolaryngology, Washington University in St. Louis, School of
Medicine.
Maureen L. Condic, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department
of Neurobiology and Anatomy, University of Utah School of
Medicine.
Keith A. Crist, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of
Surgery, Medical College of Ohio.
Keith A. Crutcher, Ph.D., Professor, Department of
Neurosurgery, University of Cincinnati Medical Center.
Frank Dennehy, M.D., FAAFP, Assistant Clinical Professor of
Family Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University.
Kenneth J. Dormer, M.S., Ph.D., Professor of Physiology,
University of Oklahoma College of Medicine.
Lawrence W. Elmer, M.D., Ph.D., Associate Professor, Dept.
of Neurology Director, Parkinson's Disease and Movement
Disorder Program, Medical Director, Center for Neurological
Disorders, Medical College of Ohio.
Kevin T. FitzGerald, SJ, Ph.D., David P. Lauler Chair in
Catholic Health Care Ethics, Research Associate Professor,
Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center.
Raymond F. Gasser, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Cell
Biology and Anatomy, Louisiana State University School of
Medicine.
Hans Geisler, M.D., Clinical Professor of Obstetrics and
Gynecology, Indiana University Medical Center.
Donald A. Godfrey, Ph.D., Professor of Otolaryngology,
Department of Surgery, Medical College of Ohio.
Samuel Hensley, M.D., Assistant Clinical Professor, School
of Medicine, University of Mississippi.
David C. Hess, M.D., Professor and Chairman, Department of
Neurology, Medical College of Georgia.
Paul J. Hoehner, M.D., MA, Ph.D., FAHA Associate Professor,
Department of Anesthesiology, The University of Virginia
School of Medicine.
C. Christopher Hook, M.D., Consultant in Hematology and
Internal Medicine, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Mayo
Clinic College of Medicine.
Elizabeth A. Johnson, M.D., Consultant, Hematology/
Oncology, Mayo Clinic Jacksonville Assistant Professor of
Oncology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine.
Nancy L. Jones, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Pathology,
Wake Forest University School of Medicine.
C. Ward Kischer, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor, Cell Biology
and Anatomy, Specialty in Human Embryology, University of
Arizona College of Medicine.
Kirsten J Lampi, M.S., Ph.D., Associate Professor of
Integrative Biosciences, School of Dentistry, Oregon Health
Sciences University.
John I. Lane, M.D., Assistant Professor of Radiology, Mayo
Clinic School of Medicine.
David L. Larson, M.D., Professor and Chairman, Department
of Plastic Surgery, Medical College of Wisconsin.
Micheline Mathews-Roth, M.D., Associate Professor of
Medicine, Harvard Medical School.
Roger R. Markwald, Ph.D., Professor and Chair, Department
of Cell Biology and Anatomy, Medical University of South
Carolina.
Victor E. Marquez, Ph.D., Chief, Laboratory of Medicinal
Chemistry, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer
Institute, Frederick, Maryland.
Ralph P. Miech, M.D., Ph.D., Associate Professor Emeritus,
Department of Molecular Pharmacology, Physiology &
Biotechnology, Brown University School of Medicine.
[[Page 11041]]
Mary Ann Myers, M.D., Associate Professor, Medical College
of Ohio.
Rimas J. Orentas, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Pediatrics,
Hematology-Oncology Section, Medical College of Wisconsin.
Robert D. Orr, M.D., CM, Clinical Ethicist and Professor,
University of Vermont College of Medicine.
Jean D. Peduzzi-Nelson, Ph.D., Research Associate
Professor, Department of Visual Sciences, University of
Alabama at Birmingham.
Edmund D. Pellegrino, M.D., Emeritus Professor, Medicine
and Medical Ethics, Center for Clinical Bioethics, Georgetown
University Medical Center.
John A. Petros, M.D., Associate Professor, Urology and
Pathology, Emory University.
David A. Prentice, Ph.D., Affiliated Scholar, Center for
Clinical Bioethics, Georgetown University Medical Center.
Paul J. Ranalli, M.D., FRCPC, Lecturer, Division of
Neurology, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto.
John F. Rebhun, Ph.D., Adjunct Scientist, Indiana
University School of Medicine.
Leonard P. Rybak, M.D., Ph.D., Professor of Surgery,
Southern Illinois University School of Medicine.
Dwayne D. Simmons, Ph.D., Director, Inner Ear Research Core
Center, Department of Otolaryngology, Washington University
School of Medicine.
Joseph B. Stanford, M.D., MSPH, Associate Professor, Family
and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah.
John M. Templeton, Jr., M.D., FACS, Adjunct Professor of
Pediatric Surgery, University of Pennsylvania School of
Medicine.
Claire Thuning-Roberson, Ph.D., Vice President, Product
Development and Compliance, Sunol Molecular Corporation,
Miramar, Florida.
Anton-Lewis Usala, M.D., Chief Executive Officer and
Medical Director, Clinical Trial Management Group,
Greenville, North Carolina.
Richard A. Watson, M.D., Professor of Urologic Surgery, The
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey Medical
School.
Dennis D. Weisenburger, M.D., Director of Hematopathology,
Dept of Pathology and Microbiology, University of Nebraska
School of Medicine.
H. Joseph Yost, PhD., Professor of Oncological Sciences,
University of Utah.
Joseph R. Zanga, M.D., FAAP, FCP, President, American
College of Pediatricians, Professor of Pediatrics, Brody
School of Medicine, East Carolina University.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
bipartisan Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, H.R. 810, legislation
that will dramatically expand the number of stem cell lines available
for federally funded research. This bill will allow scientists to more
effectively pursue cures and therapies for a wide array of life-
threatening illnesses and disabilities affecting millions of Americans.
Earlier today, the House passed a related but very different bill:
the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act, H.R. 2520. This legislation
will create a new Federal program to collect and store umbilical-cord-
blood stem cells for research purposes. I support the additional
research on adult stem cells provided for by H.R. 2250, but this
legislation is not a substitute for H.R. 810 and its emphasis on
embryonic stem cell research.
Embryonic stem cells have a unique ability to develop into any type
of cell as they mature, offering scientists tremendous insights on the
replacement of damaged cells and organs, the mechanics of life-
threatening diseases, and the testing and development of new drugs.
Adult stem cells, on the other hand, have not shown this ability to
differentiate into specific types of cells, have not yet been
identified in all vital organs, and are difficult to identify, purify,
and grow.
Although embryonic stem cell research promises extraordinary medical
discoveries, the available supply of existing embryonic stem cells is
woefully insufficient. According to the National Institutes of Health,
NIH, only 22 of the 78 stem cell lines that were deemed eligible for
Federal funding by President George Bush in 2001 are currently
available to NIH investigators. Some of these 22 lines are too
expensive or difficult to obtain, and some have been contaminated with
non-human molecules diminishing their therapeutic value for humans. To
make matters worse, these stem cell lines lack the genetic variation
needed to develop therapies that will benefit the diverse population of
the United States.
H.R. 810 addresses the shortage of embryonic stem cell lines by
lifting the arbitrary and indefensible August 9, 2001 cut-off date for
stem cell eligibility. Since 2001, 128 embryonic stem cell lines have
been developed, including disease-specific stem cell lines that allow
researchers to understand the basic cause of some rare diseases. This
legislation also provides stricter ethical guidelines to ensure that
only the best and most ethical stem cell research will be federally
funded.
The State of California has already taken steps to ensure that human
embryonic stem cell research will be allowed to develop by establishing
the Institute for Regenerative Medicine, which will devote $3 billion
to California universities and research institutions over the next 10
years. The passage of H.R. 810 will further empower and equip
California scientific institutions to undertake cutting-edge research
on the most pressing medical challenges of our day.
Let us make no mistake, the development of lifesaving medical
procedures has been slowed by an unwarranted restriction on stem cell
research. I believe that, as policymakers, we have a moral imperative
to pursue innovative medical research that can improve the quality of
life and prevent harmful illnesses and diseases for generations to
come. I urge my colleagues to join the innumerable scientists,
university leaders, patient groups, and medical research groups that
support H.R. 810.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 810, the Stem
Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005. Stem-cell research holds
tremendous promise for advances in health care for all Americans. Stem-
cell research may one day lead to treatments for Parkinson's,
Alzheimer's, arthritis, cancer, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, spinal-
cord injuries, Lou Gehrig's disease, strokes, severe burns and many
more diseases and injuries.
However, Mr. Speaker, nearly 4 years ago, the President made an
arbitrary and shortsighted decision to limit federally funded embryonic
stem-cell research to stem-cell lines that already existed. At that
time, on August 9, 2001, the President promised 78 stem-cell lines
would be available to Federal researchers, yet almost 4 years later,
there are at most, only 22 lines available. Even worse, many of these
lines are contaminated with animal cells that make them unusable for
human therapeutic study. Mr. Speaker, the time has arrived for Congress
to unshackle our researchers and scientists and allow them to expand
the number of stem cell lines that are eligible for federally funded
research.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, our own top scientists and officials at the
National Institutes of Health, NIH, have stated that the President's
2001 limitations have caused us to fall behind in this research field.
The NIH should be leading this cutting-edge research, yet it is in
jeopardy of failing in this role should the President's policy be
allowed to continue.
Some States, such as California, are attempting to fill the void left
by the lack of Federal funding. However, Mr. Speaker, as the Director
of the NIH has warned, this could lead to a patchwork of stem-cell
policies, with different laws and regulations which could defeat the
type of collaborative research NIH is chartered to carry out.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 810 would simply allow Federal funding for research
on embryonic stem-cell lines regardless of the date on which they were
derived. This means researchers and scientists would be eligible to
utilize their Federal funds for research on a new stem-cell line as
long as it met the strict ethical guidelines contained in the bill.
Those rules restrict stem cell lines to embryos that have been created
originally for fertility purposes, and that are no longer needed for
fertility. Second, the bill requires that the embryo have no further
other use and be intended for destruction. Also, there must be written
consent for donation of the embryo from the individuals for whom the
embryo was created. Finally, the bill calls for the Director of NIH to
issue guidelines to ensure that federally funded researchers adhere to
ethical standards.
Mr. Speaker, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 is needed
to ensure that the full promise of embryonic stem-cell research is
fulfilled. H.R. 810 allows research to take place in a safe,
structured, and ethical manner. While all stem-cell research is
important, the unique ability of embryonic stem cells to give rise to
any tissue or cell in the body that makes these stem cells critically
important to medical research. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to
support this legislation and lift the President's restrictions that now
obstruct effective federally funded embryonic stem-cell research.
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, as a proud cosponsor of H.R. 810, the Stem
Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, I rise in support of this
legislation. Those of us who have long supported the increased
accessibility and possibilities of ethical stem cell research
appreciate the opportunity the leadership has granted us by allowing a
vote on this legislation today. I would also like to thank
Representatives Castle and DeGette for their continued persistence to
bring this bill to the floor.
We have all known someone who has suffered from Lou Gehrig's disease,
Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, Multiple Sclerosis, Rett
Syndrome, lupus, pulmonary fibrosis, juvenile diabetes, autism, cystic
fibrosis,
[[Page 11042]]
osteoporosis, spinal cord injuries, heart disease or cancer. By passing
H.R. 810, we have the opportunity to help all of those individuals who
are living with these and many other illnesses and injuries. Embryonic
stem cell research holds the key to decreasing the pain and suffering
of so many of our friends and family members. Furthermore, we have a
moral obligation to do everything we can to help the millions of
Americans, whose lives we hold in our hands, by allowing Federal
funding to be used for this promising research.
The authors of H.R. 810 have gone to great lengths to guarantee that
safeguards are in place to ensure the ethical use of embryonic stem
cells. Embryos used for stem cell research under H.R. 810, will come
from donor participation in in vitro fertilization, IVF, so embryos
will not be created or cloned for research. This legislation also
directs the experts at the National Institutes of Health to define the
boundaries of this research. NIH has stated that they are prepared to
institute these parameters. Such restrictions will ensure that rogue
scientists are not performing dangerous and unethical experiments.
The United States has long been the leader of groundbreaking health
research. Today we have the opportunity to ensure that the rest of the
world does not continue to take the lead in health care advances. I
urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 810, not only
because U.S. based researchers deserve to be at the forefront of the
development of promising new treatments, but also for all of our
constituents, friends, and family members who are counting on us to
support the effort to find cures for so many different diseases and
illnesses.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand on the House floor
today to speak in favor of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act,
legislation which will bring hope to millions of people suffering from
disease in this nation. I want to thank Congresswoman DeGette and
Congressman Castle for their tireless work in bringing this bill to the
House floor for a vote.
The discovery of embryonic stem cells is a major scientific
breakthrough. Embryonic stem cells have the potential to form any cell
type in the human body. This could have profound implications for
diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, various forms of brain and
spinal cord disorders, diabetes, and many types of cancer. According to
the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, there are at
least 58 diseases which could potentially be cured through stem cell
research.
That is why more than 200 major patient groups, scientists, and
medical research groups and 80 Nobel Laureates support the Stem Cell
Research Enhancement Act. They know that this legislation will give us
a chance to find cures to diseases affecting 100 million Americans.
I want to make clear that I oppose reproductive cloning, as we all
do. I have voted against it in the past. However, that is vastly
different from stem cell research and as an ovarian cancer survivor, I
am not going to stand in the way of science.
Permitting peer-reviewed Federal funds to be used for this research,
combined with public oversight of these activities, is our best
assurance that research will be of the highest quality and performed
with the greatest dignity and moral responsibility. The policy
President Bush announced in August 2001 has limited access to stem cell
lines and has stalled scientific progress.
As a cancer survivor, I know the desperation these families feel as
they wait for a cure. This Congress must not stand in the way of that
progress. We have an opportunity to change the lives of millions, and I
hope we take it. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this
important bill.
I have met with constituents with afflictions such as Alzheimer's
disease, Parkinson's disease, childhood leukemia, heart disease, Lou
Gehrig's disease, diabetes, several cancers, spinal cord injuries, and
other diseases, disorders and injuries. Embryonic stem cell research
offers them hope.
I have also met with an amazing young woman named Brooke Ellison from
Long Island. In 1990, when she was eleven years old, Brooke was hit by
a car, which left her paralyzed from the neck down. Even with this
hardship, she graduated from Harvard University in 2000, Harvard's
Kennedy School of Government in 2004, and she is currently a Ph.D.
candidate in political science at Stony Brook University. Her inspiring
story was made into a movie on A&E and was directed by the late
Christopher Reeves.
I have worked with her to raise public awareness of the importance of
stem cell research, and under the Unanimous Consent agreement, I am
including an essay that Brooke wrote on the issue in the Congressional
Record.
As everyone here knows, on August 9, 2001, President Bush announced
that embryonic stem cell research would be limited; he limited federal
funds by limiting eligible lines for research.
Although scientists were expecting a big number of available lines,
less than one third of the allowed 78 lines are available for
distribution.
The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act would expand research on
embryonic stem cells by increasing the number of lines stem cells that
would be eligible for federally funded research.
This bill should not be controversial. The bill ensures that strict
ethical guidelines would be met: the embryos would have been donated
with informed written consent and without any financial payment or
other inducement to make the donation. These are embryos that will be
discarded. Finally, the bill would not use any federal funds to derive
the stem cells.
It is a good bill, but I wish this bill went further. There is still
a need for other funding, because state or private funding would be
needed to fund deriving the stem cells.
California and New Jersey have already set up funding sources for
embryonic stem cell research, and a number of other states have
announced intentions to fund this research. We must ensure that all
entities can work together. Scientists still need funding for the
aspects of research that the Federal government will not cover.
Today, I am introducing a resolution that expresses the sense of
Congress that the Federal government should not infringe on states or
private organizations that fund embryonic stem cell research. I hope
that my colleagues will show support for all embryonic research, by
supporting my resolution.
Many of us have family members suffering from devastating illnesses,
and the prospect of helping them to be healthy and free of pain is a
worthy goal. Make no mistake; this goal is what we are debating today.
Enticingly Close . . . Yet Painfully Far
(By Brooke Ellison)
The ability to view the world through another's eyes is the
essence of altruism. When putting their pens to the paper of
policy, those who legislate ought to take into keen
consideration the world as it is seen through others' eyes,
wrought with the problems they face and conditions they
endure. This is the basic tenet of a representative
democracy, the basic belief upon which the United States was
founded. Yet, despite this underlying and widely accepted
notion of several voices speaking on behalf of many, this
does not always appear to be the case and, in fact, those
making collective decisions can become inextricably linked to
their own, myopic ideology, failing to understand the
situations of others or hear their voices.
In September of 1990, when I was eleven years old, I was
hit by a car while walking home from my first day of 7th
grade. That accident left me paralyzed from my neck down and
dependent on a ventilator for every breath I take. Living as
a person with a physical disability or debilitating disease,
each day is a struggle. Tasks that, to others, might seem
mundane or be taken for granted are strenuous challenges,
sometimes taking long hours instead of mere minutes, causing
frustration both from what cannot be at present and potential
being lost in the future. When we place our hopes and visions
for our world into the hands of those making broad decisions,
we do it with the belief that they will act on behalf of our
best interest and not on an isolated viewpoint. To do
otherwise is bad policy. To undermine the interests of a
majority of citizens is bad policy. To ignore the voices and
dash the hopes of those most in need is bad policy. In the
context of stem cell research legislation, these are bad
policies, yet policies that are being upheld. This forces
millions to wonder things like, ``If I could be freed from
the confines of my physical condition, what a miracle it
would be.'' Or, ``If, for an entire day, I could once again
be completely whole and my body was somehow irrelevant, what
a renewed gift that would be.'' Or, maybe, ``If, for a single
moment, I could wrap my arms around those I love, what a
treasure that would be.'' And even, ``If, by some chance,
those making policy decisions might heed some of my recurrent
thoughts and change their stance on stem cell research, what
a potentially groundbreaking step it would be.'' The reality
is that, based on current federal legislation, these ``ifs''
likely won't change into ``thens''.
On August 9th, 2001, from his ranch in Crawford, Texas,
President Bush announced that he would significantly limit
federal funds to stem cell research, only agreeing to fund
research conducted on to stem cell lines already in existence
at the time. According to this limitation, federally
supported research could be done on no more than 78 existing
genetic cell lines, although even the most optimistic
estimates of viable cells were estimated to be far fewer,
less than two dozen. To the delight of some and the grief of
[[Page 11043]]
others, Mr. Bush indicated that the use of embryonic cells
for medical research was a violation of the sanctity of life,
analogous to abortion or euthanasia. In the President's own
words, ``I worry about a culture that devalues life, and
believe as your President I have an important obligation to
foster and encourage respect for life in America and
throughout the world. . . . Embryonic stem cell research
offers both great promise and great peril. So I have decided
we must proceed with great care''. Despite millions of
testimonies and pleas to the contrary since that day, over
three years ago, the opinion of the administration has
remained constant and has not eased any restrictions. Despite
strides being made in other countries around the world in the
field of stem cell research, the U.S. government has remained
resolute in its opposition to it.
Research that holds so much promise for so many now remains
unsupported by the federal government. Similar to other
issues facing our nation today, the decision of whether or
not to fund embryonic stem cell research is now left in the
hands of the States, with the Legislatures and Governors
picking up where the U.S. Congress and President have left
off. California, with its Proposition 71, has been the most
recent State to make substantive progress on the issue,
passing a referendum to support research conducted in the
state. California joins New Jersey in leading the charge for
state-funded stem cell research. But the cause should not and
must not stop there, as two States out of our fifty is simply
not enough. With researchers, scientists, and human lives
waiting in the wings for advances, opportunity wasted is
opportunity lost.
Therapeutic stem cell research, also known as somatic cell
nuclear transfer, has the potential to provide cures for a
considerable number of neurological and degenerative
conditions, including Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's
disease, childhood leukemia, heart disease, ALS, several
different types of cancer, and spinal cord injuries. In its
most basic description, stem cells are the undifferentiated,
unspecialized cells that can be extracted from embryos in
their earliest stages of development, three to five days
after fertilization. The embryos, known in this initial
developmental form as blastocysts, contain only about 30
cells. Importantly, the cells taken from the blastocysts can
be placed in different conditions to become other types of
cells, such as heart muscle or nerve tissue, which can be
used to repair similar damaged tissue in children and adults.
The procedure has the potential to affect directly the lives
of nearly 100 million Americans who face different
conditions, equaling over one-third of the U.S. population
and more than the entire populations of New York, California,
Texas, and Florida, combined. As complex as embryonic stem
cell research is in its design, it is equally so in its moral
debate. Therapeutic stem cell research can sometimes be
confused with reproductive stem cell procedures, such as
genetic engineering, which have sparked controversy in some
political camps. The two types of research differ
considerably, though, both in terms of procedure and intent,
and represent two diverse ends on a very long, complex
spectrum--an understanding which often goes ignored.
Well, some have argued, isn't using stem cells just the
destruction of one life for the sake of another? Aren't we
simply judging some lives as more important than others? To
hold such a belief is to view the world in black and white
terms, thereby ignoring the much more complex gray areas.
Yes, it is possible that, if a blastocyst, from where stems
cells are derived, were to be inserted into a womb and
allowed to grow for nine months there is the potential a life
could be born. However, that is not the case for any of the
blastocysts that yield stem cells that are used for research.
These blastocysts are those that will go unused after in
vitro fertilization procedures and will never be used to
bring about life. These blastocysts, which some proclaim
represent the sanctity of life, will only be kept in freezers
at fertility clinics until they have expired and then will be
discarded completely. Under current federal legislation, they
are of no use to anybody.
To rob the stem cells of their other potential of life,
which is to cure diseases or to help regenerate parts of the
body that are not regenerating on their own, is really to
devalue life in another, otherwise avoidable way.
Well, others have argued, isn't the work done on stem cells
just the same as cloning? Aren't these cells essentially
promoting the creation of another person? The once almost
incomprehensible, futuristic ideas of ``cloning'' and ``body-
doubles'' are now considered feasible and fearsome
possibilities, and therapeutic stem cell research has been
the unwitting victim of the prevalent fears. Orwell's 1984
has somehow come to life in 2004, with the speculations made
by some of about unintended, science-fiction consequences.
But, the connection between human reproduction and human
therapy is a foggy one at best. The real fear, though, is not
the potential of mad scientists reproducing people but the
lost potential of sound scientists curing people.
Fourteen years ago, I could have never imagined having to
advocate for something that could potentially restore for me
the very basic aspects of life and humanity. But, that is
something that no one should have to imagine. Science has
given medicine more promise than ever before, with the
potential to heal and restore people in ways once
unfathomable. Stem cells, which would otherwise serve no
other purpose, hold the promise of life, not just for the
newly born but now for the already living and this
opportunity must be seized. The time is now. If the federal
government chooses not to do it, then the States must tend to
it, themselves. The time has come when we can change the
lives of so many, giving to them the fundamental parts of
life and dignity.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 810, the Stem
Cell Research Enhancement Act.
Scientific and biomedical research and innovation has made our Nation
and our world a safer and healthier place. Advances in medicine have
made virtually obsolete killer diseases like smallpox and polio, have
increased life expectancy and improved the quality of life for people
around the globe. From Roman times around 2000 years ago to 1900 life
expectancy increased from 25 to 47 years of age. However, because of
important discoveries and advances in medicine and medical treatments,
by the year 2000 life expectancy had increased to over 76 years of age.
The advances in medicine that resulted in this dramatic increase in
life expectancy did not happen by accident. They occurred as a result
of visionary leadership in both the public and private sectors. They
occurred as a result of political will and public capital. They
occurred because of the private sector's ability to convert government
funded basic research into life-saving applications. Government funded
basic research has and continues to serve as the foundation for the
medical advances that have improved the health and quality of life for
millions of people.
While the advances we have made in medicine in the last century have
been both impressive and historic, we have a long way to go. Far too
many people in our society suffer from debilitating diseases like
Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and diabetes for which there are no cures. The
scientific community overwhelmingly believes that embryonic stem cell
research holds the potential for medical advances and therapies that
could make these and other diseases as obsolete as polio and small pox,
and the National Institutes of Health have proposed an ethically sound
policy to further this research. I support Federal funding for
embryonic stem cell research because without it we run the risk of
missing an historic opportunity to improve the lives of millions of
North Carolinians, Americans and people around the world. Without
Federal funding for this basic research we could condemn millions of
human beings to the pain, misery and suffering of debilitating and
degenerative diseases that otherwise might be cured.
I understand that many of the opponents of this legislation have
moral qualms about using embryos for research. But the embryos covered
under this legislation would otherwise be discarded, so defeat of this
legislation would do nothing to assuage moral difficulties surrounding
destruction of embryos. And defeat of this legislation would deny
innocent victims of terrible diseases the opportunity of relief from
their suffering and healing of their afflictions. I support funding for
this research because of the bright promise it holds to make life
better and more productive for generations to come.
Our North Carolina values guide us to expand scientific and medical
knowledge to enhance the health and well being of our families,
neighbors and fellow citizens, and this research is key to that effort.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Stem Cell Research
Enhancement Act.
The American people need and want a carefully crafted stem cell
research policy that allows us to seek scientific breakthroughs.
We do not have such a policy today. The stem cell policy established
by President Bush is severely restrictive and arbitrary. The National
Institutes of Health has reported that of the 78 stem cell lines
promised by President Bush, only 22 lines meet the President's criteria
for use. A number of those lines have developed genetic mutations which
will make research on them useless. The vast majority of the remaining
usable lines are in other countries that have shown little interest in
making them available to U.S. researchers. As a result, our researchers
are falling behind their counterparts in other countries, and our
citizens are watching their hopes for cures within their lifetimes slip
away.
What is at stake are potential cures for diseases such as
Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes and cancer.
The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act expands the number of stem
cell lines that are
[[Page 11044]]
available for federally funded research. The bill also implements
strong ethical requirements on stem cell lines that would be eligible
for federally funded research.
This is an issue that can impact families across America, crossing
all lines of income, political persuasion or religious affiliation.
Furthermore, delay in effectively resolving this issue could for
countless Americans be a matter of basic health or indeed life. Keeping
in mind the essential federal role in critical basic health research, I
believe that it is essential that we support this bill so our country
can continue in the lead in exploring the frontiers of science and
medicine.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, May 23, 2005, the bill
is considered read for amendment and the previous question is ordered.
The question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. CASTLE. 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, this 15-
minute vote on passage of H.R. 810 will be followed by 5-minute votes
on:
suspending the rules and passing H.R. 2520; and
suspending the rules and passing H.R. 1224, as amended.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 238,
nays 194, not voting 2, as follows:
[Roll No. 204]
YEAS--238
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bono
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Calvert
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kirk
Kolbe
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Rohrabacher
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--194
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Beauprez
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costello
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Duncan
Ehlers
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Pombo
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
NOT VOTING--2
Hastings (WA)
Millender-McDonald
{time} 1807
Ms. CARSON and Mr. BUTTER-
FIELD changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
STEM CELL THERAPEUTIC AND RESEARCH ACT OF 2005
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The pending business is the
question of suspending the rules and passing the bill, H.R. 2520.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
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, on which the yeas and nays are ordered.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 431,
nays 1, not voting 2, as follows:
[Roll No. 205]
YEAS--431
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
[[Page 11045]]
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--1
Paul
NOT VOTING--2
Hastings (WA)
Millender-McDonald
{time} 1817
So (two thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were
suspended and the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
BUSINESS CHECKING FREEDOM ACT OF 2005
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The unfinished business is the
question of suspending the rules and passing the bill, H.R. 1224, as
amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 1224, as amended, on which the yeas and nays
are ordered.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 424,
nays 1, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 206]
YEAS--424
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
[[Page 11046]]
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--1
DeFazio
NOT VOTING--8
Boswell
Dingell
Hastings (WA)
Linder
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Osborne
Wicker
{time} 1824
So (two thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were
suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
MAKING IN ORDER FURTHER AMENDED VERSION AND LIMITATION ON AMENDMENTS
DURING FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2419, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during further
consideration of H.R. 2419 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to
House Resolution 291, the amendment I have placed at the desk be
considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole
and be considered as original text for purpose of further amendment;
and that no further amendment to the bill, as amended, may be offered
except:
Pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the
chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations
or their designees for the purpose of debate;
Amendments printed in the Record and numbered 1, 2, and 5;
The amendment printed in the Record and numbered 3, which shall be
debatable for 24 minutes;
The amendment printed in the Record and numbered 4, which shall be
debatable for 30 minutes;
An amendment by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) regarding
funding for Energy Smart schools;
An amendment by the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert)
regarding Laboratory-Directed Research and Development;
An amendment by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey)
regarding funding for interim storage and reprocessing;
An amendment by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey)
regarding security assessments;
An amendment by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) regarding
promulgation of regulations affecting competitiveness;
An amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) regarding
contribution of funds to ITER; and
An amendment by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones)
regarding funding for operation and maintenance for the Corps of
Engineers.
Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member named in this
request or a designee, or the Member who caused it to be printed in the
Record or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject
to amendment except that the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Appropriations and the Energy and Water Development,
and Related Agencies Subcommittee each may offer one pro forma
amendment for the purpose of debate; and shall not be subject to a
demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of
the Whole.
Except as otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for
10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent. An amendment shall be considered to fit the description
stated in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object
described.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment to H.R. 2419 offered by Mr. Hobson:
Strike the provision beginning on page 2, line 19; page 4,
line 20; page 5, line 14; and page 7, line 2 and insert in
lieu thereof in each instance the following:
``Provided, That, except as provided in section 101 of this
Act, the amounts made available under this paragraph shall be
expended as authorized in law for the projects and activities
specified in the report acompanying this Act.''
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 further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 2419.
{time} 1830
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 further 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. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, all
time for general debate had expired.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the amendment reported
therewith is adopted and the bill, as amended, shall be considered as
original text for the purpose of further amendment.
No further amendment to the bill, as amended, may be offered except:
Pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the
chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations
or their designees for the purpose of debate;
Amendments printed in the Record and numbered 1, 2 and 5;
The amendment printed in the Record and numbered 3, which shall be
debatable for 24 minutes;
The amendment printed in the Record and numbered 4, which shall be
debatable for 30 minutes;
An amendment by Mr. Sanders regarding funding for Energy Smart
schools;
An amendment by Mrs. Biggert regarding Laboratory-Directed Research
and Development;
An amendment by Mr. Markey regarding funding for interim storage and
reprocessing;
An amendment by Mr. Markey regarding security assessments;
An amendment by Mr. Tiahrt regarding promulgation of regulations
affecting competitiveness;
An amendment by Mr. Boehlert regarding contribution of funds to ITER;
An amendment by Mr. Jones of North Carolina regarding funding for
operation and maintenance of the Corps of Engineers.
Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member named in the
request or a designee, or the Member who caused it to be printed in the
Record or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject
to amendment except that the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Appropriations and the Subcommittee on Energy and
Water Development and Related Agencies each may offer one pro forma
amendment for the purpose of debate; and shall not be subject to a
demand for division of the question.
Except as otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for
10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that title I be
considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any
point.
[[Page 11047]]
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
The text of title I is as follows:
H.R. 2419
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2006, for energy and water development
and for other purposes, namely:
TITLE I
CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--Civil
The following appropriations shall be expended under the
direction of the Secretary of the Army and the supervision of
the Chief of Engineers for authorized civil functions of the
Department of the Army pertaining to rivers and harbors,
flood and storm damage reduction, aquatic ecosystem
restoration, and related purposes.
General Investigations
For expenses necessary for the collection and study of
basic information pertaining to river and harbor, flood and
storm damage reduction, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and
related projects, restudy of authorized projects,
miscellaneous investigations, and, when authorized by law,
surveys and detailed studies and plans and specifications of
projects prior to construction, $100,000,000 to remain
available until expended: Provided, That, except as provided
in section 101 of this Act, the amounts made available under
this paragraph shall be expended as authorized in law for the
projects and activities specified in the report accompanying
this Act.
Construction
For expenses necessary for the construction of river and
harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, aquatic ecosystem
restoration, and related projects authorized by law; for
conducting detailed studies, and plans and specifications, of
such projects (including those involving participation by
States, local governments, or private groups) authorized or
made eligible for selection by law (but such detailed
studies, and plans and specifications, shall not constitute a
commitment of the Government to construction); and for the
benefit of federally listed species to address the effects of
civil works projects owned or operated by the United States
Army Corps of Engineers, $1,763,000,000, to remain available
until expended; of which such sums as are necessary to cover
the Federal share of construction costs for facilities under
the Dredged Material Disposal Facilities program shall be
derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund as authorized
by Public Law 104-303; and of which $182,668,000, pursuant to
Public Law 99-662, shall be derived from the Inland Waterways
Trust Fund, to cover one-half of the costs of construction
and rehabilitation of inland waterways projects; and of which
$4,000,000 shall be exclusively for projects and activities
authorized under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of
1960; and of which $500,000 shall be exclusively for projects
and activities authorized under section 111 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1968; and of which $1,000,000 shall be
exclusively for projects and activities authorized under
section 103 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962; and of which
$25,000,000 shall be exclusively available for projects and
activities authorized under section 205 of the Flood Control
Act of 1948; and of which $8,000,000 shall be exclusively for
projects and activities authorized under section 14 of the
Flood Control Act of 1946; and of which $400,000 shall be
exclusively for projects and activities authorized under
section 208 of the Flood Control Act of 1954; and of which
$17,400,000 shall be exclusively for projects and activities
authorized under section 1135 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986; and of which $18,000,000 shall be
exclusively for projects and activities authorized under
section 206 of the Water Resources Act of 1996; and of which
$4,000,000 shall be exclusively for projects and activities
authorized under section 204 of the Water Resources Act of
1992: Provided, That, except as provided in section 101 of
this Act, the amounts made available under this paragraph
shall be expended as authorized in law for the projects and
activities specified in the report accompanying this Act.
In addition, $137,000,000 shall be available for projects
and activities authorized under 16 U.S.C. 410-r-8 and section
601 of Public Law 106-541.
Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries, Arkansas, Illinois,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee
For expenses necessary for the flood damage reduction
program for the Mississippi River alluvial valley below Cape
Girardeau, Missouri, as authorized by law, $290,000,000 to
remain available until expended, of which such sums as are
necessary to cover the Federal share of operation and
maintenance costs for inland harbors shall be derived from
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund: Provided, That, except as
provided in section 101 of this Act, amounts made available
under this paragraph shall be expended as authorized in law
for the projects and activities specified in the report
accompanying this Act.
Operation and Maintenance
For expenses necessary for the operation, maintenance, and
care of existing river and harbor, flood and storm damage
reduction, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related
projects authorized by law; for the benefit of federally
listed species to address the effects of civil works projects
owned or operated by the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (the ``Corps''); for providing security for
infrastructure owned and operated by, or on behalf of, the
Corps, including administrative buildings and facilities,
laboratories, and the Washington Aqueduct; for the
maintenance of harbor channels provided by a State,
municipality, or other public agency that serve essential
navigation needs of general commerce, where authorized by
law; and for surveys and charting of northern and
northwestern lakes and connecting waters, clearing and
straightening channels, and removal of obstructions to
navigation, $2,000,000,000 to remain available until
expended, of which such sums to cover the Federal share of
operation and maintenance costs for coastal harbors and
channels, and inland harbors shall be derived from the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund, pursuant to Public Law 99-662 may be
derived from that fund; of which such sums as become
available from the special account for the Corps established
by the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i)), may be derived from that account for
resource protection, research, interpretation, and
maintenance activities related to resource protection in the
areas at which outdoor recreation is available; and of which
such sums as become available under section 217 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996, Public Law 104-303, shall
be used to cover the cost of operation and maintenance of the
dredged material disposal facilities for which fees have been
collected: Provided, That, except as provided in section 101
of this Act, the amounts made available under this paragraph
shall be expended as authorized in law for the projects and
activities specified in the report accompanying this Act.
Regulatory Program
For expenses necessary for administration of laws
pertaining to regulation of navigable waters and wetlands,
$160,000,000, to remain available until expended.
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
For expenses necessary to clean up contamination from sites
in the United States resulting from work performed as part of
the Nation's early atomic energy program, $140,000,000, to
remain available until expended.
General Expenses
For expenses necessary for general administration and
related civil works functions in the headquarters of the
United States Army Corps of Engineers, the offices of the
Division Engineers, the Humphreys Engineer Center Support
Activity, the Institute for Water Resources, the United
States Army Engineer Research and Development Center, and the
United States Army Corps of Engineers Finance Center,
$152,021,000 to remain available until expended: Provided,
That no part of any other appropriation provided in this Act
shall be available to fund the civil works activities of the
Office of the Chief of Engineers or the civil works executive
direction and management activities of the division offices.
Office of Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)
For expenses necessary for the Office of Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), as authorized by 10
U.S.C. 3016(b)(3), $4,000,000.
Administrative Provision
Appropriations in this title shall be available for
official reception and representation expenses not to exceed
$5,000; and during the current fiscal year the Revolving
Fund, Corps of Engineers, shall be available for purchase not
to exceed 100 for replacement only and hire of passenger
motor vehicles.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Sec. 101. (a) None of the funds provided in title I of this
Act shall be available for obligation or expenditure through
a reprogramming of funds that--
(1) creates or initiates a new program, project, or
activity;
(2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
(3) increases funds or personnel for any program, project,
or activity for which funds are denied or restricted by this
Act;
(4) reduces funds that are directed to be used for a
specific program, project, or activity by this Act;
(5) increases funds for any program, project, or activity
by more than $2,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less; or
(6) reduces funds for any program, project, or activity by
more than $2,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less.
[[Page 11048]]
(b) Subsection (a)(1) shall not apply to any project or
activity authorized under section 205 of the Flood Control
Act of 1948, section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946,
section 208 of the Flood Control Act of 1954, section 107 of
the River and Harbor Act of 1960, section 103 of the River
and Harbor Act of 1962, section 111 of the River and Harbor
Act of 1968, section 1135 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986, section 206 of the Water Resources Act of 1996,
or section 204 of the Water Resources Act of 1992.
Sec. 102. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
used by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to support
activities related to the proposed Ridge Landfill in
Tuscarawas County, Ohio.
Sec. 103. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
used by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to support
activities related to the proposed Indian Run Sanitary
Landfill in Sandy Township, Stark County, Ohio.
Sec. 104. In overseeing the use of continuing and multiyear
contracts for water resources projects, the Secretary of the
Army shall take all necessary steps in fiscal year 2006 and
thereafter to ensure that the Corps limits the duration of
each multiyear contract to the term needed to achieve a
substantial reduction of costs on the margin; and limits the
amount of work performed each year on each project to the
funding provided for that project during the fiscal year.
Sec. 105. After February 6, 2006, none of the funds made
available in title I of this Act may be used to award any
continuing contract or to make modifications to any existing
continuing contract that obligates the United States
Government during fiscal year 2007 to make payment under such
contract for any project that is proposed for deferral or
suspension in fiscal year 2007 in the materials prepared by
the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) for that
fiscal year pursuant to provisions of chapter 11 of title 31,
United States Code.
Sec. 106. None of the funds made available in title I of
this Act may be used to award any continuing contract or to
make modifications to any existing continuing contract that
reserves an amount for a project in excess of the amount
appropriated for such project pursuant to this Act.
Sec. 107. None of the funds in title I of this Act shall be
available for the rehabilitation and lead and asbestos
abatement of the dredge McFarland: Provided, That amounts
provided in title I of this Act are hereby reduced by
$18,630,000.
Sec. 108. None of the funds in this Act may be expended by
the Secretary of the Army to construct the Port Jersey
element of the New York and New Jersey Harbor or to reimburse
the local sponsor for the construction of the Port Jersey
element until commitments for construction of container
handling facilities are obtained from the non-Federal sponsor
for a second user along the Port Jersey element.
Point of Order
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order against Section
104.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, this section violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
It changes existing law, and therefore constitutes legislating on an
appropriations bill in violation of House rules.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained. The
provision is stricken from the bill.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concern about what may
be the unintended consequences of some of the General Provisions
applicable to the Corps of Engineers in this FY 2006 Energy and Water
Development appropriations bill. I appreciate that Chairman Hobson and
Ranking Member Visclosky have faced a difficult task in trying to meet
the nation's water resources needs in a time of constrained budgets. I
also know that the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee has had
some concerns about how the Corps of Engineers is managing the civil
works program, particularly as it relates to reprogramming funds and to
the use of contracts for work that is completed over several fiscal
years--called continuing contracts.
However, I am concerned that the legislation before the House today
will make it even more difficult to meet important navigation, flood
control, and environmental restoration needs all over the country. The
Corps' civil works budget request is based on the best information the
Corps has at the time the request is made. However, circumstances can
change over the course of a year. Severe weather may increase operation
and maintenance costs. Major construction projects may get delayed for
technical reasons. For these reasons, the Corps has traditionally
attempted to maximize the benefits to the nation with the available
funds by reprogramming money to best meet current needs and conditions.
I agree that the Corps should get Congressional concurrence before
moving around funds that have been earmarked in the report of the
Appropriations Committee. I also agree that the Corps needs to track
and report these reprogramming decisions, so the impact on current and
future budgets is transparent. However, H.R. 2419 goes far beyond
tracking and transparency and places severe restrictions on
reprogramming--which could have adverse consequences for projects all
over the country.
For example, if we need to conduct emergency maintenance at
Chickamauga Lock in fiscal year 2006, to address the concrete growth
there, and the cost is more than $2 million above the amount earmarked
for operation and maintenance of that lock, the Corps will not be able
to reprogram funds to carry out that work. I don't think that is the
Committee's intent. H.R. 2419 also tries to place limits on the Corps'
use of continuing contracts to carry out civil works projects. In a
minute, I will make a point of order to remove section 104 from the
bill. The Corps has had authority to enter into continuing contracts
since 1922, at the discretion of the Secretary. In the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999, Congress removed the Secretary's discretion
and required the Corps to begin each project for which funds were
provided in an Appropriations Act, using a continuing contract if the
Act did not provide full funding. Congress made this change in law to
prevent the prior Administration from imposing a full funding policy on
the Corps.
If Corps projects had to be fully funded, the Corps would be able to
undertake very few projects each year. Under a full funding policy,
most appropriated funds would simply sit in the Treasury, waiting for
years to be expended, while other critical navigation, flood control
and environmental restoration needs go unmet.
I understand that H.R. 2419 does not completely eliminate the use of
continuing contracts, but the limits it proposes may be ill-advised. I
am told that section 105 of the bill represents an attempt to ensure
that funding is requested each year for projects carried out using a
continuing contract. However, the language that is before the House
today gives Congressional priorities less favorable treatment than
Administration requests. Under section 105 of the bill, if a member is
successful in obtaining funding for a Congressionally-added project in
the FY 2006 Energy and Water Appropriations Act, but does not receive
full funding for the project, the Corps has three alternatives to carry
out the project: (1) Hope to get a continuing contract awarded before
February 6, 2006 (which will be difficult given the complexity of the
Federal Acquisition Regulations); (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 construction of the project).
In contrast, Administration priorities may be carried out using
continuing contracts. Finally, I want to applaud the Committee's effort
to improve the quality of the information in the budget documents
submitted by the Corps to Congress each fiscal year. In fact, I believe
that if the Corps provides Congress with budget documents that are
transparent about the funding needs of all ongoing projects, the
Appropriations Committee will have sufficient information to address
its concerns regarding both the use of continuing contracts and
reprogramming.
This information will make it unnecessary to place further
restrictions on the Corps' ability to manage the civil works program.
The importance of the civil works program of the Army Corps of
Engineers to our nation's economic security cannot be overstated. I
look forward to continuing to work with the Committee to ensure that
the Corps is able to continue to carry out its mission.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE II
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT
Central Utah Project Completion Account
For carrying out activities authorized by the Central Utah
Project Completion Act, $32,614,000, to remain available
until expended, of which $946,000 shall be deposited into the
Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account for use
by the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation
Commission.
In addition, for necessary expenses incurred in carrying
out related responsibilities of the Secretary of the
Interior, $1,736,000, to remain available until expended.
Bureau of Reclamation
Water and Related Resources
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
For management, development, and restoration of water and
related natural resources and for related activities,
including
[[Page 11049]]
the operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of reclamation
and other facilities, participation in fulfilling related
Federal responsibilities to Native Americans, and related
grants to, and cooperative and other agreements with, State
and local governments, Indian tribes, and others,
$832,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$55,544,000 shall be available for transfer to the Upper
Colorado River Basin Fund and $21,998,000 shall be available
for transfer to the Lower Colorado River Basin Development
Fund; of which such amounts as may be necessary may be
advanced to the Colorado River Dam Fund; of which not more
than $500,000 is for high priority projects which shall be
carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps, as authorized by
16 U.S.C. 1706: Provided, That such transfers may be
increased or decreased within the overall appropriation under
this heading: Provided further, That of the total
appropriated, the amount for program activities that can be
financed by the Reclamation Fund or the Bureau of Reclamation
special fee account established by 16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i) shall
be derived from that Fund or account: Provided further, That
funds contributed under 43 U.S.C. 395 are available until
expended for the purposes for which contributed: Provided
further, That funds advanced under 43 U.S.C. 397a shall be
credited to this account and are available until expended for
the same purposes as the sums appropriated under this
heading: Provided further, That funds available for
expenditure for the Departmental Irrigation Drainage Program
may be expended by the Bureau of Reclamation for site
remediation on a non-reimbursable basis.
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund
For carrying out the programs, projects, plans, and habitat
restoration, improvement, and acquisition provisions of the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act, $52,219,000, to be
derived from such sums as may be collected in the Central
Valley Project Restoration Fund pursuant to sections 3407(d),
3404(c)(3), 3405(f), and 3406(c)(1) of Public Law 102-575, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That the Bureau of
Reclamation is directed to assess and collect the full amount
of the additional mitigation and restoration payments
authorized by section 3407(d) of Public Law 102-575: Provided
further, That none of the funds made available under this
heading may be used for the acquisition or leasing of water
for in-stream purposes if the water is already committed to
in-stream purposes by a court adopted decree or order.
California Bay-Delta Restoration
(including transfer of funds)
For carrying out activities authorized by the Calfed Bay
Delta Authorization Act, consistent with plans to be approved
by the Secretary of the Interior, $35,000,000, to remain
available until expended, of which such amounts as may be
necessary to carry out such activities may be transferred to
appropriate accounts of other participating Federal agencies
to carry out authorized purposes: Provided, That funds
appropriated herein may be used for the Federal share of the
costs of CALFED Program management: Provided further, That
the use of any funds provided to the California Bay-Delta
Authority for program-wide management and oversight
activities shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary
of the Interior: Provided further, That CALFED implementation
shall be carried out in a balanced manner with clear
performance measures demonstrating concurrent progress in
achieving the goals and objectives of the Program.
Policy and Administration
For necessary expenses of policy, administration, and
related functions in the office of the Commissioner, the
Denver office, and offices in the five regions of the Bureau
of Reclamation, to remain available until expended,
$57,917,000, to be derived from the Reclamation Fund and be
nonreimbursable as provided in 43 U.S.C. 377: Provided, That
no part of any other appropriation in this Act shall be
available for activities or functions budgeted as policy and
administration expenses.
Administrative Provision
Appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation shall be
available for purchase of not to exceed 14 passenger motor
vehicles, of which 11 are for replacement only.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Department of the Interior
Sec. 201. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act may be used to determine the final
point of discharge for the interceptor drain for the San Luis
Unit until development by the Secretary of the Interior and
the State of California of a plan, which shall conform to the
water quality standards of the State of California as
approved by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, to minimize any detrimental effect of the San Luis
drainage waters.
(b) The costs of the Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program
and the costs of the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program
shall be classified by the Secretary of the Interior as
reimbursable or nonreimbursable and collected until fully
repaid pursuant to the ``Cleanup Program-Alternative
Repayment Plan'' and the ``SJVDP-Alternative Repayment Plan''
described in the report entitled ``Repayment Report,
Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program and San Joaquin Valley
Drainage Program, February 1995'', prepared by the Department
of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Any future
obligations of funds by the United States relating to, or
providing for, drainage service or drainage studies for the
San Luis Unit shall be fully reimbursable by San Luis Unit
beneficiaries of such service or studies pursuant to Federal
reclamation law.
Sec. 202. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this or any other Act may be used to pay the
salaries and expenses of personnel to purchase or lease water
in the Middle Rio Grande or the Carlsbad Projects in New
Mexico unless said purchase or lease is in compliance with
the purchase requirements of section 202 of Public Law 106-
60.
Sec. 203. (a) Section 1(a) of the Lower Colorado Water
Supply Act (Public Law 99-655) is amended by adding at the
end the following: ``The Secretary is authorized to enter
into an agreement or agreements with the city of Needles or
the Imperial Irrigation District for the design and
construction of the remaining stages of the Lower Colorado
Water Supply Project on or after November 1, 2004, and the
Secretary shall ensure that any such agreement or agreements
include provisions setting forth (1) the responsibilities of
the parties to the agreement for design and construction; (2)
the locations of the remaining wells, discharge pipelines,
and power transmission lines; (3) the remaining design
capacity of up to 5,000 acre-feet per year which is the
authorized capacity less the design capacity of the first
stage constructed; (4) the procedures and requirements for
approval and acceptance by the Secretary of the remaining
stages, including approval of the quality of construction,
measures to protect the public health and safety, and
procedures for protection of such stages; (5) the rights,
responsibilities, and liabilities of each party to the
agreement; and (6) the term of the agreement.''.
(b) Section 2(b) of the Lower Colorado Water Supply Act
(Public Law 99-655) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``Subject to the demand of such users along or
adjacent to the Colorado River for Project water, the
Secretary is further authorized to contract with additional
persons or entities who hold Boulder Canyon Project Act
section 5 contracts for municipal and industrial uses within
the State of California for the use or benefit of Project
water under such terms as the Secretary determines will
benefit the interest of Project users along the Colorado
River.''.
Mr. HOBSON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that title II be considered as read, printed in the Record and
open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE III
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
ENERGY PROGRAMS
Energy Supply and Conservation
For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment,
and other expenses necessary for energy supply and energy
conservation activities in carrying out the purposes of the
Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et
seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real
property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction, or expansion, $1,762,888,000, to
remain available until expended.
Clean Coal Technology
(deferral)
Of the funds made available under this heading for
obligation in prior years, $257,000,000 shall not be
available until October 1, 2006: Provided, That funds made
available in previous appropriations Acts shall be made
available for any ongoing project regardless of the separate
request for proposal under which the project was selected.
Fossil Energy Research and Development
For necessary expenses in carrying out fossil energy
research and development activities, under the authority of
the Department of Energy Organization Act (Public Law 95-91),
including the acquisition of interest, including defeasible
and equitable interests in any real property or any facility
or for plant or facility acquisition or expansion, the hire
of passenger motor vehicles, the hire, maintenance, and
operation of aircraft, the purchase, repair, and cleaning of
uniforms, the reimbursement to the General Services
Administration for security guard services, and for
conducting inquiries, technological investigations and
research concerning the extraction, processing, use, and
disposal of mineral substances without objectionable social
and environmental costs (30 U.S.C. 3, 1602, and 1603),
$502,467,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$18,000,000 is to
[[Page 11050]]
continue a multi-year project coordinated with the private
sector for FutureGen, without regard to the terms and
conditions applicable to clean coal technological projects:
Provided, That the initial planning and research stages of
the FutureGen project shall include a matching requirement
from non-Federal sources of at least 20 percent of the costs:
Provided further, That any demonstration component of such
project shall require a matching requirement from non-Federal
sources of at least 50 percent of the costs of the component:
Provided further, That of the amounts provided, $50,000,000
is available, after coordination with the private sector, for
a request for proposals for a Clean Coal Power Initiative
providing for competitively-awarded research, development,
and demonstration projects to reduce the barriers to
continued and expanded coal use: Provided further, That no
project may be selected for which sufficient funding is not
available to provide for the total project: Provided further,
That funds shall be expended in accordance with the
provisions governing the use of funds contained under the
heading ``Clean Coal Technology'' in 42 U.S.C. 5903d as well
as those contained under the heading ``Clean Coal
Technology'' in prior appropriations: Provided further, That
the Department may include provisions for repayment of
Government contributions to individual projects in an amount
up to the Government contribution to the project on terms and
conditions that are acceptable to the Department including
repayments from sale and licensing of technologies from both
domestic and foreign transactions: Provided further, That
such repayments shall be retained by the Department for
future coal-related research, development and demonstration
projects: Provided further, That any technology selected
under this program shall be considered a Clean Coal
Technology, and any project selected under this program shall
be considered a Clean Coal Technology Project, for the
purposes of 42 U.S.C. 7651n, and chapters 51, 52, and 60 of
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations: Provided
further, That no part of the sum herein made available shall
be used for the field testing of nuclear explosives in the
recovery of oil and gas: Provided further, That up to 4
percent of program direction funds available to the National
Energy Technology Laboratory may be used to support
Department of Energy activites not included in this account:
Provided further, That the Secretary of Energy is authorized
to accept fees and contributions from public and private
sources, to be deposited in a contributed funds account, and
prosecute projects using such fees and contributions in
cooperation with other Federal, State, or private agencies or
concerns: Provided further, That revenues and other moneys
received by or for the account of the Department of Energy or
otherwise generated by sale of products in connection with
projects of the Department appropriated under the Fossil
Energy Research and Development account may be retained by
the Secretary of Energy, to be available until expended, and
used only for plant construction, operation, costs, and
payments to cost-sharing entities as provided in appropriate
cost-sharing contracts or agreements.
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves
For expenses necessary to carry out naval petroleum and oil
shale reserve activities, including the hire of passenger
motor vehicles, $18,500,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other provision
of law, unobligated funds remaining from prior years shall be
available for all naval petroleum and oil shale reserve
activities.
Elk Hills School Lands Fund
For necessary expenses in fulfilling installment payments
under the Settlement Agreement entered into by the United
States and the State of California on October 11, 1996, as
authorized by section 3415 of Public Law 104-106,
$48,000,000, for payment to the State of California for the
State Teachers' Retirement Fund, of which $46,000,000 will be
derived from the Elk Hills School Lands Fund.
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
For necessary expenses for Strategic Petroleum Reserve
facility development and operations and program management
activities pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), including the
hire of passenger motor vehicles, the hire, maintenance, and
operation of aircraft, the purchase, repair, and cleaning of
uniforms, the reimbursement to the General Services
Administration for security guard services, $166,000,000, to
remain available until expended.
Energy Information Administration
For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities of
the Energy Information Administration, $86,426,000, to remain
available until expended.
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup
For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other expenses necessary for non-defense environmental
cleanup activities in carrying out the purposes of the
Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et
seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real
property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction, or expansion, and the purchase of
not to exceed six passenger motor vehicles, of which five
shall be for replacement only, $319,934,000, to remain
available until expended.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman from Vermont submit his amendment?
The Clerk does not seem to have it. Is there objection to returning to
that point in the reading?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders:
Page 19, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
Page 27, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and a Member opposed each will
control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, first I would like to thank my colleagues for allowing
me to offer the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. The legislative intent
of this amendment is to increase the funding for the EnergySmart
Schools Program administered by the Department of Energy by $1,000,000,
offset by a reduction in administrative expenses for the Department of
Energy's public affairs department. It is the intent of this amendment
that the increased funds for the EnergySmart Schools program will be
directly administered and the grants be directly made by the DOE's
National Renewable Energy Laboratory and that they will not go through
a third part. I am aware that the public affairs department of the DOE
has received an increase of $1,000,000 above Fiscal Year 2005 funding
and it is the intent of this amendment to return the funding for the
public affairs department to the Fiscal Year 2005 level.
Mr. Chairman, our Nation's school systems are in crisis. Their
budgets are threadbare and most can barely pay their teachers a living
wage. To make matters worse, America's school buildings are aging--the
average age is 42 years--and the vast majority could greatly benefit
from energy-saving improvements. Unfortunately, school administrators
are often hard-pressed to allocate any of their limited funds toward
improving the energy efficiency of their buildings and systems, even
when it is clear that such improvements would save them substantial
sums of money that could help pay their teachers of the future.
Fortunately, the Department of Energy has an energy conservation
program to help these schools do just that: to implement energy-saving
strategies that save money, help children learn about energy and create
improved teaching and learning environments.
The Department of Energy's EnergySmart Schools Program--an integral
and active part of the Rebuild America program--is committed to
building a nation of schools that are smart about every aspect of
energy. The program provides information on energy efficient solutions
for school bus transportation, conducting successful building projects
and teaching about energy, energy efficiency, and renewable energy. It
also works with school districts to introduce energy-saving
improvements to the physical environment, enabling many schools to
leverage their energy savings to pay for needed improvements, and it
takes a proactive role in promoting and supporting energy education in
our schools.
Often, this enables school districts to save big on utility bills and
maintenance costs, in turn freeing up funds to pay for books, computers
and teachers, and improve indoor air quality and comfort. According to
the Department of Energy, nationally, K-12 schools spend more than $6
billion a year on energy and at least 25 percent of that could be saved
through smarter energy management, meaning energy improvements could
cut the Nation's school bill by $1.5 billion each year. As an added
benefit, many of the same improvements that help to lower a school's
energy consumption also serve to improve the classroom environment,
removing noisy, inefficient heating and cooling systems, inadequate
lights, and ventilation systems that don't restrict indoor
contaminants.
In short, Mr. Chairman, the EnergySmart Schools program helps our
Nation's schools to implement energy-saving strategies that save money,
help children learn about energy and create improved teaching and
learning environments. My amendment would add $1,000,000 to support
this excellent program--offset by a reduction in administrative
[[Page 11051]]
expenses for the Department of Energy's public affairs department.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, if we do not have to engage in any further
debate, I support the gentleman and am prepared to accept the
amendment.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank my friend very
much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there further debate on the amendment?
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOBSON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I understand there is a provision in the
report accompanying this bill regarding employees of DOE contractors
who are on detail in the Washington, D.C., area.
Mr. HOBSON. That is correct.
Mr. DICKS. The provision applies to those who are on detail from
their home laboratory location. Is that not the intent of this section?
Mr. HOBSON. That is correct.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman should agree that provisions
should not apply to scientists who are located here in the Washington,
D.C., area and who have never been on detail from their home
laboratory; that is, they have lived here for the duration of their
employment without ever having been located at the home lab. In
addition, they have not incurred additional transportation and housing
costs associated with detailees for temporary assignments in the
Washington, D.C., area.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is my
understanding.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, would
the gentleman agree that staff affiliated with the Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory, located at the Joint Global Change Research
Institute, who were never detailed to Washington, D.C., should be
excluded from the list of contractor detailees referenced in this
report?
Mr. HOBSON. I agree.
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOBSON. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, the State of Idaho
has an agreement with the United States Department of Energy,
enforceable by the courts, that prohibits commercial spent nuclear fuel
from coming into the Idaho National Laboratory for storage.
Would the language contained within the report in any way change the
existing law or alter the provisions of the State of Idaho's agreement
with the Department of Energy?
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, no, it would not.
Mr. OTTER. I thank the gentleman very much for that clarification.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund
For necessary expenses in carrying out uranium enrichment
facility decontamination and decommissioning, remedial
actions, and other activities of title II of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and title X, subtitle A, of
the Energy Policy Act of 1992, $591,498,000, to be derived
from the Fund, to remain available until expended, of which
$20,000,000 shall be available in accordance with title X,
subtitle A, of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
Science
For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase,
construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment,
and other expenses necessary for science activities in
carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the
acquisition or condemnation of any real property or facility
or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, or
expansion, and purchase of not to exceed forty-seven
passenger motor vehicles for replacement only, including not
to exceed one ambulance and two buses, $3,666,055,000, to
remain available until expended.
Nuclear Waste Disposal
For nuclear waste disposal activities to carry out the
purposes of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Public Law
97-425, as amended (the ``Act''), including the acquisition
of real property or facility construction or expansion,
$310,000,000, to remain available until expended and to be
derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund: Provided, That of the
funds made available in this Act for Nuclear Waste Disposal,
$3,500,000 shall be provided to the State of Nevada solely
for expenditures, other than salaries and expenses of State
employees, to conduct scientific oversight responsibilities
and participate in licensing activities pursuant to the Act:
Provided further, That $7,000,000 shall be provided to
affected units of local governments, as defined in the Act,
to conduct appropriate activities and participate in
licensing activities: Provided further, That the distribution
of the funds as determined by the units of local government
shall be approved by the Department of Energy: Provided
further, That the funds for the State of Nevada shall be made
available solely to the Nevada Division of Emergency
Management by direct payment and units of local government by
direct payment: Provided further, That within 90 days of the
completion of each Federal fiscal year, the Nevada Division
of Emergency Management and the Governor of the State of
Nevada and each local entity shall provide certification to
the Department of Energy that all funds expended from such
payments have been expended for activities authorized by the
Act and this Act: Provided further, That failure to provide
such certification shall cause such entity to be prohibited
from any further funding provided for similar activities:
Provided further, That none of the funds herein appropriated
may be: (1) used directly or indirectly to influence
legislative action on any matter pending before Congress or a
State legislature or for lobbying activity as provided in 18
U.S.C. 1913; (2) used for litigation expenses; or (3) used to
support multi-State efforts or other coalition building
activities inconsistent with the restrictions contained in
this Act: Provided further, That all proceeds and recoveries
realized by the Secretary in carrying out activities
authorized by the Act, including but not limited to, any
proceeds from the sale of assets, shall be available without
further appropriation and shall remain available until
expended.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Markey
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to consideration of the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey)?
Hearing none, the Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Markey:
Page 19, line 5, insert ``(reduced by $5,500,000)
(increased by $8,500,000) (increased by $3,500,000)
(increased by $3,500,000)'' after ``$1,762,888,000''.
Page 25, line 12, insert ``(reduced by $10,000,000)'' after
``$310,000,000''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment which the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Holt), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and I are offering
would take $15.5 million from the Committee on Appropriations, which
was added on to the President's request for reprocessing and nuclear
waste management, and reallocate these funds to programs that would
improve energy efficiency.
We are offering this amendment today because we believe that now is
the time to undo a policy first adopted back in the 1970s which
discourages reprocessing of commercial spent fuel. We believe that
nonproliferation risks associated with reprocessing are too great, that
reprocessing is not economical and the additional funds recommended for
reprocessing would be better spent on improving our Nation's energy
efficiency.
First, reprocessing presents grave proliferation risks. President
Ford first put this ban on reprocessing in place. It gives us the high
moral ground as we look at the North Koreans and Iranians to tell them
not to do it. It only makes sense.
Secondly, reprocessing is not economical. It would only be economical
[[Page 11052]]
if, in fact, there was not a glut of uranium, which is what it is that
we have in the world today.
Third, reprocessing is not safe. Twenty tons of highly radioactive
material leaked from a broken pipe at a nuclear reprocessing plant in
the United Kingdom in April of this year. This area is going to remain
closed for a long, long time.
Fifth, the $15.5 million appropriated for reprocessing and interim
storage would be better spent on energy efficiency priorities. It would
be better to just use it to work smarter and not harder. The more
efficient that we make our society is the absolute fastest way in order
to guarantee that we would make ourselves less dependent upon imported
oil, not moving along the route that this $15.5 million appropriation
would move it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the
Markey amendment, which would cut funding for a program that ultimately
could solve our nuclear waste problem.
I am proud to say that I represent Argonne National Laboratory, which
has been working for years on reprocessing and recycling technologies
that will allow us to do something with spent nuclear fuel besides bury
it in a mountain. If you think of nuclear fuel like a log, we currently
burn only 3 percent of that log at both ends and then pull it out of
the fire to bury it. The bulk of what we call nuclear waste is actually
nuclear fuel, which still contains over 90 percent of its original
energy content.
{time} 1845
Does that make sense? No, but that is our current policy, and it is
just plain wasteful.
Instead, scientists have developed ways to reprocess and recycle
today's waste and turn it back into fuel. There are many advantages to
these technologies which have names like UREX+ and pyroprocessing.
They are proliferation-resistant, unlike other, older technologies
already in use throughout the world, including places like France,
England, and Russia. They reduce the volume of our nuclear waste so
much so that we will not need to build another Yucca Mountain. They
also reduce the toxicity, the heat and radioactivity, of the waste so
that it will not have to be stored for 10,000 years, but rather for
only 300 years. That is still a long time, but we can design with
certainty a repository that will last 300 years and one that can meet
necessary radiation standards.
At the end of March, I visited reprocessing facilities in France with
the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson). The French have embraced
reprocessing as a way to reduce the volume of the waste by a factor of
four and safely store it until they decide exactly how to recycle it.
That is good for the French, but we can do better. The French are
using a technology that is between 20 and 30 years old and produces
pure plutonium as a by-product. The process and technologies this bill
supports today are cutting edge and could reduce the volume of our
waste by a factor of 60, are proliferation-resistant, and almost
eliminate the long-term radiotoxicity and heat problems associated with
our current spent fuel.
Unfortunately, the Markey amendment would have us forgo the benefits
of this research.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, could you tell us how much time is
remaining on either side.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) each have 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, again, this is a huge moment. This is a decision to
reverse a policy which is 30 years old. It has gone through Presidents,
Democrat and Republican, going back to Gerald Ford, which essentially
says to the North Koreans, to the Iranians, to every other country in
the world, we are not going to reprocess our civilian-spent fuel; you
should not do it either. You should stay away from it. This is too
dangerous.
We otherwise will wind up preaching temperance from a bar stool. We
will be in a situation where we will be reprocessing civilian-spent
fuel into plutonium, and we will be trying to tell the rest of the
world that they should not do it. It would be like your father telling
you that you should not smoke with a pack of Camels in his hand. It
just does not work. You have to have some standard as a Nation on a
policy as important as the reprocessing of plutonium in order to take
that position and be a leader worldwide.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I do not support the gentleman's amendment transferring all of the
funds proposed for our spent fuel recycling initiative.
Our bill, and the administration's budget request, includes $750
million for the Advanced Fuel Recycle Initiative under the Office of
Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology. Among other activities, this
program funds research into advanced reprocessing technologies that can
avoid some of the shortcomings of existing technologies.
Specifically, there are new reprocessing technologies that have the
potential to minimize the waste streams of radioactive waste products
and also minimize and eliminate the presence of separated plutonium.
This country would be foolish to ignore the potential benefits of new
technologies.
Our bill adds $5 million to this research and directs the Secretary
to make recommendations by fiscal year 2007 on advanced reprocessing
technologies suitable for implementation in the United States. We also
direct that the Secretary establish a competitive process for selecting
one or more sites for integrated spent fuel recycling facilities.
After running through a nuclear reactor, spent nuclear fuel still
contains 97 percent of its energy value, yet we continue to plan to
bury the spent fuel underground rather than recycle it, as other
countries do very successfully. The current Yucca Mountain repository
will be full to its authorized capacity by the year 2010. If we do not
look to recycle our spent fuel, then DOE should start tomorrow to
expand Yucca Mountain repository or select a second site. In the near
term, we direct the Secretary to begin moving spent fuel away from
reactive sites and into interim storage at one or more DOE sites. I
believe it is essential that the government demonstrate that it will
comply with the requirement to begin accepting spent fuel from the
reactor sites and begin to move it on the path to disposal in the
repository.
I strongly oppose living in the past. We have to move to the future.
We have to get back into this business. This is safe, this is
responsible, and it is the way this country should move forward and not
live in the past. Use new technology.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey) has addressed the serious ramifications of abandoning this
bipartisan policy regarding reprocessing; but there is another evil
that this amendment will fix, and that is an evil that, again, trying
to go back to America's commitment not to do interim storage, that we
made on a bipartisan basis back in 1990. We made a very conscious,
bipartisan decision not to try to stick these communities with the
misnomer of interim storage.
Interim storage of radioactive waste in America is sort of like the
interim pyramids of Egypt: they tend to stay around a long time. There
is nothing interim about this effort to put this in the Hanford Nuclear
Reservation, a
[[Page 11053]]
place where we had 450 million gallons of radioactive waste already
leaking with a plume potentially heading to the Columbia River. It is
now the largest cleanup site, one of, if not the, in America, and yet
we intend to put more radioactive waste if this amendment is not
adopted potentially at Hanford.
Why would we do this? This is sort of like coal is to New Castle when
you send radioactive material to Hanford, which is the very place we
are trying to clean up. This is the last place we ought to be sticking
these repositories, not the first place.
I have to object to this being done in report language with no
hearings, with no chance for the public to have input into this major
decision of our nuclear policy. This is a distortion of how we have
tried to make bipartisan policy about these very sensitive issues, and
this is why we need to pass this amendment. By the way, this is not
just Hanford. It is going to be driving by your neighborhoods on its
way to these three interim sites.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment goes to a central, fundamental question
which this Congress is going to decide this evening. The Senate
yesterday resolved something they called the nuclear option. This is
the real nuclear option. This is the nuclear option which the rest of
the world is going to look at: are we going back to nuclear
reprocessing? Are we going to become the leader in a technology which
we are telling the rest of the world we do not believe they should
have, especially since we do not even need it?
So this question of nuclear weapons in the world, nuclear
proliferation, this issue is a central issue in determining whether or
not we are going to be the leader or we are going to be spreading these
technologies across the planet. Vote ``aye'' on the Markey amendment.
The amendment that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and I are offering would take
the $15.5 million that the Appropriations Committee added onto the
President's request for the reprocessing and nuclear waste management
and reallocate these funds to programs that would improve energy
efficiency.
We are offering this amendment today because we believe that now is
not the time to undo a policy first adopted back in 1970s which
discourages reprocessing of commercial spent fuel. We believe that
nonproliferation risks associated with reprocessing are too great, that
reprocessing is not economical, and that the additional funds
recommended for reprocessing would be better spent on improving our
nation's energy efficiency.
Reprocessing represents grave proliferation risks. Just look at North
Korea. It has been reprocessing spent fuel from its reactors to use in
nuclear bombs. In response, President Bush has asked the Nuclear
Suppliers Group to limit access to reprocessing technology, arguing
that:
This step will prevent new states from developing the means
to produce fissile material for nuclear bombs.
How are we going to credibly ask the rest of the world to support us
when we tell North Korea, Iran or any other nation that they cannot
have the full fuel cycle and they can't engage in reprocessing, when we
are preparing to do the same thing right here in America? It just won't
fly.
You cannot preach nuclear temperance from a barstool. That is why
President Gerald Ford called for an end to commercial reprocessing back
in 1976, and why no President since then has successfully revived
reprocessing.
Reprocessing also is not economical. A MIT study puts the cost of
reprocessing at four times that of a once-through nuclear power. The
current price of concentrated uranium ``yellowcake'' in the spot market
is about $53.00 per kilogram. For reprocessing to be economical, there
must be a sustained 8-fold increase in the long-term price of uranium.
But the world is faced with a uranium glut. In addition, building a
reprocessing plant would be enormously expensive. Consider Japan's
nearly completed Rokkasho reprocessing plant--20 years in the making.
Just building it cost on the order of $20 billion. But the total cost
of Rokkasho when you factor in the full life-cycle costs--including
construction, operation and decommissioning costs--is estimated to be
$166 billion. Uranium costs would have to soar to 20 times what they
are today for this to be economically viable.
In France, Cadarache's ATPu MOX plant has ceased commercial activity
because it is not economical, but it plans to fabricate test MOX
assemblies to send here. In Russia, they too have closed their
reprocessing plant, RT-1, and still have not opened its successor, RT-
2. The record is becoming clearer, reprocessing is not economical. Why
would we think that the U.S. is immune from the fundamental laws of
economics?
Reprocessing will not alleviate the nuclear waste problem. Talk to
the folks at Savannah River where over 30 million gallons of high-level
were left behind from reprocessing.
Under this bill, Savannah River may be targeted again for interim
storage for spent fuel, awaiting reprocessing. So might Hanford and
Idaho. In fact the bill report targets all DOE sites, federally owned
sites, non-federal fuel storage facilities, and even closed military
sites.
The Appropriations Committee Report (page 124) calls for DOE to
provide ``an implementation plan for such early acceptance of
commercial spent fuel, transportation to a DOE site, and centralized
interim storage at one or more DOE sites.'' If appropriate DOE sites
can't be found, the Report recommends that the nuclear waste be stored
at ``other federally-owned sites, closed military bases, and non-
federal fuel storage facilities.'' The Report calls for DOE to prepare
a plan for centralized interim storage within 120 days of enactment of
the bill, and states its belief that DOE ``already has authority for
these actions under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.''
So, if you just had a military base in your district closed by the
BRAC, you might be a candidate to get a nuclear waste dump. Talk about
adding insult to injury. Reprocessing sites will become defacto nuclear
waste dumps. The spent nuclear fuel cannot even be handled to be
reprocessed for 5 to 15 years--it is so radioactive. And what will
happen to all this waste when the hard reality of the disastrous
economics combined with the fact that our government deep in deficit
cannot afford to subsidize this anymore?
Reprocessing is not safe. Twenty tons of highly radioactive material
leaked from a broken pipe at a Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant in
the United Kingdom in April of this year. The affected area of the
Sellafield plant will remain closed for months as officials devise a
way of cleaning up the mess. Special robots may have to be built to
clean up the waste as the area is too radioactive for people to enter.
Senior officials at the UK's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which
owns the Sellafield reprocessing are pushing to close the plant
altogether, arguing that it is more cost-effective to close the plant
now rather than repair the problems only to decommission the plant as
planned in 2012.
The MIT Study said this about safety:
We are concerned about the safety of reprocessing plants,
because of the large radioactive material inventories, and
because the record of accidents, such as waste tank explosion
at Chelyabinsk in the FSU [Russia], the Hanford waste tank
leakages in the United States and the discharges to the
environment at the Sellafield plant in the United Kingdom.
The $15.5 million appropriated for reprocessing and interim storage
would be better spent on energy efficiency priorities. Under the
Markey-Holt amendment, the $15.5 million added to the bill by the
Committee for reprocessing and interim storage of nuclear waste would
be transferred over to three under-funded domestic energy supply
priority programs, as follows:
$8.5 million would be added for Industrial Technologies (which was
cut by $16.5 million from current levels). Despite the fact that
manufacturing makes up 35 percent of the nation's energy use, this bill
would cut the industrial energy efficiency program to help
manufacturers deal with high energy costs and develop innovative
technologies from $93 million in FY 2004 to $76 million in FY 2005, and
now the House proposes $58 million in FY 2006. We are heading in the
wrong direction. We are trying to maintain manufacturing jobs. We need
to cut energy use and improve technology, since we can't cut wages to
equate to China and India. This is a national security issue. Do we
want to vacate the field in the key areas of steel, plastics, aluminum,
chemicals, forest products, glass and metal casting? We need domestic
production and this program helps make our domestic industries more
energy efficient.
There would be $3.5 million added for State Energy Program Grants
(which was cut $3.8 million from current levels). A recent study by Oak
Ridge National Laboratories concluded that for every federal dollar in
the State Energy Program: (1) $7.22 in annual energy cost savings are
produced; (2) $11.29 in leveraged funds are provided from the states
and private sector in 18 different project areas; (3) over
[[Page 11054]]
$333 million is saved through annual cost savings (the appropriation is
only $44 million in FY 2005); (4) 48 million source BTUs are saved--or
8 million barrels of oil; (5) 826,049 metric tons of carbon are saved;
(6) 135.8 metric tons of volatile organic compounds are reduced; (7)
6,211 metric tons of NOX are reduced; and (8) 8,491 metric
tons of SOX are reduced.
There would be $3.5 million added for the Distributed Energy and
Electricity Reliability Program (which was cut by $4.8 million from
current levels). This program is aimed at developing the ``next
generation'' of clean, efficient, reliable, and affordable distributed
energy technologies that make use of combined heat and power systems.
The Department of Energy has established a goal of increasing installed
combined heat and power systems from 66 Gigawatts in 2000 to 92
Gigawatts by 2010. As of 2004, this program is well on track, with 81
Gigawatts of installed power. However, much of the remaining potential
for CHP systems is in small scale systems that are below 20 megawatts
and employ micro-turbines, fuel cells and other technologies. This
program needs full funding to continue delivering the benefits of
increased reliability, security, efficiency and lower emissions to the
U.S. economy.
Let me reiterate that my transfer amendment would still leave both
reprocessing and nuclear waste disposal fully-funded at the levels
requested in the President's budget, but would only reallocate money
added by the Appropriations Committee. In addition, the Congressional
Budget Office informs me that ``This amendment has no effect on budget
authority and would reduce outlays by $1 million for FY 2006.''
Under the Markey-Holt amendment, we transfer these funds to energy
efficiency programs that will provide our nation with a much better
value for the dollar than the incremental investment in a nuclear
reprocessing technology that is expensive, that poses serious nuclear
nonproliferation risks, and which threatens to create new nuclear waste
dumps at sites around the country.
I urge you to vote ``yes'' on the Markey-Holt-Inslee amendment.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I think I need to respond to a couple of comments that were made.
First of all, we did not say to put anything in the interim; we said it
is a site that should be looked at with all of the other sites. Second
of all, this has nothing to do with nuclear weapons, and I might
suggest that if you look around the world, about the only place in the
world who has nuclear power that is not reprocessing is us. Everybody
else, the French, the Japanese, they are building a plant; the Brits
have a plant. Everybody else in the world has stepped up and said, we
are going to take care of this waste; we are not going to just bury it
in the ground, and we are going to keep using it over and over again.
I think it is time for us to look at this policy and change this old,
old policy, especially if we have new technology that does not leave us
with the type of nuclear weapons-grade plutonium left over, and that is
what we believe we are developing.
So I think this is a responsible part of the bill and we should move
forward and vote the amendment down.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOBSON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the only question I have, is the chairman
saying that this report language has the force of law? It is advisory
only; is that not correct?
Mr. HOBSON. That is correct.
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Mr. Markey's
amendment.
As a Member from Nevada, I am vehemently opposed to the Yucca
Mountain Project for numerous reasons. The transportation of thousands
of tons of nuclear waste, which will pass within miles of our homes,
schools and hospitals, is one of the primary reasons I object to this
plan. Nuclear waste transportation, whether destined for Yucca Mountain
or an interim site, is an invitation to terrorists looking to wreak
havoc and cause devastation in the United States.
The Chairman of the Subcommittee has made clear that interim storage
will not divert him from avidly pursuing completion of the Yucca
Mountain Repository.
With my ``yes'' vote, I am standing firmly against transporting
nuclear waste through our communities and against interim storage in
Nevada or anywhere else. The only workable solution we have at this
time is to leave the waste on-site where it will be safe for the next
100 years.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join with my colleagues,
Representatives Edward Markey and Jay Inslee, in offering an amendment
to H.R. 2419. Our amendment eliminates funding for the new Spent Fuel
Recycling Initiative, and redirects this $15.5 million to energy
research.
The legislation we are debating today directs the Department of
Energy to conduct a new Spent Fuel Recycling Initiative, putting the
United States on the path to reprocessing of spent nuclear reactor
fuel. This new Initiative was not included in the President's budget
request, and is over and above the existing research program on nuclear
fuel reprocessing. It is a radical measure that moves the United States
from research to actually undertaking nuclear fuel reprocessing. The
Initiative has two linked elements: moving existing spent nuclear fuel
away from commercial reactor sites to centralized interim storage, and
initiating a reprocessing program for this fuel.
Reprocessing creates a plutonium-based of fuel for nuclear reactors
that is easier to use in nuclear weapons. The United States is
currently working to prevent other countries from reprocessing nuclear
fuel, because a country that is reprocessing nuclear fuel can easily
divert this material to make nuclear weapons.
Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel would be a major departure for U.S.
nuclear policy, and could set back our efforts to stop nuclear
proliferation around the world. If the U.S. Congress votes to initiate
a reprocessing program, U.S. nuclear proliferation policy will be
directly contradicted.
Such a step must not be taken lightly, with no hearings, no
authorizing legislation, no public input, no analysis of the
implications for nuclear proliferation, not even an analysis of the
cost to taxpayers. We must not proceed with such a major step without
all members having sufficient time and information to consider what
they are voting for.
The Markey-Holt-Inslee amendment leaves intact the President's
request to increase to $70 million the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative,
which includes research on nuclear fuel reprocessing technologies. Our
amendment removes the new, additional $15.5 million Initiative to
consolidate and reprocess spent fuel.
The Markey-Holt-Inslee amendment redirects the $15.5 million to three
important and successful energy research programs, all of which have
less funding in H.R. 2419 compared to fiscal year 2005 appropriations:
$8.5 million to the Industrial Technologies Program, which shares the
cost of research with industry to make U.S. industry more energy
efficient; $3.5 million to the Distributed Energy and Electricity
Reliability Program, which funds research and development for smarter,
more flexible, and more efficient electricity generation through the
development of distributed energy generation and combined heat and
power technologies; and $3.5 million for State Energy Program grants, a
program that for every federal dollar has produced over $7 of annual
energy savings.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the Markey Amendment
to H.R. 2419, Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006. This amendment would cut $5.5
million from nuclear reprocessing and $10 million from nuclear waste
disposal to facilitate interim storage of nuclear waste. Mr. Chairman,
the Federal Workforce and Agency Organization Subcommittee of which I
chair is currently investigating the alleged falsification of documents
and computer models at the Yucca Mountain site.
What my investigation has uncovered so far is deeply disturbing and
could very well lead to compromising the validity of the entire site.
If that is the case, then interim storage will be necessary. As opposed
to waiting for that date, it is important that we act proactively and
begin the process to identify these interim sites across the United
States.
While I find it troubling that the Committee has decided to
appropriate over $600 million for Yucca Mountain, I am encouraged that
they have recognized the need for legislative language citing the need
for interim storage for the reasons that my Subcommittee has already
uncovered.
I may also take a moment, Mr. Chairman, to publicly acknowledge my
opposition to Yucca Mountain and my support for any site, interim or
permanent, outside of my district and the State of Nevada.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
[[Page 11055]]
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that,
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey) will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Departmental Administration
(including transfer of funds)
For salaries and expenses of the Department of Energy
necessary for departmental administration in carrying out the
purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42
U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the hire of passenger motor
vehicles and official reception and representation expenses
not to exceed $35,000, $253,909,000, to remain available
until expended, plus such additional amounts as necessary to
cover increases in the estimated amount of cost of work for
others notwithstanding the provisions of the Anti-Deficiency
Act (31 U.S.C. 1511 et seq.): Provided, That such increases
in cost of work are offset by revenue increases of the same
or greater amount, to remain available until expended:
Provided further, That moneys received by the Department for
miscellaneous revenues estimated to total $123,000,000 in
fiscal year 2006 may be retained and used for operating
expenses within this account, and may remain available until
expended, as authorized by section 201 of Public Law 95-238,
notwithstanding the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3302: Provided
further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced by
the amount of miscellaneous revenues received during fiscal
year 2006, and any related unappropriated receipt account
balances remaining from prior years' miscellaneous revenues,
so as to result in a final fiscal year 2006 appropriation
from the general fund estimated at not more than
$130,909,000.
Office of the Inspector General
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Inspector
General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector
General Act of 1978, as amended, $43,000,000, to remain
available until expended.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt) for the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I have at the desk an amendment, a proposed amendment
that I intended to offer, but that I will not offer as a result of the
ensuing colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, I have filed an amendment for myself and the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett) that states that none of the funds
made available in this act may be used in contravention of the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act of 1982. The committee report directs the Secretary to
begin accepting commercial spent fuel for interim storage at one or
more DOE sites within fiscal year 2006. The gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Barrett) and I are concerned that the interim storage
facilities called for in the report could divert funds from a nuclear
waste fund and further impede completion of the repository at Yucca
Mountain.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I intend for Yucca
Mountain to be fully funded, and our bill does just that. As a matter
of fact, I have gone head to head with the Senate since I have been the
chairman of this subcommittee to ensure that the nuclear waste disposal
program receives as close to the budget request as possible.
The gentleman is absolutely right that the ratepayers are not getting
what they paid for because DOE has not fulfilled its statutory and
contractual obligation to accept spent fuel for disposal. I have
ratepayers in my own State who also have not received value for what
they have paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund.
We are not intending, and I want to be very pointed about this, we
are not intending to divert or diminish attention to Yucca Mountain.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will further yield, can
DOE conduct such interim storage consistent with the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act? What force does the committee report have when it comes to
modifying existing law?
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, we provided our guidance only in report
language and direct the Secretary to provide Congress with legislative
language if he determines that changes to the authorizing statutes are
necessary.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the clarification
and the explanation.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
National Nuclear Security Administration
Weapons Activities
(including transfer of funds)
For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other incidental expenses necessary for atomic energy
defense weapons activities in carrying out the purposes of
the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et
seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real
property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction, or expansion; and the purchase of
not to exceed 40 passenger motor vehicles, for replacement
only, including not to exceed two buses; $6,181,121,000, to
remain available until expended.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Mack) for the
purposes of a colloquy.
Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to engage the esteemed chairman
in a colloquy concerning language and funding for Florida's red tide
research problem.
Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, my district in southwest Florida
experienced a harmful red tide outburst off the coast which caused
harmful effects that were felt by people, animals, and the environment
that make up our precious ecosystem and economy.
Hundreds of people endured respiratory ills, including sneezing,
coughing, and other effects that are damaging to one's health.
Moreover, the Florida manatee, an endangered species that everyone
seeks to protect from far less harmful events, saw a gigantic spike in
their death rate. This year, in the entire State of Florida, we have
seen 29 manatees die due to boating accidents. However, from this red
tide bloom, which only lasted a couple of months and was confined only
to southwest Florida, we have a confirmed count of 46 manatee deaths.
What is more, thousands of people, some from this very room, come to
southwest Florida each year to vacation on our beaches and to swim in
our waters.
{time} 1900
This scourge of red tide not only has a hazardous environmental
effect, but also drives away tourists who undoubtedly do not want to
spend their time coping with the effects of the red tide.
Thankfully, with the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio, the
Energy and Water Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations saw
fit to include funding for red tide research in last year's
appropriations bill. Unfortunately, the lion's share of that money
never made it down to the numerous research organizations that conduct
expert analysis and tests on ways to help mitigate the effects of this
damaging event in nature.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for coming
forth with this. I understand that red tide blooms are harmful, and a
scientific approach, we need to learn more about these ocean events
that are an appropriate use of research and development funds. In fact,
I was personally involved last Congress in securing the funding that we
talked about so we can learn ways to fight red tide.
Funds in excess of the budget requests have been provided for worthy
research and development activity such as this. And I would hope, since
I my grandchildren are residents of Florida, I hope we can get on and
get rid of red tide one of these days, and especially as I get older.
It affects older people and I visit there, so I want to get rid of it
too.
Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for his
remarks and his leadership in this notable cause.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
[[Page 11056]]
The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman the designee of the ranking member?
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Ruppersberger) for purposes of colloquy with the Chair.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I applaud this bill for maintaining
the research funding for the Corps of Engineers' aquatic herbicide
treatment of invasive weed species that have such impacts on our lakes
and rivers, impairing agriculture, recreation and transportation. I
believe that the Corps and the Tennessee Valley Authority, in
considering methods of aquatic weed eradication, should give preference
to EPA-registered and -approved safe chemical treatment options,
including reduced-risk pesticides as designated in the Food Quality
Protection Act.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I agree that the development of safe
chemical treatment options may provide the Corps and the Tennessee
Valley Authority with alternatives to many of the conventional methods
of control that often have unintended consequences.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I believe that having a range of
treatment options from which to choose and doing so in the most
environmentally sensitive way is desirable
Mr. HOBSON. I agree.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I
intended to offer a couple of amendments tonight before the unanimous
consent request was entered into.
I have complained for a long time around here that we are funding too
many earmarks, the Republicans and Democrats. In this bill there are a
couple hundred million worth of earmarks, Member projects that Members,
we always complain that the President does not have line item veto
authority. I would be satisfied if Congress had it.
Under an open rule, I cannot come to the floor and target individual
earmarks because they are in the committee report. For the first time
in this bill we have actually referenced a committee report and
instructed Federal agencies to spend the money, yet individual Members
cannot go in and strike earmarks from the bill. That is simply wrong.
We are going the exact opposite direction of where we ought to go.
Members projects ought to be put into the bill. If we are proud
enough to request money, you know, $500,000 for the St. Croix River in
Wisconsin to relocate endangered mussels, then we ought to be proud
enough to come to the floor and defend that earmark; otherwise, we are
not good stewards of the taxpayers' money.
So I would just rise to say we need to change this process. We are
going in the wrong direction. Either we are going to instruct the
Federal agencies to spend it and come to the floor and defend it, or we
are not. We cannot have it both ways.
And I would yield back to the chairman to ask which direction we are
going here.
Mr. HOBSON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me suggest a couple
of things to the gentleman if I might.
First of all, if you look at this bill, for the first time in the
last couple of years there have been no new starts in this bill going
out of the House. And I have limited the number. Even when we have
gotten done with the bill, I think we only did five new starts last
year.
We are trying to get control of this. We have even looked at,
sometimes the administration has had new starts and we have taken them
out. We have tried to limit the number of earmarks. The number of
earmarks for Members' projects this year is down substantially over
past years. Frankly, the administration did a better job this year of
addressing some of the concerns of Members and of the overall program.
I think the gentleman would also be pleased to note that in this
bill, for the first time, we are requiring a 5-year development plan
for the Corps of Engineers, for example, and the Department of Energy.
In that process, when we get that, similar to what we did in the
military construction when I chaired that committee, we will, over a
period of time, begin to get control of the situation, so that if they
do not fit within the 5-year plan, then these projects are not going to
be in there.
But we do not have that plan in place today. We are trying to make it
in place. And I think it is going to make for better, more responsible
use of taxpayers' dollars.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I think that the best
way is to include it in the bill. If we are proud enough of our
earmark, then we ought to come in and defend it on the House floor.
Otherwise, we cannot simply refer and force the Federal agencies to
spend the money without giving individual Members the opportunity to
challenge an earmark on the floor of the House.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak about a
matter of great concern to me and many of my constituents.
The Los Alamos National Laboratory in my district, and is one of the
largest employers in the State. Two years ago the Secretary of Energy
determined that after more than 60 years of management by the
University of California, the contract for the management and
operations of Los Alamos National Laboratory would be open to
competition.
We are all aware that there have been problems concerning the
security of classified materials handled at the lab and questions about
safety practices. It is important to note, however, that statistically
the incidences of injury and illness at Los Alamos are well within the
range of comparable DOE facilities and major chemical and manufacturing
industrial complexes.
Still, I have consistently supported the competition in the hopes
that the best management team wins so that the scientists and employees
at Los Alamos can continue to contribute to our national security and
conduct world-class, strategic science.
Last Thursday, the National Nuclear Security Administration released
the final request for proposals, or RFP, for the management and
operating contract of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. In December,
the NNSA released a draft of this RFP. What concerns me is that these
documents were substantially different in two very fundamental ways.
First, the draft RFP did not indicate a requirement for the
establishment of a separate, dedicated corporate entity. The final RFP
does, but this requirement was not included in the draft RFP. The
public was never given the opportunity to comment on it.
While that structure may have emerged from the competition as the
best design for the management of LANL, we will never know. By
mandating a specific corporate structure from the outset, the NNSA has
eliminated the proposition of an entirely different and perhaps more
creative and effective management structure. That appears, to me, to
severely constrain rather than promote true competition.
Secondly, the NNSA has taken the surprising step of dictating that
the new management entity must establish a stand-alone pension plan,
one that would serve the employees of Los Alamos only. Again, that
requirement was not included in the draft RFP, so the public never had
the opportunity to comment on it. The potential changes to the pension
plan, under a change of management, have been of utmost concern for the
vast majority of lab employees who have contacted me concerning the
competition.
Currently, the employees of Los Alamos benefit greatly from being
included in the University of California
[[Page 11057]]
retirement plan, which covers more than 170,000 employees. The major
organizations that have expressed the intent to bid for the Los Alamos
contract already employ in excess of 100,000 people. Obviously, a
pension plan designed to cover that many employees generates
significant leveraging power.
The Los Alamos National Laboratory alone currently employs only 8,000
people directly. There is no way that a stand-alone pension plan
designed to serve only 8,000 employees could offer benefits as great as
the one that serves 5, 10, or in the case of the University of
California retirement plan, 17 times that many. Should not the decision
for how to best manage a financial matter as significant as that of a
pension plan be left to the discretion of the new managing entity?
Furthermore, approximately 60 days ago, the NNSA completed the
competition for the management of Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory. The University of California, which has managed Lawrence
Berkeley for 74 years, was awarded the contract. As such, Lawrence
Berkeley will continue to be managed as a nonprofit entity and its
3,800 employees will continue to be included in the generous pension
plan offered by the University of California.
The design of the final RFP for the management of Los Alamos National
Laboratory ensures that a noncorporate management structure cannot even
be considered in the competition. That is the type of management
structure that has very successfully served Lawrence Berkeley for 74
years and Los Alamos for 62 years, and it is not even on the table.
In conclusion, while I strongly support this competition, I do not
see how it is in the best interest of this country that a competition
for the management and operation of a national security complex as
important as Los Alamos has been so greatly narrowed.
And I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder
of title III be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to
amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
The text of the remainder of title III is as follows:
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other incidental expenses necessary for atomic energy
defense, defense nuclear nonproliferation activities, in
carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the
acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any
facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction,
or expansion, $1,500,959,000, to remain available until
expended.
Naval Reactors
For Department of Energy expenses necessary for naval
reactors activities to carry out the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the
acquisition (by purchase, condemnation, construction, or
otherwise) of real property, plant, and capital equipment,
facilities, and facility expansion, $799,500,000, to remain
available until expended.
Office of the Administrator
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Administrator
in the National Nuclear Security Administration, including
official reception and representation expenses not to exceed
$12,000, $366,869,000, to remain available until expended.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
Defense Environmental Cleanup
For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other expenses necessary for atomic energy defense
environmental cleanup activities in carrying out the purposes
of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101
et seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any
real property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction, or expansion, $6,468,336,000, to
remain available until expended.
Other Defense Activities
For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other expenses, necessary for atomic energy defense,
other defense activities, and classified activities, in
carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the
acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any
facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction,
or expansion, and the purchase of not to exceed ten passenger
motor vehicles for replacement only, including not to exceed
two buses; $702,498,000, to remain available until expended.
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
For nuclear waste disposal activities to carry out the
purposes of Public Law 97-425, as amended, including the
acquisition of real property or facility construction or
expansion, $351,447,000, to remain available until expended.
POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS
Bonneville Power Administration Fund
Expenditures from the Bonneville Power Administration Fund,
established pursuant to Public Law 93-454, are approved for
official reception and representation expenses in an amount
not to exceed $1,500. During fiscal year 2006, no new direct
loan obligations may be made.
Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration
For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of
power transmission facilities and of electric power and
energy, including transmission wheeling and ancillary
services pursuant to section 5 of the Flood Control Act of
1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the southeastern power
area, $5,600,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to
$32,713,000 collected by the Southeastern Power
Administration pursuant to the Flood Control Act of 1944 to
recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be
credited to this account as offsetting collections, to remain
available until expended for the sole purpose of making
purchase power and wheeling expenditures.
Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration
For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of
power transmission facilities and of marketing electric power
and energy, for construction and acquisition of transmission
lines, substations and appurtenant facilities, and for
administrative expenses, including official reception and
representation expenses in an amount not to exceed $1,500 in
carrying out section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (16
U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the southwestern power
administration, $31,401,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, up
to $1,235,000 collected by the Southwestern Power
Administration pursuant to the Flood Control Act to recover
purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be credited to
this account as offsetting collections, to remain available
until expended for the sole purpose of making purchase power
and wheeling expenditures.
Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area
Power Administration
For carrying out the functions authorized by title III,
section 302(a)(1)(E) of the Act of August 4, 1977 (42 U.S.C.
7152), and other related activities including conservation
and renewable resources programs as authorized, including
official reception and representation expenses in an amount
not to exceed $1,500; $226,992,000, to remain available until
expended, of which $222,830,000 shall be derived from the
Department of the Interior Reclamation Fund: Provided, That
of the amount herein appropriated, $6,000,000 shall be
available until expended on a nonreimbursable basis to the
Western Area Power Administration for Topock-Davis-Mead
Transmission Line Upgrades: Provided further, That
notwithstanding the provision of 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to
$148,500,000 collected by the Western Area Power
Administration pursuant to the Flood Control Act of 1944 and
the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 to recover purchase power
and wheeling expenses shall be credited to this account as
offsetting collections, to remain available until expended
for the sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling
expenditures.
Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund
For operation, maintenance, and emergency costs for the
hydroelectric facilities at the Falcon and Amistad Dams,
$2,692,000, to remain available until expended, and to be
derived from the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance
Fund of the Western Area Power Administration, as provided in
section 423 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act,
Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission to carry out the provisions of the Department of
Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, the hire of
passenger motor vehicles, and official reception and
representation expenses not to exceed $3,000, $220,400,000,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, not to exceed
$220,400,000 of revenues
[[Page 11058]]
from fees and annual charges, and other services and
collections in fiscal year 2006 shall be retained and used
for necessary expenses in this account, and shall remain
available until expended: Provided further, That the sum
herein appropriated from the general fund shall be reduced as
revenues are received during fiscal year 2006 so as to result
in a final fiscal year 2006 appropriation from the general
fund estimated at not more than $0.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Sec. 301. (a)(1) None of the funds in this or any other
appropriations Act for fiscal year 2006 or any previous
fiscal year may be used to make payments for a noncompetitive
management and operating contract unless the Secretary of
Energy has published in the Federal Register and submitted to
the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate a written notification, with
respect to each such contract, of the Secretary's decision to
use competitive procedures for the award of the contract, or
to not renew the contract, when the term of the contract
expires.
(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to an extension for up to
2 years of a noncompetitive management and operating
contract, if the extension is for purposes of allowing time
to award competitively a new contract, to provide continuity
of service between contracts, or to complete a contract that
will not be renewed.
(b) In this section:
(1) The term ``noncompetitive management and operating
contract'' means a contract that was awarded more than 50
years ago without competition for the management and
operation of Ames Laboratory, Argonne National Laboratory,
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, and Los Alamos National Laboratory.
(2) The term ``competitive procedures'' has the meaning
provided in section 4 of the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403) and includes procedures described
in section 303 of the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253) other than a procedure
that solicits a proposal from only one source.
(c) For all management and operating contracts other than
those listed in subsection (b)(1), none of the funds
appropriated by this Act may be used to award a management
and operating contract, or award a significant extension or
expansion to an existing management and operating contract,
unless such contract is awarded using competitive procedures
or the Secretary of Energy grants, on a case-by-case basis, a
waiver to allow for such a deviation. The Secretary may not
delegate the authority to grant such a waiver. At least 60
days before a contract award for which the Secretary intends
to grant such a waiver, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate a report notifying the Committees of the
waiver and setting forth, in specificity, the substantive
reasons why the Secretary believes the requirement for
competition should be waived for this particular award.
Sec. 302. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used to--
(1) develop or implement a workforce restructuring plan
that covers employees of the Department of Energy; or
(2) provide enhanced severance payments or other benefits
for employees of the Department of Energy, under section 3161
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1993 (Public Law 102-484; 42 U.S.C. 7274h).
Sec. 303. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used to augment the funds made available for obligation by
this Act for severance payments and other benefits and
community assistance grants under section 3161 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993
(Public Law 102-484; 42 U.S.C. 7274h) unless the Department
of Energy submits a reprogramming request to the appropriate
congressional committees.
Sec. 304. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used to prepare or initiate Requests For Proposals (RFPs) for
a program if the program has not been funded by Congress.
(transfers of unexpended balances)
Sec. 305. The unexpended balances of prior appropriations
provided for activities in this Act may be transferred to
appropriation accounts for such activities established
pursuant to this title. Balances so transferred may be merged
with funds in the applicable established accounts and
thereafter may be accounted for as one fund for the same time
period as originally enacted.
Sec. 306. None of the funds in this or any other Act for
the Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration may
be used to enter into any agreement to perform energy
efficiency services outside the legally defined Bonneville
service territory, with the exception of services provided
internationally, including services provided on a
reimbursable basis, unless the Administrator certifies in
advance that such services are not available from private
sector businesses.
Sec. 307. When the Department of Energy makes a user
facility available to universities or other potential users,
or seeks input from universities or other potential users
regarding significant characteristics or equipment in a user
facility or a proposed user facility, the Department shall
ensure broad public notice of such availability or such need
for input to universities and other potential users. When the
Department of Energy considers the participation of a
university or other potential user as a formal partner in the
establishment or operation of a user facility, the Department
shall employ full and open competition in selecting such a
partner. For purposes of this section, the term ``user
facility'' includes, but is not limited to: (1) a user
facility as described in section 2203(a)(2) of the Energy
Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13503(a)(2)); (2) a National
Nuclear Security Administration Defense Programs Technology
Deployment Center/User Facility; and (3) any other
Departmental facility designated by the Department as a user
facility.
Sec. 308. The Administrator of the National Nuclear
Security Administration may authorize the manager of a
covered nuclear weapons research, development, testing or
production facility to engage in research, development, and
demonstration activities with respect to the engineering and
manufacturing capabilities at such facility in order to
maintain and enhance such capabilities at such facility:
Provided, That of the amount allocated to a covered nuclear
weapons facility each fiscal year from amounts available to
the Department of Energy for such fiscal year for national
security programs, not more than an amount equal to 2 percent
of such amount may be used for these activities: Provided
further, That for purposes of this section, the term
``covered nuclear weapons facility'' means the following:
(1) the Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri;
(2) the Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee;
(3) the Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas;
(4) the Savannah River Plant, South Carolina; and
(5) the Nevada Test Site.
Sec. 309. Funds appropriated by this or any other Act, or
made available by the transfer of funds in this Act, for
intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically
authorized by the Congress for purposes of section 504 of the
National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal
year 2006 until the enactment of the Intelligence
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006.
Sec. 310. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to select a site for the Modern Pit Facility during
fiscal year 2006.
Sec. 311. None of the funds made available in title III of
this Act shall be for the Department of Energy national
laboratories and production plants for Laboratory Directed
Research and Development (LDRD), Plant Directed Research and
Development (PDRD), and Site Directed Research and
Development (SDRD) activities in excess of $250,000,000.
Sec. 312. None of the funds made available in title III of
this Act shall be for Department of Energy Laboratory
Directed Research and Development (LDRD), Plant Directed
Research and Development (PDRD), and Site Directed Research
and Development (SDRD) activities for project costs incurred
as Indirect Costs by Major Facility Operating Contractors.
Sec. 313. None of the funds made available in title III of
this Act may be used to finance laboratory directed research
and development activities at Department of Energy
laboratories on behalf of other Federal agencies.
Sec. 314. None of the funds made available to the
Department of Energy under this Act shall be used to
implement or finance authorized price support or loan
guarantee programs unless specific provision is made for such
programs in an appropriations Act.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to that portion of the bill?
Amendment Offered by Mrs. Biggert
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mrs. Biggert:
Page 40, line 20, through 41, line 9, strike sections 311
and 312.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert.)
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment would strike from the bill two provisions that would
limit the amount of money available for a very important activity at
our national laboratories, laboratory-directed research and
development, or LDRD, as it is known.
I first want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Energy and
Water Subcommittee for his willingness to work with me on this issue.
[[Page 11059]]
While I have agreed to withdraw the amendment if the chairman agrees to
work with me in the future on refining the execution of the LDRD
efforts, I want to take this opportunity to address the merits of LDRD.
As the Chair of the Science Subcommittee on Energy, I am a strong
supporter of LDRD. In my experience, LDRD has been well managed, is
important for both scientific discovery and scientific recruiting, and
has a record of producing interesting and innovative ideas.
The history of science abounds with examples of discoveries that came
about while a scientist was attempting to answer a totally different
question. LDRD provides funds to laboratory directors to pursue new
ideas and give scientists the resources to go where the discoveries
lead them.
So what are some of these new ideas that have emerged from LDRD work?
Well, what has LDRD done for us? To cite just two examples, LDRD
projects led to a discovery that allows geologists to model ore
deposits in three dimensions. This model is now also being used to
assess and plan the remediation of chemical and radioactive waste at
DOD sites.
One LDRD project set out to reduce the size of a device that produces
concentrated neutron beams for use in the biological and material
science. After 9/11, scientists realized such a compact neutron source
might be the only practical means of probing large freight containers
for highly dangerous nuclear material and other contraband.
These examples show that in DOE's core missions in energy, in
security and in science, LDRD is making important contributions.
In short, LDRD projects represent cutting-edge science, are well
managed, are essential to recruiting, and perhaps most importantly,
produce results for the American people. It is for these reasons, Mr.
Chairman, that I am concerned about efforts to overly constrain LDRD at
the Nation's scientific laboratories.
Will the chairman engage me in a brief colloquy?
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. HOBSON. I would be happy to.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, will you pledge to work with me to
improve and refine these programs in a way that preserves the valuable
contributions that LDRD makes to the science in this country?
Mr. HOBSON. I appreciate the concerns that you have expressed and,
frankly, it would be my pleasure to work with you going forward to
perfect these provisions as we move into conference.
{time} 1915
Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the chairman and I look forward to working with
the chairman. I thank him for his cooperation.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Illinois?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE IV
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Appalachian Regional Commission
For expenses necessary to carry out the programs authorized
by the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, as
amended, for necessary expenses for the Federal Co-Chairman
and the alternate on the Appalachian Regional Commission, for
payment of the Federal share of the administrative expenses
of the Commission, including services as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 3109, and hire of passenger motor vehicles,
$38,500,000, to remain available until expended.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis) for
purposes of a colloquy.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address the
inadequacy of funds appropriated for the construction and repair of our
lock and dam system.
First, I would like to commend the chairman and the ranking member
for their work on the fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water Appropriations
bill. Their efficient and bipartisan work is commendable.
This bill is a significant step in the right direction. However, the
funding levels to maintain our working waterways remain insufficient.
Freight transportation on our Nation's waterways is essential to the
health of our economy. In 2003 the total waterborne commerce in the
United States accounted for more than 2.3 trillion short tons. This
system is the fundamental backbone of our energy industry and waterways
carry 20 percent of America's coal, enough to produce 10 percent of all
electricity used in the United States annually.
Almost one-third of the total tonnage transported over water is
petroleum and petro-chemical products.
A functioning waterway network is also essential to our farmers.
Sixty percent of all U.S. grain exports travel our inland waterways,
and their ability to use our waterways is an essential component for
the price competitiveness for our farmers in the international market.
The waterway transportation industry is a cost-effective and
environmentally friendly component of our inter-modal freight system. A
single towboat can move the same amount of cargo as 180 rail cars or
1,440 trucks. One does not require an environmental science degree to
understand the pollution impact benefit of numbers like that.
The lock and dam systems are the keys to the viability of our
waterway network. The infrastructure on the Ohio and Mississippi rivers
is well beyond its design life. This network is hindered by
deterioration, unre-
liability, and inefficiency. Waterway transportation is paralyzed when
locks fail or are closed.
Repeated congressional neglect of sufficient funding levels in the
operations and maintenance, general investigations and construction
accounts has resulted in exponential increases in unscheduled lock
closures. Since 1991 we have experienced a 110 percent increase in
closure hours. The closure of a single lock creates a ripple effect
that affects the entire system. Over the last 2 years, closures on the
Ohio River have cost the Nation's economy incalculable millions of
dollars.
Last year the Corps of Engineers was forced to close the McAlpine
Lock and Dam. During that 2-week period, traffic on the Ohio River was
effectively halted. The closure was announced roughly 2 months ahead of
time. In anticipation of the closure, a West Virginia aluminum company
whose supply was dependent on the river network began laying-off
employees.
The most recent closure of the Greenup Lock and Dam cost waterways
operators $12 million in lost business. Utility companies incurred $15
million in costs to make last-minute alternate arrangements to keep
power plants online. I assure my colleagues that the closure cost our
economy significantly more than $27 million.
I am pleased that this appropriations bill provides full and
efficient funding for the McAlpine Lock and Dam project in fiscal year
2006. The fiscal year 2005 Energy and Water Appropriations bill does
not include any funding for the Greenup Lock and Dam. The Water
Resources Development Act of 2000 authorized the Greenup Lock and Dam
project. The Greenup Lock and Dam is approaching the same level of
disrepair I described with respect to the McAlpine Lock and Dam.
73.7 million tons of commerce worth almost $9.6 billion transited the
Greenup Lock in 2001. Sixty-two percent of that tonnage was coal. By
2010, the annual tonnage is expected to exceed 91 million tons.
The 2000 Interim Feasibility Report recommended that the Greenup Lock
and Dam project be complete by 2008. Because this appropriations bill
does not include any funds for the Greenup Lock and Dam, no work will
be accomplished on that project for an entire year. Every year of
insufficient funding results in increased risk of closures and makes
the entire project more expensive.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert)
for purposes of a colloquy.
[[Page 11060]]
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, would the distinguished chairman of the
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Committee on
Appropriations engage in a colloquy with me about some provisions and
programs in this bill that fall under the jurisdiction of the Committee
on Science?
Mr. HOBSON. Yes.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Under the bill, the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative,
or NERI, would no longer operate as a separate program. NERI was
targeted at university research which is a vital source of innovative
ideas on nuclear energy. Is it the gentleman's intention that the
Department of Energy continue to fund university research on nuclear
energy even though NERI will no longer exist?
Mr. HOBSON. I share the gentlewoman's views on the importance of
university research. The committee expects the Nuclear Energy Research
Programs to set aside a portion of their funds for university research.
The committee will be monitoring the programs, as I am sure you will
also, to be sure that the funding is continuing in support of the
university research.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman.
Lastly, I would like the gentleman to clarify some language related
to the FutureGen project on page 20 of the bill. The language states
that the Department should manage FutureGen ``without regard to the
terms and conditions applicable to clean coal technology projects.''
My understanding is that the phrase is intended only to apply to
cost-sharing requirements. In fact, the phrase is unnecessary because
the cost-sharing requirements for FutureGen are spelled out in the two
provisos that immediately follow on page 20. Is my understanding
correct?
Mr. HOBSON. The gentlewoman is correct. Our intention is to waive
only the cost-sharing requirements for clean coal technological
projects for FutureGen, and the cost-sharing requirements that are
intended to operate instead are also on page 20.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman, and I thank him for his time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt).
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, earlier I entered into a colloquy with the
chairman, and he was good enough to clarify for me some parts of this
committee report that are important to me. I would like to further
build a context on which my concerns were built.
In this committee report accompanying the bill, there is directive
language at pages 122 and 123 and 124 that can be taken to amend the
explicit terms of existing laws. And the laws at issue, which the
report language could be construed to change, of the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act and possibly even the National Environmental Policy Act,
both carefully wrought, are both vitally important. I do not think it
is the intention of the committee report to change the laws because I
do not think it can but nevertheless it makes some strong
recommendations.
The committee report laments the latest delays at Yucca Mountain. The
start-up date has slipped again, this time from 2010 to 2012. The
committee, to its credit, with the chairman's strong support, funds
Yucca Mountain at the requested levels, I think we should, $651 million
for fiscal year 2006; and I commend you for that and finds this
sufficient to do the engineering work, continue the license
application, continue the design work.
I have an interest in this because I represent four nuclear reactors,
and I live in an area where nuclear generation accounts for 50 percent
of our electricity. My constituents pay one mil per kilowatt per hour
to fund a permanent waste facility, and they and the others who pay
this assessment deserve to have their money spent well and used solely
for that purpose, a spent fuel repository. The chairman has assured me
wholeheartedly that he wants to see, too, that that end is
accomplished.
But Yucca Mountain in the words of the report ``recedes into the
future.'' I am concerned if we open up new options, even expedients
like interim storage, and if we use the Nuclear Waste Fund to pay for
these options, then Yucca Mountain will keep on receding into the
future.
This report proposes a concerted initiative. It is a bold proposal
for interim storage of spent fuel and for reprocessing of spent fuel.
These are ideas that have been considered in the past, but abandoned.
The committee brings them back to life, provides some funding; but it
is only a tiny fraction of what these facilities are going to cost. So
you cannot avoid the concern that some, if not all, of this money may
come from the Nuclear Waste Fund at the expense of Yucca Mountain.
I have this concern because Savannah River Site is among the specific
sites singled out as a candidate for interim storage. I become more
concerned when I read the report which says: ``The committee directs
the Department to begin the movement of spent fuel to centralized
interim storage at one or more DOE sites within fiscal year 2006.''
That is next year.
If this is taken literally, I do not see how they can possibly
prepare an EIS. That is why I was saying that the report would almost
override the National Environmental Policy Act. There is no way they
can finish an EIS on a matter of such importance in a year.
The report recognizes that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act applies to
these matters. For example, the report recognizes that the NWPA borrows
an interim storage facility at the same location as the permanent
repository, Yucca Mountain, and yields to that law by proposing that
the storage facility be sited elsewhere.
In another place, the report calls for a plan of implementation
within 120 days. Here again, it anticipates that legislative changes
may be necessary to execute the plan by asking DOE to submit them.
In these respects, the committee report supports my point that
explicit law cannot be amended or overridden by report language. But in
pushing for an interim storage facility, the report is on the collision
course with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act because it abandoned the idea
of interim storage in 1990 by sunsetting the law that passed it. In its
place it authorized a retrievable storage facility, but only after
Yucca Mountain is licensed.
So these were my concerns. These were the reasons for asking for the
colloquy and asking for the clarification. I have problems with interim
storage, and I have problems with reprocessing fuel. But I support the
chairman in his endeavor to see Yucca Mountain finished, and I also
support the chairman in his quest to see that nuclear power is able to
make a comeback, because I think it has a role in our energy future.
That is the reason I asked for clarification, to make sure that the
committee was not pushing the envelope and overriding the statutory law
on pages 122, 123, and 124, which struck me as more than just report
boiler plate.
I appreciate the confirmation, the clarification from the committee
chairman and for all of his other efforts in bringing together this
bill. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me to make this
clarification.
Mr. Barrett and I have an amendment, but before I explain it, let me
explain why I am offering it.
There is a longstanding rule of this House against legislating policy
on an appropriation bill, but it's honored in the breach. In the case
of this bill, the committee report contains directive language at pages
122, 123, and 124 that can be taken to amend the explicit terms of
existing law. And the laws at issue, which the report language could be
construed to change, are the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and the National
Environmental Policy Act, both carefully wrought laws, and both vitally
important.
The committee report laments the latest delays at Yucca Mountain. The
start-up date has slipped again, this time from 2010 to 2012. The
committee, to its credit, funds Yucca Mountain at the requested level,
$651 million for fiscal year 2006, and finds this sufficient to do the
engineering work in support of the license application and to continue
the design work.
I represent 4 nuclear reactors and live in an area where nuclear
generation accounts for
[[Page 11061]]
fifty percent of our electricity. My constituents pay 1 mil per
kilowatt hour to fund a permanent waste facility, and they and others
who pay this assessment deserve to have their money spent well and used
solely for the intended purpose: a spent fuel repository.
But Yucca Mountain, in the words of the report, ``recedes into the
future.'' And I am concerned that if we open new options, even
expedients like interim storage, and if we use the Nuclear Waste Fund
to pay for these options, Yucca Mountain will keep on receding.
That's why I am concerned about this report. It proposes ``a
concerted initiative'' (1) for interim storage of spent fuel and (2)
for reprocessing spent fuel. These are ideas that have been considered
in the past and discarded; but the committee report resurrects them,
with a token addition of funds that is the tip of an iceberg, a tiny
fraction of what these facilities will cost. One cannot avoid the
concern that some, if not all, of this money will come from the Nuclear
Waste Fund, at the expense of Yucca Mountain.
I have this concern because Savannah River Site is among the sites
singled out as a candidate for interim storage. I become even more
concerned when I read report language which says: ``The Committee
directs the Department to begin the movement of spent fuel to
centralized interim storage at one or more DOE sites within fiscal year
2006.'' If this directive is taken literally, it will override the
National Environmental Policy Act, because it is doubtful that an
Environmental Impact Study can be finished in a year.
The report recognizes that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act applies to
these matters. For example, the report recognizes that the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act bars an interim storage facility at the same location
as the permanent repository, and yields to that law by proposing that
the storage facility be sited elsewhere. In another place, the report
calls for a plan of implementation within an incredibly short time, 120
days, and here again, the report anticipates that legislative changes
will be necessary to execute the plan by asking DOE to submit them.
In these respects, the committee report makes my point, that
explicit, longstanding law cannot be amended or overridden by report
language. But in pushing an interim storage facility, the committee
report is on a collision course with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. It
abandoned the idea of an interim storage facility in 1990 by sunsetting
the law that authorized it. In its place, the NWPA authorized
construction of a Monitored Retrievable Storage Facility only after the
completion of the license for construction of Yucca Mountain. This
means that no interim storage facility is allowed under the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act for the time being, and I do not believe that report
language can change the explicit provisions of an existing statute.
Our amendment simply points out that despite the report language,
``None of the funds made available by this Act shall be obligated or
expended in contravention of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.''
So, unless the NWPA is changed, DOE cannot move forward with interim
storage until Yucca Mountain is licensed.
What's wrong with interim storage?
Interim storage is risky because it puts spent fuel in facilities not
constructed to hold them forever, yet there is a real risk that once in
place, interim storage becomes permanent storage.
Interim storage is problematic because it could shift funds and focus
off Yucca Mountain, and stretch out its completion indefinitely.
Finally, interim storage is expensive. It's expensive to put nuclear
waste in interim storage, and even more expensive to take it out to
move it to Yucca Mountain.
How does interim storage affect you? Under the committee's report
language, anyone's district could be the next nuclear waste storage
facility. If you have a DOE site, a closed military base, or any other
federally owned site, your district could be a candidate to store
nuclear waste.
So, pages 122, 123, and 124 of the committee report are more than the
usual boilerplate. To clarify their effect, I asked the distinguished
Chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee if he would engage in a
colloquy, and he confirmed that the committee ``provided our guidance
only in report language;'' and with that assurance, I withdrew our
amendment.
Amendment to 2419, as Reported Offered by Mr. Spratt of South Carolina
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
Sec. 503. None of the funds made available by this Act
shall be obligated or expended in contravention of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board in carrying out activities authorized by the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended by Public Law 100-456,
section 1441, $22,032,000, to remain available until
expended.
Delta Regional Authority
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Delta Regional Authority and
to carry out its activities, as authorized by the Delta
Regional Authority Act of 2000, as amended, notwithstanding
sections 382C(b)(2), 382F(d), and 382M(b) of said Act,
$6,000,000, to remain available until expended.
Denali Commission
For expenses of the Denali Commission, $2,562,000, to
remain available until expended.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Commission in carrying out
the purposes of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as
amended, and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,
including official representation expenses (not to exceed
$15,000), and purchase of promotional items for use in the
recruitment of individuals for employment, $714,376,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That of the amount
appropriated herein, $66,717,000 shall be derived from the
Nuclear Waste Fund: Provided further, That revenues from
licensing fees, inspection services, and other services and
collections estimated at $580,643,000 in fiscal year 2006
shall be retained and used for necessary salaries and
expenses in this account, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and
shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That
the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced by the amount of
revenues received during fiscal year 2006 so as to result in
a final fiscal year 2006 appropriation estimated at not more
than $133,732,600: Provided further, That section 6101 of the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 is amended by
inserting before the period in subsection (c)(2)(B)(v) the
words ``and fiscal year 2006''.
Office of Inspector General
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended, $8,316,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That revenues from licensing fees,
inspection services, and other services and collections
estimated at $7,485,000 in fiscal year 2006 shall be retained
and be available until expended, for necessary salaries and
expenses in this account, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302:
Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be
reduced by the amount of revenues received during fiscal year
2006 so as to result in a final fiscal year 2006
appropriation estimated at not more than $831,000.
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Nuclear Waste Technical
Review Board, as authorized by Public Law 100-203, section
5051, $3,608,000, to be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund,
and to remain available until expended.
TITLE V
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used in any way, directly or indirectly, to influence
congressional action on any legislation or appropriation
matters pending before Congress, other than to communicate to
Members of Congress as described in 18 U.S.C. 1913.
Sec. 502. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality
of the United States Government, except pursuant to a
transfer made by, or transfer authority provided in this Act
or any other appropriation Act.
Mr. HOBSON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the bill through page 45, line 8, be considered as read,
printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Markey
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Markey:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
Sec. 503. None of the funds made available by this Act
shall be used by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to
contract with or reimburse any Nuclear Regulatory Commission
licensee or the Nuclear Energy Institute with respect to
matters relating to the security of production facilities or
utilization facilities (within the meaning of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954).
[[Page 11062]]
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Hobson).
Mr. HOBSON. If the gentleman is agreeable, we are willing to accept
this amendment and move forward.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I am willing to accept the gentleman's
acceptance.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Boehlert
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Boehlert:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
Sec. 503. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used before March 1, 2006, to enter into an agreement
obligating the United States to contribute funds to ITER, the
international burning plasma fusion research project in which
the President announced United States participation on
January 30, 2003.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I do want to have a to-the-point and brief explanation
to this amendment because its purpose is to bring to a head an
important issue that might otherwise be overlooked.
The Department of Energy is moving ahead with negotiating U.S.
participation in ITER, the International Fusion Energy Project, which
is all to the good. I support U.S. participation in ITER, a critical
experiment that will help determine finally if fusion is a realistic
option for energy production. But ITER is expensive.
The U.S. contribution is expected to exceed $1 billion, and I want to
make sure that before we commit even one dime to ITER, we have a
consensus on how we will find that money.
The U.S. must not finalize an agreement on ITER until we have a
consensus on how to pay for it. In the meantime, the site selection and
planning process and negotiations on ITER can and should continue. But
I will do all I can to prevent the U.S. from entering into an agreement
if no one is willing to make the sacrifices necessary to pay for it.
{time} 1930
Moving ahead without consensus will mean either reneging on our
agreement or killing other worthy programs within the Office of Science
to pay the disproportionate cost of the fusion program. Let us avoid
that.
I look forward to working with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson)
and everyone concerned with this issue to build a strong and balanced
fusion program.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I share the frustration of the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Boehlert) over how the Department has proposed to
fund the International Fusion Project at the expense of domestic fusion
research, and I will support the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Filner
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Filner:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Secretary of Energy to issue, approve, or
grant any permit or other authorization for the transmission
of electric energy into the United States from a foreign
country if all or any portion of such electric energy is
generated at a power plant located within 25 miles of the
United States that does not comply with all air quality
requirements that would be applicable to such plant if it
were located in the air quality region in the United States
that is nearest to such power plant.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Filner) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I understand the point of order, and I appreciate the
advice he gave me yesterday, and I will just take a few minutes today
to make some important points regarding our border communities.
This should be a simple and common-sense amendment to protect the air
quality in border States without adding or subtracting appropriations
from a single account in this bill. The amendment simply requires that
power plants in northern Mexico that want to transmit electricity into
the United States must meet U.S. air quality standards. Pretty simple.
Many communities in border States, including many in my district (I
represent the whole California-Mexico border) are literally under siege
from air and water pollution from northern Mexico. Companies that wish
to avoid American environmental regulations, but want to meet our
energy needs in California and other southwestern States, are building
power plants in Mexico directly across the border from American
communities. Yet many of these power plants do not have to meet any of
the American regulations, even though they are in the same air basins
as towns on the U.S. side of the border.
For example, companies that recently built power plants in Mexicali,
which is right across the border from the Imperial County of California
that I represent, have not funded any road paving projects and other
clean air efforts that would be required to offset their pollution if
they were a mere 3 miles to the north. In a place like Imperial County,
which is plagued by the highest childhood asthma rates in the Nation,
and limited public resources, these offset projects are needed to
mitigate the public health problems that are worsened by the power
plants.
While the Mexicali plants have largely brought their emissions into
compliance in response to this Congress' pressure, they have refused to
pay for any mitigation projects. The Department of Energy, which
acknowledges that Imperial Valley is in the same geographical air basin
as the power plants in Mexico, have turned their backs on the residents
of Southern California and approved the permits without requiring the
companies to pave the dusty dirt roads or implement other clean air
projects that would offset their pollution. The Department had the
information and opportunity, but apparently did not feel obligated to
fully protect clean air in Imperial County.
I believe the Department should be obligated to require offsets
because there are a dozen more power plants in northern Mexico on line
right now. These power plants are now under no obligation to meet any
U.S. standards despite sharing air basins with American communities.
My amendment does not interfere with the Mexican Government's right
to regulate pollution; instead, it prohibits the Department of Energy
from using funds in this bill to issue permits
[[Page 11063]]
for the transmission of electricity into the U.S.
I urge adoption of this important clean air amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Cuellar), the cosponsor of this amendment.
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this
time, and I appreciate that we talked yesterday with the chairman about
this particular amendment, but if he would just allow us to make a
particular statement. I appreciate the time the chairman gave us, and I
understand his point of order.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment helps to raise the clean air standards
on the border. I am from Laredo, Texas, on the border. And if you would
just take the border region and make it a particular State, you would
see that it is one of the fastest growing parts of the country, and it
is one of the poorest parts of the whole country. If the border region
was its own State, it would rank last in access to health care, second
worst in death from hepatitis, last in per capita income, and first in
the number of schoolchildren living in poverty.
Air quality in the border region is just as important as in any other
metropolitan area in the country. This particular amendment would help
boost air quality by requiring sellers of electricity from the Mexican
side to protect the consumers on the American side. We expect nothing
less than corporate responsibility from our friends in the domestic
corporations, and we expect the same stewardship from foreign companies
that have a direct impact on our communities.
We live in a world that increasingly requires us to cooperate across
the border to solve problems. Trade, commerce, and economic activity do
not stop at the border, and the environmental problems that sometimes
accompany economic growth do not stop at the border.
In conclusion, this amendment recognizes the simple truth that the
border region is a community and that air pollution affects all the
region's residents, American and Mexican alike.
Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues for their time and just ask that
the chairman consider this particular amendment.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that I understand the
point of order, and I appreciate the gentleman's advice and I hope he
will stay interested in this topic.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Jones of North Carolina
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Jones of North Carolina:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
Sec. __. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by reducing the amount made available for
``DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Departmental Administration'' and
increasing the amount made available for ``CORPS OF
ENGINEERS--CIVIL--Operation and Maintenance'', by
$20,000,000.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume, and I first would like to say to the chairman and the
ranking member, thank you very much for your work on this bill and for
the opportunity to offer this amendment tonight.
Mr. Chairman, I represent a coastal area of North Carolina, and many
of my colleagues, both Republican and Democrat, do the same throughout
the United States of America. What this amendment does is to, in my
opinion, provide a small, meaningful increase to the Corps of
Engineers' operation and maintenance budget of $20 million. It would be
offset by taking $20 million from the administration at the Department
of Energy.
Mr. Chairman, our coastal areas are in deep trouble throughout
America. Not just my district, but I can tell you that the waterways
are so critical to the economic importance of these counties and States
in North Carolina and throughout the United States of America that we
need to remember that those people who make their living off the
waterways are just like every other American, they are in need of every
dollar they can make.
My district says to me, Mr. Chairman, when we can find $6.5 billion,
not from this bill now, I want to make that clear, but we have spent
$6.5 billion in Iraq with the Corps of Engineers, and then my taxpayers
say to me and to the gentleman from Indiana, why can we not get a
little bit of help?
So this is a modest amendment, Mr. Chairman.
I understand the gentleman's opposition to it, but I can honestly
tell you that the waterways of America are the economic engines for the
coastal districts of America, and not just North Carolina. And, to me,
to be able to take just $20 million and do a little bit of good is
better than not having the $20 million. And I know the gentleman from
Ohio and the gentleman from Indiana did try the best they could,
knowing we are in a tight budget year.
Mr. Chairman, I have heard from other Members who support this
amendment, and let me say the amendment is also supported by the
American Shore and Beach Preservation Association and the Congressional
Waterways Caucus. We believe sincerely that this modest reduction
within the Department of Energy will mean a whole lot to the people who
pay the taxes.
I do not know of anybody in Iraq that is paying taxes to help the
American people, so I think it is time that the American people who pay
the taxes get a little bit of help.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina and I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment cuts $20 million from the Department of
Energy's departmental administration account and adds $20 million to
the Corps of Engineers' operation and maintenance account.
This bill currently provides $253 million for the Department of
Energy's departmental administration account for fiscal year 2006, and
the committee recommendation is a cut of $26 million from the request.
The gentleman's amendment would further reduce appropriations from the
Department of Energy's salaries and expenses $5 million below the
current-year enacted level. Cuts of this magnitude will require
reductions in staff at the Department of Energy. Government employees
may potentially be RIF'd for a period of time.
The amendment also seeks to add $20 million to the corps' operation
and maintenance account, for which the committee recommendation
includes $2 billion. The amendment, if adopted, would have the effect
of increasing funding for operation and maintenance by 1 percent.
Frankly, I sympathize with the gentleman. Funding needs are great,
but the resources we have are limited. The corps cannot, and we cannot,
spend money we do not have. We need to ensure that the funds that are
provided to the corps are expended efficiently, consistent with the law
and on the projects we appropriate.
I would like to point out to the gentleman that the bill provides
$12.4 million in operation and maintenance funds for the projects he
has expressed an interest in. In the past, the corps was able to
reprogram these funds and use them on other projects. In addition, the
corps would take ratable reductions against projects in the name of
savings and slippage and use those funds on other purposes, not this
year, as the bill includes reprogramming limitations and eliminates
savings and slippage.
So while the gentleman may believe the funds provided in this bill
are insufficient, I can assure him that the
[[Page 11064]]
funds provided in this act will be used for those projects and not
siphoned off for other uses.
I would suggest the gentleman withdraw the amendment. Failing that, I
would oppose the amendment.
I also might point out that in the gentleman's district there is a
total of, in North Carolina in O&M, there is $38 million put into this
bill. With the limited resources that we have, I think the State did
pretty well.
I will fight with the administration, for example, for the beach
renourishment, for which they do not put anything in. But we do in the
House and we have supported that because I do believe that that is an
economic tool that the States need.
But at this point I would have to oppose the amendment and urge it
not be adopted, but I would hope the gentleman would withdraw the
amendment. Hopefully, next year, we will get a better allocation and we
will do a better job on some of these things.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) has 2\1/
2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) has 2\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume to say to the gentleman from Ohio that he has been
very helpful, and I realize it is a tight money situation, but let me
share with the gentlemen from Ohio, as well as Indiana, that last year
I had the Marine Corps down in Camp Lejeune call me in my office and
say, We need your help. We cannot train our Marines, who have been
asked by this administration to go to Afghanistan and Iraq.
If the corps had not had a little bit of extra money to do some
dredging that was absolutely necessary in New River Inlet, which is in
Jacksonville, North Carolina, the home of Camp Lejeune, the Marines
would not have been training.
Again, I respect the gentlemen greatly on both sides, but I am going
to, at the proper time, ask for a recorded vote on this. I will say
that I feel that I owe this not just to my district, but to the States
in the United States that have waterways and have the needs that we
have in North Carolina. Because it is not just North Carolina; there
are many other States.
And, Mr. Chairman, I will just close by saying that I respect and
appreciate the help I have received, and I hope next year will be a
better budget year. But this year my State, as well as the other 49
States which have the harbors and inlets, are in desperate need and we
need all the help we can get.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I respect the remarks and the impetus
behind the gentleman's amendment, but would add my voice to the
chairman's in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote,
and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Jones) will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
{time} 1945
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Stupak
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Stupak:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
Sec. 503. None of the funds made available by this Act
shall be used to accept deliveries of petroleum products to
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Hobson) each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, let me thank the chairman and the ranking member for their
hard work on this legislation. This amendment here is the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve amendment.
Basically, it says no funds made available by this act shall be used
to accept deliveries of petroleum products to the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve. When we did the energy bill, and I sit on the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, our amendment was made in order and was accepted
by the committee. Our amendment then was a little more detailed. It
said there would be no oil going into SPR until the cost of a barrel of
oil dropped below $44 for 2 consecutive weeks under the New York Stock
Exchange.
If we put that triggering provision into this amendment, there would
have been a point of order and this amendment would have been accepted
under the rules of the House. Therefore, we have changed it and said no
more delivery of petroleum products to the SPR fund. So I am joined by
the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Bishop) to support this amendment.
When I go back to my district, many of my constituents express their
concern with rising gasoline prices. I suspect most Members are hearing
the same thing when they go home to their own districts. In an already
fiscally constrained economy, these high gasoline prices yield yet
another burden to America's families' already-tight purse strings.
The high cost of gasoline and oil has long been a problem and one
that Congress has long grappled with. Today, oil is hovering around $49
a barrel which some experts predict could spike as high as $60 a barrel
this summer.
With Memorial Day just around the corner, we are seeing prices at the
pump reaching over $2 a gallon, with some parts of the country seeing
prices as high as $2.44 a gallon. How high does the price have to go
and for how long before we take action?
It is no secret, there are no quick fixes or easy fixes when it comes
to the problem of high gasoline and oil prices; but there is no reason
to continue filling the SPR with petroleum products when our economy is
suffering due to sky-high oil and gas prices. The suspension of oil
delivery to the SPR would put additional barrels of oil out into the
world market to stabilize the world's oil supply and provide some
relief at the pump to our consumers.
To continue filling the SPR sends the wrong message to the American
public who continues to struggle because of these record-breaking gas
prices, and it does nothing to help reduce the skyrocketing prices at
the pump. It just does not make economic sense to add more pressure to
what we all know is a very tight oil market when the effect is creating
even higher gas prices for consumers here at home.
Finally, suspending the filling of the SPR does not hurt our energy
security. The reserve is already filled to 95 percent capacity. It has
approximately 695 million barrels that are now in storage. That is the
highest it has ever been in our Nation's history. I urge my colleagues
to support this amendment that will take pressure off the price of a
barrel of oil and hopefully at the gas pump at home.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentleman's amendment. The capacity of the
strategic petroleum reserve is 727 million barrels. By August of 2005,
the President's direction of 700 million barrels will be achieved.
[[Page 11065]]
The 2006 Presidential budget does not request additional barrels to
be contracted. However, should the President determine in 2006, for
reasons of national and economic security, to increase the supply of
oil for the reserve, this amendment could prevent that.
One cannot predict the future, if there will be a national emergency
to release the oil from the reserve, or a need to contract for more.
This amendment unnecessarily restricts the President from acting in a
time of national need by setting an arbitrary limitation on the use of
funds. Last year after hurricanes ravaged the Gulf of Mexico, there was
a disruption in production at individual refineries. DOE made a short-
term loan of 5.4 million barrels of oil to refiners that had a
shortened supply of feed stock. If the Stupak amendment was in place at
that time, these loans would not have happened because the oil would
not be able to be repaid back to the reserve.
I do not think that we want to be in the business of restricting
emergency powers only to make a statement on the price of oil today.
Therefore, I oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Stupak/Bishop/
Sanders amendment and commend them for bringing this important
amendment to the floor.
Before speaking on it, though, I want to commend the gentleman from
Ohio (Chairman Hobson) of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water for the
very dignified way the gentleman has dealt with the legislation, and to
commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), our ranking member
on the subcommittee. They strive to work in a very bipartisan way on
this important legislation.
I rise in support of the Stupak/Bishop/Sanders amendment, which, as
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) has explained, would
immediately stop the filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve while
gas prices are so high.
Mr. Chairman, all over the country people are crying out for relief
at the rising price at the pump. Small businesses and families are
feeling the pinch, and the consequences are very substantial. Under
current estimates, a family of four will spend $423 more on gasoline
this year than last year and almost $800 more than 2 years ago.
Consumers have paid the price for rising prices over the last year. Gas
prices have remained at record levels for the past 2 months at over
$2.12 per gallon nationwide with some States, my own State, the State
of California, more than $2.53 a gallon.
This means that gas prices have risen 35 cents per gallon since the
beginning of the year. The Department of Energy predicts that gas
prices could average over $2.25 nationwide this summer. The Department
of Energy also has said, their report also has said that the energy
bill passed by this House a few weeks ago would increase the price at
the pump.
Imagine that we are legislating on the floor of Congress measures
that would increase the price at the pump instead of giving consumers
the relief that they need. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak),
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), and the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Sanders) have a better idea.
This idea, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) explained,
would stop filling the SPR so more oil was in the market, supply
increases, and then the price should go down. This is what happened
when it was done before.
When President Clinton was President, they released oil from the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve in 2000 and gas prices were reduced by 14
cents a gallon, $6 a barrel. When President Bush released Strategic
Petroleum Reserve oil in 1991, the price of oil per barrel dropped $10.
There was bipartisan support for this in the Senate in March 2004,
and in the House in 2004 bipartisan initiatives urging the President to
suspend oil deliveries in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This has
worked for us before, whether it was releasing oil from the reserve or
stopping oil from coming into the reserve.
Under current estimates, a family of four would pay so much more. As
Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com said recently, ``Each 1-cent
increase in gasoline costs consumers $1 billion a year.''
It is no wonder that gas prices are the top concern of the American
people, and record gas prices are starting to have a ripple effect in
the economy. The airline and trucking industries are feeling the pinch.
For 5 years, Republicans in Congress have pursued an energy policy to
give away billions of dollars in subsidies to special interests that
are already profiting from record-high gas prices. They have turned
Washington into an oil and gas town when this is supposed to be the
city of innovation, of fresh new thinking and ideas about our energy
policy and the impact it has on the pocketbooks of the American people
and on the environment and the air they breathe.
The President's own Department of Energy found the provisions in the
energy bill actually increased the price of gasoline 3 cents, and our
dependence on foreign oil is projected to increase 85 percent under the
proposed policies of President Bush. During consideration of the energy
bill, Democrats offered an amendment by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Bishop) that called on the President to immediately urge OPEC to
increase oil production and also to stop the filling of the SPR. It
would have taken steps to protect the American people from price
gouging and unfair practices at the gasoline pump and increased public
information on prices. Unfortunately, the amendment failed.
How do Members figure that amendment would fail when it was in the
interest of America's consumers? Well, if the public interest is not
served and the special interest is, then it would follow that the
consumer is not served. But we have another chance today. I urge my
colleagues to support the amendment by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Stupak), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), and the gentleman
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) to immediately stop filling of the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve while gas prices are so high. Give the American
consumer a break; vote for this important amendment.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Sanders), a cosponsor of this amendment.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, congratulate the gentleman for his leadership, and thank the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for her support, and concur
with the gentlewoman's remarks.
Mr. Chairman, all over this country, the people are asking a simple
question: When will the United States Congress stand up and protect
those workers in Vermont and all over this country who are spending
hundreds and hundreds of dollars a year more at the gas pump?
Our Republican friends talk about tax breaks given to people. Those
tax breaks have been eaten up many times over by people who are forced
to pay outrageously high prices in order to get to work. This affects
not only people in rural States like Vermont. It affects small
businesses, farmers, the airline industry, the trucking industry; and,
in fact, nobody denies it is affecting our entire economy. When is
Congress going to stand up?
Meanwhile, while working people are paying more and more to fill up
their gas tanks, the large oil industry corporations are reaping
record-breaking profits.
I think it is about time that we started paying attention to the
American worker and we did something, at least right now, to lower the
cost of gas at the pump.
As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi) mentioned, this is not a new idea. In fact, it
is not a partisan idea. This is a concept that has been supported by
Democrats and
[[Page 11066]]
by many Republicans. It has been supported by the first President Bush
and by former President Clinton.
Specifically, this amendment would suspend oil deliveries to the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This is what President Bush did in 1991,
what President Clinton did in 2000. This action would have the very
immediate impact of lowering gas prices in America now.
Mr. Chairman, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve currently contains
about 693 million barrels and the administration is pushing to increase
that number to over 700 million barrels.
Today, approximately 72,000 barrels of oil per day are still being
added to the SPR, over 2 million barrels per month. This amendment
would suspend these oil deliveries and put this oil back on the market
which could lead to lower prices immediately upon its implementation.
{time} 2000
It would also keep gas prices down by making sure the government is
not competing against consumers in the marketplace at a time when gas
prices are so high.
Mr. Chairman, extrapolating from at least three economic studies done
by Goldman Sachs, the largest crude oil trader in the world, the Air
Transport Association, and petroleum economist Phillip Verleger, the
estimate is, by releasing some 15 million barrels from SPR, we could
reduce gasoline prices at the pump by 10 to 25 cents per gallon. By
voting for this amendment today, we will be sending a very strong
message to the President and that is, Mr. President, release oil from
SPR right now.
Mr. Chairman, in the spring of 2002 when the price of gas was
starting to increase, the staff at the Department of Energy recommended
against buying more oil for SPR. DOE staff said, ``Commercial
inventories are low, retail prices are high, and economic growth is
slow. The government should avoid acquiring oil for the reserve under
these circumstances.''
Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned earlier, there is bipartisan support for
this concept. The time is now for the United States Congress to listen
to those working people in the State of Vermont and elsewhere who have
to travel 100 miles back and forth to work each day. That is not
uncommon in this country.
These workers, who are seeing in many cases a real decline in their
wages, need help. It seems to me that at a time when the profits of the
oil industry are soaring, when workers are struggling to keep their
heads above water, when the price of gas is soaring, now is the time
for us to act and act immediately.
I would hope we would have strong support from both sides of the
aisle for this important amendment.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Bishop), a cosponsor of this amendment.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time and I thank him for his leadership on this important
issue.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to rise as a cosponsor of the Sanders-
Stupak-Bishop amendment which will restrict funding in the
appropriations bill from being used to add more oil to the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve. Today, our Nation faces exorbitant energy costs, and
taxpayers continue to suffer sticker shock at the gas pumps.
As a front page article in today's Wall Street Journal reported, we
have seen a recent decrease in the cost of oil, but compared to 1 year
ago, gas prices on average are still 6 cents higher per gallon, diesel
fuel is up $1.75, and jet fuel is up nearly 50 percent. Congress can
and must do more to help stabilize the price of fuel.
The energy bill recently passed by the House failed to address these
cost increases. In fact, some reports state that the cost of fuel may
actually increase between 5 and 8 cents per gallon due to provisions in
that legislation. That may not sound like a lot, but for a middle-class
family, already struggling to keep up with rising tuition, health care
costs and saving for retirement, this increase in gas prices will add
up very quickly.
Today's Journal also reports that other experts estimate that the
cost of oil may spike again to as high as $60 per barrel. I offered an
amendment to the energy bill that would have prevented that increase,
although it was not incorporated into the House-passed bill.
Mr. Chairman, as we approach one of the most heavily trafficked
holiday weekends of the year, let us act now to do something positive
for American families. By restricting funds used to store petroleum in
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and in consideration of other market
factors, we can realize a drop in the cost of oil of between $6 and $11
a barrel.
In 2001, President Bush ordered the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to be
filled to a capacity of 700 million barrels. The Reserve currently
holds 692 million barrels, nearly 99 percent of the President's goal.
Thus, I believe now is the time to temporarily suspend funding for the
Reserve and offer the American people a break at the pumps.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Sanders-Stupak-
Bishop amendment.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak)
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Stupak
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Stupak:
At the end of the bill (before the Short Title), insert the
following:
Sec. _. None of the funds made available in this Act may be
used to implement a policy, proposed in the Annex V
Navigation Programs by the Corps of Engineers, to use or
consider the amount of tonnage of goods that pass through a
harbor to determine if a harbor is high-use.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to Members' attention a newly
created OMB and Army Corps of Engineers' criterion for recommending
operation and maintenance dredging of all small commercial harbors.
Unfortunately, this criterion, which is highly inadequate and unfairly
biased, will have a detrimental effect on communities in my northern
Michigan district and on a number of communities across the country.
For fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007, the corps, with the help
of OMB, has implemented new guidelines for determining whether a harbor
is considered high use and, therefore, eligible to be considered to be
funded for dredging in the President's budget.
According to the corps, in order for a commercial harbor to be
considered high use, it must now move at least 1 million tons of cargo
annually. As a result of this tonnage requirement, a number of routine
Army Corps operations and maintenance harbor dredging projects will not
be carried out this year as they were in past years. As a result,
small-town, rural America will suffer more job losses, businesses will
struggle and infrastructure could be damaged.
You only need to look at the community of Ontonagon in my district
for an example of the devastating effects this
[[Page 11067]]
policy will have. Ontonagon was taken by surprise when they were not
included in the President's budget for the first time in many years. If
this harbor is not dredged, the future of our paper company, Smurfit-
Stone Container Corporation, which relies on the harbor for coal and
limestone deliveries, and White Pine Power, a revitalized coal plant
that depends on the harbor for coal deliveries by ship for its power
generation, will be in jeopardy.
To give you an idea of how bad the silting is in this area, last year
it was dredged and it was dredged down to 19 feet. Less than a year
later, this weekend when I was at Ontonagon, it was back down to 6
feet. We lost 13 feet in less than a year because of the silt coming
down from the Mineral River. Imagine the consequences for small towns
like Ontonagon if their largest businesses are unable to receive the
goods they need to remain competitive. Rural communities already have
limited resources available to them without this added hardship.
The Army Corps must develop more appropriate requirements to
determine whether a harbor is to be included in the President's budget
for a yearly dredge. If they continue to determine whether harbors like
Ontonagon receive funding in the President's budget based primarily on
tonnage, our small commercial harbors will continue to be shortchanged,
affecting the economic livelihoods of our communities.
We need to ensure that the corps is putting forth guidelines and
policies that are as fair as possible and also reflect an appropriate
amount of transparency to the public.
Mr. Chairman, I am not going to ask for a recorded vote. In fact, I
will withdraw the amendment if I may enter into a brief colloquy with
the chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOBSON. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
For fiscal year 2006 and 2007, the Army Corps has implemented new
guidelines for determining whether a harbor is considered high use and,
therefore, eligible to be considered to be funded for dredging in the
President's budget. In order for a harbor to be considered high use, it
must move at least 1 million tons of cargo per year.
This would have severe ramifications on small, rural harbors, such as
Ontonagon Harbor in my district, which has typically been included in
the President's budget. If the harbor is not dredged, the future of our
paper company, Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation, which relies on the
harbor for coal and limestone deliveries, and White Pine Power, a
revitalized coal plant that depends on the harbor for coal deliveries
by ship for its power generation, will be in jeopardy. Without this
yearly dredge, these communities are subject to harsh floods and the
inability to receive goods they need through these harbors.
I seek assurance from the gentleman that he will work with the corps
and us to reevaluate this policy that could affect not only my small
harbors, but small harbors throughout this country.
Mr. HOBSON. I understand the gentleman from Michigan's concerns about
the effects this policy may have on small harbors. While I believe that
tonnage should be a consideration when the Army Corps prioritizes
operations and maintenance dredging projects, I do not believe it
should be the sole basis.
I look forward to working with the gentleman from Michigan and the
Army Corps to address this issue and identify appropriate factors for
consideration.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOBSON. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I do want to thank the gentleman from Michigan for
raising the issue. It is an important one. We have had other ratios for
determination of Corps funding that had been brought before the
subcommittee during the hearing process. They were also questioned.
I understand that the gentleman is concerned about ports of specific
size, but I also think one of the things that we have to do a better
job of, and the chairman has done his very best here, is to look at
entire systems, as well, to make sure there is a fair allocation of
these resources for the commerce and, potentially, for the
environmental cleanup of these very systems and the individual ports;
and I certainly want to join with the chairman and the rest of the
subcommittee to do the best job possible looking forward to address
this issue. It is an important one.
I appreciate its having been raised.
Mr. STUPAK. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their
assurances. I look forward to working with them on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Tiahrt
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Tiahrt:
At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to promulgate regulations without consideration of
the effect of such regulations on the competitiveness of
American businesses.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the United States has the number one economy in the
world, and it is the envy of the world. We also have the most powerful
military in the history of the world, but I believe we are headed down
the wrong path.
Our trade deficit last year was $670 billion. Our Federal deficit
exceeded $400 billion. And we saw the loss of many high-quality, high-
paying jobs. While other countries are preparing for the future, the
current trends in the United States should be of concern to us all,
because I believe we are on the path towards a third-rate economy.
Our health care costs are growing too fast and forcing companies to
withdraw these benefits from many of our employees. Our education
system lags behind the developing world and needs to be revamped. Our
trade policy fails to enforce many of the policies that we have in
place. Our tax system punishes success. Our energy policy relies on
imports rather than natural resources we have here in America, along
with renewable energy resources that we have here in America. Our
research and development policy needs to be enhanced. Lawsuits plague
those who keep and create jobs here in America and that slows our
economic growth.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment says that none of the funds available in
this act should be used to promulgate regulations without consideration
of the effects of such regulations on the competitiveness of American
businesses, because that, Mr. Chairman, means more jobs. If we are
going to succeed in the future, we have to create an environment here
in America that encourages competition and does not discourage growth.
Regulatory costs are killing our jobs. Less government regulations not
only means granting the freedom to allow Americans to pursue their
dreams, it also means providing the space for business to thrive, which
means more jobs for working Americans.
Instead, our Federal Government has become a creeping ivy of
regulations that strangle enterprise.
It is estimated today that the regulatory burden as of 2000 was $843
billion. That has cost us U.S. jobs. The
[[Page 11068]]
regulatory compliance burden on U.S. manufacturers is the equivalent of
a 12 percent excise tax.
Mr. Chairman, if we could cut the regulatory burden in half, we would
be 6 percent more competitive. As we approve spending allocations for
the Department of Energy and other related agencies, we need to remind
them of the importance of their actions and what they do with the
funding that we give them.
Mr. Chairman, I have spoken with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Hobson), and I have complete confidence that he will help us make
America more competitive in the future. I plan to withdraw this
amendment tonight, but I do not plan to retreat from this fight to
reduce the barriers to keeping and creating jobs in America.
Mr. Chairman, I know that the gentleman from Ohio will work with me
to help us create an environment to bring more jobs back to America.
Mr. Chairman, I respectfully withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment of the gentleman from
Kansas is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Visclosky) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) for their work on
this bill.
I wish to associate myself with the words of the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Stupak) concerning smaller ports and maintenance dredging
by the Army Corps of Engineers. Not only would this affect the port of
Astoria in my congressional district, but it would affect smaller ports
up and down the coast of Oregon. This is an issue of great concern to
Michiganders, to Oregonians and to other Americans.
{time} 2015
Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee Of The Whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order: the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), and the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Markey
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 110,
noes 312, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 207]
AYES--110
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Carson
Chandler
Clay
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gibbons
Grijalva
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kennedy (RI)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Michaud
Miller, George
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Payne
Pelosi
Rahall
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
NOES--312
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Towns
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Waters
Watt
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--11
Allen
Bean
Doggett
Hastings (WA)
McCrery
Millender-McDonald
Moore (WI)
Pence
Pickering
Wamp
Young (AK)
{time} 2042
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida and Messrs. PETERSON of
Pennsylvania, KIRK, HEFLEY, SHAYS, ROTHMAN, CLEAVER, MORAN of Virginia,
GENE GREEN of Texas, REYES, McINTYRE, GILLMOR, STRICKLAND and AL GREEN
of Texas changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. LOFGREN of California, Ms. DeLAURO, Ms. WATSON and Mr. SHERMAN
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
[[Page 11069]]
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 207, the
Markey-Holt amendment to H.R. 2419, had I been present, I would have
voted ``aye.''
Stated against:
Ms. BEAN. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 207, had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
Amendment Offered by Mr. Jones of North Carolina
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Jones) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN.
A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 152,
noes 275, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 208]
AYES--152
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baca
Baird
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bean
Berkley
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Boehner
Boswell
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Cannon
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Coble
Conyers
Costa
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
Duncan
Engel
Etheridge
Evans
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Goode
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Herseth
Higgins
Hinojosa
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hulshof
Inslee
Israel
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Leach
Lee
Lipinski
Lowey
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
Meehan
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Miller, Gary
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Pallone
Paul
Payne
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Renzi
Reyes
Rogers (AL)
Ruppersberger
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Schakowsky
Scott (VA)
Sessions
Shaw
Sherman
Shimkus
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Stark
Strickland
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson (SC)
Woolsey
Wynn
NOES--275
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Bachus
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (FL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
English (PA)
Eshoo
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kilpatrick (MI)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Obey
Olver
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pascrell
Pastor
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shays
Sherwood
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tauscher
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Waters
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Wu
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--6
Allen
Hastings (WA)
Millender-McDonald
Pickering
Wamp
Young (AK)
{time} 2051
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California changed his vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mr. HONDA changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Stupak
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174,
noes 253, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 209]
AYES--174
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Frank (MA)
Goodlatte
Gordon
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
[[Page 11070]]
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--253
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Granger
Graves
Green, Gene
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pastor
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--6
Allen
Hastings (WA)
Lee
Millender-McDonald
Pickering
Young (AK)
{time} 2100
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 207, 208, and 209, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on
all 3.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
This Act may be cited as the ``Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 2006''.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and
report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the
recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as
amended, do pass.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Putnam) 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 directed
him to report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with
the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill,
as amended, do pass.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 291, the
previous question is ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will
put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Etheridge
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, in its current form, yes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Etheridge of North Carolina moves to recommit the bill
H.R. 2419, to the Committee on Appropriations with
instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith
with the following amendment:
On page 23, line 20, after ``$86,426,000,'' insert the
following:
``of which $500,000 shall be available to develop and publish
a report on imported crude oil and petroleum sales to the
United States pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 796 and 42 U.S.C. 7135.''
On page 27, line 8, strike ``$35,000'' and insert
``$1,035,000''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Etheridge) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I know the hour is late and folks want to
go home.
Mr. Speaker, let me thank the chairman and the ranking member for
their hard work on this bill. But like anything we do in this body, we
can do better. This coming Friday will begin Memorial Day, and for many
Americans it really is the beginning of summer.
On that day, tens of thousands of North Carolinians and millions of
Americans are getting into their cars and hitting the road for
vacation. They may visit our State's beautiful beaches or seashores.
They may visit the cool mountain vistas to the west. Or they may just
leave our State altogether and travel across this country.
Regardless of where they go and how far they travel, they will all be
confronted by the same ugly truth: Our Nation is experiencing the
highest gasoline prices in the history of this country. The average
price of regular unleaded gasoline in the United States is over $2.12 a
gallon, 6 cents higher than it was a year ago.
For diesel fuel users like truck drivers and farmers, the national
average is over $2.15, 39 cents a gallon higher than last year. In the
central Atlantic States, like North Carolina, the price for regular
unleaded and diesel are higher than the national average.
As I travel throughout my district, I regularly hear complaints from
my constituents about higher gasoline prices and diesel fuel prices.
Farmers, commuters, employers, senior citizens and all North
Carolinians have been hit hard by higher gasoline prices.
Truck drivers are seeing their businesses suffer. Farmers are forced
to watch their costs escalate, eating into their bottom line,
especially now, when they are getting into the fields. And for people
who have lost their jobs and still cannot find work, higher gasoline
prices place an even higher burden on them.
People who live in rural districts like mine have to travel farther
than folks living in any other area to go to work, to get to a store,
to go to church, to take their children to school and any number of
places. While high gasoline prices hurt everyone, rural Americans are
especially hit hard. Everyone talks about the problem.
The United States is too dependent on foreign oil. Every time we have
a
[[Page 11071]]
small disruption in the Middle East, the marketplace reacts wildly and
drives the price of a barrel of oil even higher. We need to reduce our
Nation's dependency on foreign oil, and we need to bring gas prices
down, and this motion to recommit is a step in that direction.
This motion will direct $500,000 from the Energy Information
Administration for analysis of imported crude oil and its impact on
petroleum sales.
It also provides $1 million for the Secretary of Energy to conduct a
conference with foreign oil producers of foreign oil-producing nations.
I remember when Saudi Arabia and other OPEC nations used to say they
wanted to get the price of a barrel of oil between $22 and $28 a
gallon.
Mr. Speaker, this is a serious issue. We may not think so in this
body, but I guarantee you the people across this America do. And let me
tell you, when the Saudis said $22 to $28 a barrel they were shooting
for, and it is now $50 and above, they missed that by a country mile
where I come from.
If they truly want to bring down prices, they could do that today.
Actions speak louder than words, and it is time for action.
This administration must insist that Saudi Arabia and OPEC nations
raise their production levels now. And this motion will ensure that the
administration has the means to bring these nations together at a
conference and deal with this issue immediately. Every day we continue
to experience higher gas prices is another day that is a drain on the
wallet of every single American.
Last Sunday at church a church member came to me and he said, You
know, I am an independent truck driver, and the cost of my fuel is
going up, and it is going to put me in bankruptcy.
Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of people across this country tonight in
that same situation, and we can do something about it. Instead, we are
not offering the kind of proposal to make a difference. This will offer
a proposal to the U.S. Department of Energy Information Administration
to move and take action and take action quickly.
Mr. Speaker, the bill that we passed earlier on energy will increase
the cost by 85 percent in 20 years. That is increasing our dependency.
This is an opportunity for a solution. This is the way that we should
impact it positively.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion to recommit.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the motion to recommit and urge a
speedy passage of the underlying bill, and yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for the electronic vote on
the question of final passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 167,
noes 261, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 210]
AYES--167
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gordon
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinojosa
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Towns
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--261
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costello
Cox
Cramer
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
Edwards
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
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--5
Hastings (WA)
Millender-McDonald
Pastor
Pickering
Young (AK)
{time} 2128
Messrs. CAPUANO, COSTELLO and TIERNEY changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
[[Page 11072]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Putnam). The question is on the passage
of the bill.
Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 416,
nays 13, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 211]
YEAS--416
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NAYS--13
Berkley
Etheridge
Flake
Franks (AZ)
Gibbons
Green (WI)
Inslee
Kucinich
Matheson
Paul
Porter
Sensenbrenner
Stearns
NOT VOTING--4
Hastings (WA)
Millender-McDonald
Pickering
Young (AK)
{time} 2136
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
STEM CELL RESEARCH ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2005
(Mr. SCHIFF asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, embryonic stem cell research has the
potential to lead to cures of debilitating diseases affecting millions
of people. Well-respected medical experts from many of our Nation's
finest institutions have been seeking cooperation from the Federal
Government for this research and have been stymied by the cell lines
available under current law.
H.R. 810, a bill which I am proud to be an original cosponsor of,
provides strong, ethical guidelines that ensure high standards in stem
cell research. It also provides hope to countless people who live each
day less sure of their future.
Some would suggest we must choose between lifesaving research on the
one hand and high moral standards on the other. This is a false choice.
We can and must have both. H.R. 810 gives hope to the ill and maintains
America's high ethical purpose. It has my full support.
____________________
STEM CELL RESEARCH
(Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks and
include therein extraneous material.)
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 810, the
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.
Stem cell research holds the potential to improve the lives of
millions of Americans suffering from diseases like cancer, heart
disease, and diabetes. I believe we should do all we can to support
this research, and it is why I am so frustrated at the Bush
administration's attempts to stop it.
NIH said that U.S. scientists are falling behind because of the Bush
2001 limitations on stem cell research. Elizabeth Nable of the National
Heart, Lung and Blood Institute said, ``Because U.S. researchers who
depend on Federal funds lack access to newer human embryonic stem cell
lines, they are at a technological disadvantage relative to researchers
funded by California, as well as investigators in Asia and Europe.
My home State of California has already moved ahead of the Federal
Government by establishing the Institute for Regenerative Medicine,
which will devote $3 billion to embryonic stem cell research over the
next 10 years.
This bill is a modest proposal compared to California's, but it is
still an important step; and that is why it is supported by all the
major educational research institutions in California.
I include their letter of support in the Record. Let us not drive
this research overseas.
May 19, 2005.
Hon. Zoe Lofgren,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Lofgren: We are writing to express our
support for changing federal policy on human embryonic stem
cell research to allow an expansion in available cell lines.
As you probably know, a vote on legislation that would alter
current policy is expected in the coming weeks, and we urge
your `'Yes'' vote.
[[Page 11073]]
Embryonic stem cells hold the potential for new cures and
therapies for an array of life-threatening diseases affecting
millions of Americans across the nation. This potential will
be enhanced by the bipartisan Stem Cell Research Enhancement
Act (H.R. 810), introduced by Representatives Michael Castle
(R-DE) and Diana DeGette (D-CO) and co-sponsored by more than
200 members of the House of Representatives.
The Castle-DeGette bill would expand current policy to
allow federal funding for research with stem cell lines
discovered after the mandated August 9, 2001, cut-off date as
well as lines derived in the future. With regard to future
stem cell lines, the bill applies only to lines derived from
days-old blastocysts that otherwise would be discarded from
in vitro fertilization clinics, but that instead are
voluntarily donated to research by consenting individuals,
without compensation. Further, this legislation would ensure
the development of ethical guidelines for research with
embryonic stem cell lines.
California has moved ahead by establishing the Institute
for Regenerative Medicine, which will devote $3 billion to
embryonic stem cell research over the next ten years. The
provisions within H.R. 810 are more restrictive than those of
the California Initiative; however, H.R. 810 is crucial
because it will make a significant difference to nationwide
federal research programs. This expansion in policy will
further facilitate and accelerate the research conducted in
our state.
When the current federal embryonic stem cell research
policy went into effect in 2001, the notion was that 78 cell
lines would be available for research. Currently, only 22 are
actually available to researchers; many others have been
found unsuitable. Furthermore, a number of the available
lines are entangled with commercial interests making the
cells too expensive or impossible for NIH-funded
investigators to obtain. For these reasons, the existing
embryonic stem cell lines do not provide a sufficient supply
to advance the research to its full potential.
Embryonic stem cells offer the potential to reverse
diseases and disabilities experienced by millions of
Americans. Stem cell research is still very new. Thus, we
have a collective responsibility--scientists, university
leaders, and government leaders--to support the exploration
of the promising possibilities of both embryonic and adult
stem cell research for curing and preventing disease.
Please support scientific advancement and the possibility
of new cures by voting ``Yes'' on H.R. 810 to expand federal
stem cell research policy.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Dynes,
President, University of California.
Steven B. Sample,
President, University of Southern California.
David Baltimore,
President, California Institute of Technology.
John L. Hennessy,
President, Stanford University.
____________________
SPECIAL ORDERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Marchant). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 4, 2005, and under a previous order of the House, the
following Members will be recognized for 5 minutes each.
____________________
OIL INDUSTRY AND OPEC PRICE GOUGING
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, not too long ago we passed the so-called
energy bill here in the House, and tonight we passed the Energy and
Water Development appropriations bill. The question that the American
people should ask as we head into the Memorial Day weekend is, what has
the Republican Congress done to rein in price gouging by the oil
industry and the OPEC oil cartel? The answer, if you look at these two
bills, is: Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Nada. Zip.
If you would listen to the Republican President from the oil
industry, the Republican Vice President rich from the oil industry, and
the Republican Congress replete with donations from the oil industry,
they are powerless in the face of so-called market forces to do
anything about the price gouging of the American people.
Now, if this were really just supply and demand, maybe, maybe you
could understand that. But it is a little more than that. The OPEC oil
cartel conspires to restrict supply and drive up the price of oil in
violation of all the so-called free trade agreements that this
Republican Congress and this Republican President say should rule the
world.
The World Trade Organization, well, I have asked this President four
times now in writing to file a complaint about this illegal activity by
the OPEC cartel. It violates the rules of the World Trade Organization,
of which this President is such a great fan. Now, why will he not file
a complaint? Of seven of the OPEC cartel, six are in the World Trade
Organization and one wants to join. Tremendous leverage. File a
complaint about their illegal activity. Save the American people from
cartels that price-gouge them.
But, no, the President will not do that. Why is that? It is because
the oil companies, from which the President has sprung forth, and the
Vice President make a lot of money on this. Every time the oil cartels
raise the price about two bucks a barrel, well, they take that plus
another 10 percent for profit. So the higher the price, the bigger
their profit.
If you look at the quarterly statements of the largest oil companies
in the world, ExxonMobil and others, they are awash in tens of billions
of dollars of cash extracted 10, 20, 30 cents at a time in excess
profits from the American people at the pump.
Now, this is hurting real people. But this administration says they
are powerless. This Republican Congress says they are powerless. They
cannot take on the OPEC cartel. They cannot take on the price-gouging
oil industry. They pass so-called energy legislation that says maybe
10, 12, 15 years from now, if there is any oil in ANWR, and if we can
pump it, and if they do not take too big of a markup or price gouge on
that, it will provide some price relief. That is their answer.
Today, in this bill there was nothing. They could not even adopt the
minimalist study of what the OPEC cartel is doing to the American
people. That was not allowed by the Republican majority. And they
certainly could not allow the amendment that would stop the United
States Government from buying from the oil companies at this
extortionate price and pumping that oil into the ground for a future
crisis.
This is a crisis now, today, for working American men and women,
people who have to commute to work in my district by car. Small
businesses across this country and big businesses and the airlines are
going broke. But this administration says they are powerless, they can
do nothing.
Well, guess what? The United States of America can do better, but we
just have to get rid of the oil cartel. Not the OPEC oil cartel, but
the oil cartel running the United States Congress and the White House
and the Vice President's office.
____________________
{time} 2145
EXCHANGE OF SPECIAL ORDER TIME
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to assume the
Special Order time of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Marchant). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Tennessee?
There was no objection.
____________________
U.S. SHOULD WITHDRAW FROM IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, Hamid Karzai, the President of Afghanistan,
criticized the U.S. in a graduation speech in Boston on Sunday. He said
the U.S. had ``the power and hence the responsibility'' to get involved
in Afghanistan even before the tragic events we refer to as 9/11.
President Karzai said because the U.S. did not get involved sooner, the
result was ``horrible suffering for the Afghan people.''
This is a man who was given a hero's welcome at the White House, the
State and Defense Departments, and the
[[Page 11074]]
World Bank just yesterday. This is a man who was a special guest at two
joint sessions of Congress. This is a man who probably would not be
president today if not for the U.S., and to whom our taxpayers have
given billions of dollars since September of 2001.
It takes a lot of gall for President Karzai to come to the U.S. and
blame us for the horrible suffering of the Afghan people because we did
not get involved in Afghanistan in a big way before 2001.
Since 2001, U.S. taxpayers have sent billions to Afghanistan for
economic, humanitarian, and reconstruction assistance. We have sent
several hundreds of millions of dollars each year, in addition to what
the military is spending, and most of what the military is doing in
Iraq and Afghanistan is pure foreign aid. No country in the history of
the world has even come close to doing as much for other countries as
has the United States. No country in the history of the world has even
come close to doing as much for Afghanistan as has the United States.
Yet President Karzai comes here and makes a major speech and instead of
thanking the American people over and over, as he should have, he
criticizes us for not getting involved sooner.
Just yesterday, the front page of The Washington Post carried a story
about the parents of Pat Tillman who was killed by friendly fire in
Afghanistan. The parents bitterly attacked the Army for lying and
covering up the details of their son's death, and they have every right
to do so. Pat Tillman's dad said, ``They blew up their poster boy'' and
then lied about it to create a ``patriotic fervor'' in the U.S.
I voted to go to war in Afghanistan because I and everyone but one in
Congress felt we had to respond to 9/11, but we should have gotten out
of there after 3 or 4 months; and if we had, Pat Tillman would still be
alive today.
I voted against going to war in Iraq because, among many other
reasons, Saddam Hussein's total military budget was only a little over
two-tenths of 1 percent of ours, and he was no threat to us whatsoever.
It is no criticism of the military to say this was a totally
unnecessary war.
Unless conservatives now believe in massive foreign aid, huge deficit
spending, world government and placing almost the entire burden of
enforcing U.N. resolutions on our taxpayers and our military, all
things that conservatives have opposed in the past, then conservatives
should want us to get out of both Iraq and Afghanistan.
William F. Buckley, Jr., the godfather of conservatism, wrote a
column a few days ago saying it is now time to exit Iraq. Many leaders
of our military will want us to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan for many
years so they can get higher and higher appropriations. But in a few
months, our national debt will reach $9 trillion. By the end of this
fiscal year, we will have spent over $300 billion in Iraq and
Afghanistan and probably another $100 billion in the coming fiscal year
which starts October 1.
Mr. Speaker, seven more Americans were killed in Iraq yesterday. Our
colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), just told me
that four guardsmen from his State were killed today. Already this
month has been one of the bloodiest of the entire war. The headlines on
the front page of the Washington Times says: ``Car bombings kill scores
across Iraq.''
Our Founding Fathers did not intend for us to run Iraq or Afghanistan
or any other country. Our first obligation should be to the American
people and no one else. We should be friends to other countries, but we
cannot afford to continue spending hundreds of billions all over the
world.
In just a few years we will not be able to pay our own people all the
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, drug costs, military and civil
service and private pensions that we have promised. To stay any longer
in Iraq or Afghanistan goes against every traditional conservative
position. We can no longer afford it in either blood or treasury.
____________________
PASS H.R. 2560, THE ELAINE SULLIVAN ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced legislation,
H.R. 2560, that is specifically designed to save lives and reduce
suffering. It is a small, but significant, measure to protect the
voiceless and the vulnerable.
In an instant, a wrong turn, a sudden fall, a missed step, someone,
indeed anyone, can find himself or herself in a crisis and in need of
emergency medical care.
In California alone, nearly 10 million people require emergency room
care every year. And of those, 1.5 million arrive in critical
condition. In fact, nationwide, nearly 1 million people arrive in
emergency rooms each year unconscious or physically unable to give
informed consent to their care.
What happens or what fails to happen in the critical, precious, and
immediate moments after the single split second of an emergency can be
the difference between healing and heartbreak, between calamity and
recovery, between life and death.
Consider the story of Elaine Sullivan. A very active 71-year-old
woman, Elaine fell at home while getting into her bathtub. When
paramedics arrived, they realized that injuries to her mouth and head
had made her unable to communicate, or as the hospital later
discovered, to give informed consent for her own care.
Although stable for the first few days, she began to slip into
critical condition. Despite having her daughter's contact information
clearly indicated on her chart, the hospital failed to notify her
family for 6 days. Tragically, just hours later, Elaine Sullivan died
alone in the hospital.
In the aftermath of this tragedy, Elaine Sullivan's daughter, Jan,
and granddaughter, Laura, turned their personal pain to public action.
Jan and Laura Greenwald went to work to make sure that what happened to
their loved one would not happen to others.
From their research, the Greenwalds learned about other incidents
like their own, in which families of hospitalized patients were not
notified at all or notified after lengthy delay. Although uncommon,
these stories were alarming; but, alas, they were avoidable.
Let me be clear. Most hospitals notify the next of kin of unconscious
emergency room arrivals relatively quickly. However, emergency rooms
are extremely high pressure, intense, and sometimes chaotic
environments. According to statistics compiled by the American College
of Emergency Physicians, more than 88 percent of emergency room doctors
surveyed reported moderate to severe overcrowding in their department.
In the hustle and bustle of the ER, despite the professionalism and
dedication of staff, there are real risks that a simple phone call may
not be able to be made in a timely fashion.
In the case of Elaine Sullivan, the phone call was not made. In her
memory and honor, I have introduced this bill so that in the future
phone calls to loved ones will always be made. The bill, the Elaine
Sullivan Act, is sensible. It requires hospitals that receive Medicare
funding to make reasonable efforts to contact a family member,
specified health care agent, or surrogate decision-maker of
incapacitated patients within 24 hours of arrival at the emergency
department.
The bill is realistic. Modeled after State laws in Illinois and
California, the bill recognizes that such notifications would be
difficult and even impractical in certain instances and under certain
circumstances. Therefore, the 24-hour notification requirement does not
apply when hospitals implement a disaster or mass casualty program or
during a declared state of emergency or other local mass casualty
situation.
The bill is constructive. The legislation makes Federal grants
available for the next 5 years to qualified not-for-profit
organizations to establish and operate a national next of kin registry.
As a high-speed, electronic free search service, the voluntary registry
would help hospitals and government agencies to locate family members
of the injured, missing, and the deceased.
[[Page 11075]]
How would the registry work? Consider for a moment just one
distressing, but relevant, scenario. Your loved one, say your spouse,
is on a business trip. She is out of state and on her own. On the way,
she is involved in a serious head-on collision. Unconscious and unable
to communicate, she is rushed to the nearest hospital. Unbeknownst to
you, your wife lay comatose, fighting for her life, miles from home.
Doctors and nurses work feverishly to provide emergency medical care
to a patient who is only a name on the license; but to you, she is the
love of your life. If the two of you had signed up for the next of kin
registry, the hospital staff would be able to quickly notify you about
your wife's critical condition. You could rush to be by her side, share
critical medical history and information that could help save her life;
hence, the bill is necessary.
It is not intended to frustrate the mission of hospitals, but rather
to facilitate it. It is about notifying the right people at the right
time in order to share the right information during an emergency. Using
this crucial medical information while caring for a critically ill
patient reduces the hospital's own liability. So, such notification is
vital.
Not only is it important to have a family member present to comfort
the patient, but also to make informed decisions that the patient can't
make for him or herself and to provide the medical history that could
very well be the difference between life and death.
So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting
H.R. 2560--the Elaine Sullivan Act. It is a small but sensible measure
designed to save lives and ease suffering. Mr. Speaker, we don't know
when tragedy will strike. But, if it does, we should know that we would
not be alone. This bill provides the assurance that our loved ones will
be by our side.
____________________
SMART SECURITY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, in the first Presidential debate of the
2004 Presidential election, moderator Jim Lehrer asked the candidates
what they believe is the single most serious threat to the national
security of the United States. Without delay, Senator Kerry responded
``nuclear proliferation.'' When President Bush had the opportunity to
respond, he agreed that nuclear nonproliferation is the biggest threat
we face as a Nation.
If the President agrees that nuclear nonproliferation is such a grave
and immediate threat, why does he and why does his administration
continue to seek the creation of new nuclear weapons? Why does the
President continue to seek funds to study the creation of the robust
nuclear Earth penetrator, otherwise known as the ``bunker buster''
bomb? Why does this year's defense authorization bill continue this
ridiculous trend by recommending a Department of Defense study about
the possibility of creating the bunker buster?
Mr. Speaker, the stated purpose of the bunker buster is to destroy
caves and difficult-to-reach terrorist hideouts, but the bunker buster
is completely unnecessary. The United States military already is
capable of bombing these remote locations, and they do not need to use
nuclear weapons.
The bunker buster is also extremely dangerous. A detonation of this
deadly weapon would create an enormous, uncontrollable explosion,
spreading toxic, radioactive materials over a large area; and an
explosion could cause the death of thousands of innocent civilians and
devastate large tracts of lands.
How many times must we consider the merits or lack thereof of the
bunker buster bomb? How many times must sensible nonproliferation
priorities compete with a dangerous nuclear arms race?
To address the true security threats we face, I have introduced the
SMART Security resolution, H. Con. Res. 158, with the support of 49 of
my House colleagues. SMART is a Sensible, Multilateral American
Response to Terrorism. It encourages renewed nonproliferation efforts
over continued nuclear buildup.
SMART urges sufficient funding and support for nonproliferation
efforts in countries that possess nuclear weapons and nuclear
materials. One of the best ways to accomplish this goal is through CTR,
the Cooperative Threat Reduction program. The Cooperative Threat
Reduction program successfully works with Russia to dismantle and
safeguard excess nuclear weapons and materials in the states of the
former Soviet Union.
Under this program, more than 20,000 Russian scientists, formerly
tasked with creating nuclear weapons, are now working to dismantle
them. That is why SMART Security includes robust support for the
current CTR model, including expanding the program to other nations
such as Libya and Pakistan, nations that possess excess nuclear weapons
and excess nuclear materials.
To promote these efforts, earlier today I introduced an amendment to
the Defense authorization bill to expand CTR. My amendment would bring
this important program to Libya and Pakistan, two countries that are
known to possess nuclear materials.
We need to utilize our diplomatic relationships to encourage these
two countries to give up their dangerous nuclear materials, and the
best way to do so is through the Cooperative Threat Reduction program.
{time} 2200
CTR is but one of the broad array of national security programs in
SMART security and an effective one at that. But any attempt to rid the
world of nuclear weapons must include nonproliferation efforts at home,
in the United States. We must set an example for the rest of the world
by fulfilling our international pledge to end our nuclear program and
dismantle our existing weapons.
Mr. Speaker, continued efforts to study the feasibility of the bunker
buster bomb are the very antithesis of these international commitments.
When the United States engages in the proliferation of nuclear weapons,
we lower the threshold and actually encourage other countries to
proliferate with the possibility of actually using nuclear weapons.
Instead, let us get smart.
Let us be smart about this issue and work both here at home and
abroad to end the proliferation of any and all nuclear bombs. We owe
this to our children and we owe this to their children.
____________________
CAFTA
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Westmoreland). Under a previous order of
the House, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, last year President Bush signed the
Central American Free Trade Agreement, a one-sided plan to benefit
multinational corporations at the expense of United States and Central
American farmers, small businesses and workers. Every trade agreement
negotiated by this administration has been ratified by Congress within
65 days, within about 2 months of the President's signing it. But
CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, has languished in
Congress for 1 year without a vote because this wrong-headed trade
agreement offends both Republicans and Democrats.
Just look at what has happened with our trade policy in the last
dozen years. In 1992, the year I was first elected to Congress, we had
in this country a trade deficit of $38 billion. That means that we
imported $38 billion of goods more than we exported. $38 billion in
1992. Then NAFTA passed, the North American Free Trade Agreement, then
permanent normal trade relations with China, then a whole 'nother
series of trade agreements.
Last year, our trade deficit was $618 billion, from $38 billion to
$618 billion in 12 short years.
Our trade policy clearly is bankrupt, clearly is not working for
American workers, clearly is not working for our families, for our
school systems, for our communities, and clearly is not working in the
developing world for workers in those countries. It is the same old
story.
[[Page 11076]]
Now the President is asking us to pass the Central American Free
Trade Agreement. With each trade agreement that the President asks us
to pass, the President and his allies promise stronger manufacturing in
the United States, more jobs for Americans, more prosperity for the
U.S. economy and for communities in this country and better wages for
workers in developing countries. Yet with every single trade agreement,
their promises fall by the wayside in favor of big business interests
that send U.S. jobs overseas, that lock in low wages in the developing
world and that exploit that cheap labor abroad.
Madness, Mr. Speaker, is repeating the same action over and over and
over and expecting a different result. Again, look at this trade
deficit. Look what has happened after 12 years of failed trade
policies. From a $38 billion trade deficit to $618 billion. President
Bush, Sr., said that for every $1 billion of trade deficits, that
translates into 12,000 jobs. If you have a surplus of $1 billion, you
have 12,000 extra jobs. If you have a deficit of $1 billion, you lose
12,000 jobs. We have a deficit of $618 billion. Do the math.
Mr. Speaker, what has happened with this trade deficit shows in this
map. These red States are States which have lost, in just a 5-year
period, 6-year period, more than 20 percent of their manufacturing.
Michigan, 210,000 jobs. Illinois, 224,000 jobs lost. My State, the
State of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), 216,000 jobs. The State of
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), 50,000 jobs. The State of
the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee), 353,000 jobs. The State of the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis), 224,000. Hundreds of thousands of jobs lost with
this trade policy, with this kind of export trade policy, import trade
policy, where trade deficits continue to grow and grow and grow.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, in the face of this growing bipartisan
opposition, the administration, the Republican leadership has tried
every trick in the book to pass CAFTA. They cannot argue our trade
policy is working when you see this kind of manufacturing job loss.
So what they do, they first try to link CAFTA with helping democracy
in the developing world and they say, CAFTA will help us fight the war
on terror. Ten years of NAFTA, 10 years of CAFTA's dysfunctional cousin
NAFTA, have done nothing to improve border security with Mexico, so
that argument does not sell.
Then, 2 weeks ago, the United States Chamber of Commerce flew on a
junket the six presidents from the CAFTA countries around our country,
hoping they would sell CAFTA to the American people and to the Congress
and to the American media. They flew them to Albuquerque and Los
Angeles. They flew them to Cincinnati, Ohio, in my State and New York
and Miami. Again, they failed.
At the end of this trip, one of the presidents, the Costa Rican
president said, Hey, my country is not ratifying CAFTA unless an
independent commission would show that it would not hurt working
families and the poor in my country of Costa Rica. So that is not
working.
Calling out that we have got to do something about the war on terror
and that is why we are doing this agreement, that did not work.
Bringing the Central American presidents to the United States, that did
not work.
So what is next? The Republican leadership is opening the bank. They
are making deals. To my friends on that side of the aisle, they are
promising bridges, they are promising highways, they are promising some
of the sleaziest deals this Congress has ever seen. They are basically
buying votes in this Congress in order to pass the Central American
Free Trade Agreement. We saw it in 2002 with fast track authority when
the President opened the bank and bought votes then. We are not going
to stand for it this time.
Mr. Speaker, what really makes sense instead is a trade policy that
lifts workers up in rich and poor countries alike while it is
respecting human rights. The United States with its unrivaled
purchasing power and its enormous economic clout is in a unique
position to help empower poor workers in developing countries while
promoting prosperity at home.
Vote ``no'' on CAFTA. Renegotiate a better agreement.
____________________
EXCHANGE OF SPECIAL ORDER TIME
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
____________________
PREPARE TOMORROW'S PARENTS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the fourth
national Prepare Tomorrow's Parents Month, the month between Mother's
Day and Father's Day. This month is a time for teachers, parents and
youth group leaders nationwide to promote parenting education and
relationship skills classes for all young people.
Prepare Tomorrow's Parents Month is being sponsored by a national
nonprofit organization formed in 1995 called Prepare Tomorrow's
Parents. Suzy Garfinkle Chevrier, founder and president of Prepare
Tomorrow's Parents, says, ``Parenting is not a hobby. It is the most
important work most of us will ever do. Let's not leave our
grandchildren's future to chance.''
Is it not strange, Mr. Speaker, that one of the most important and
difficult skills, raising children, goes untaught? Learning parenting
skills is vital because the early experiences of children's lives
impact their potential for learning and for mental health. We need to
create better parents because neglected or abused children are
especially prone to perpetuate this cycle when they become adults
without resources for healthy parenting.
An alarming number of children are at risk of being abused, neglected
or otherwise poorly nurtured by inadequately prepared or nonsupportive
parents. Inadequate parenting can contribute to teen pregnancy,
depression, addictions, academic failure, delinquency and, later,
criminal behavior.
I imagine that the vast majority of adults in the United States
believe that parenting and relationship skills should be taught. Yet
few students now receive this instruction. School-based parenting
education programs can help to prevent future child abuse and work to
build healthy children by developing an understanding of child
development in future parents and by providing parenting skills such as
empathy, listening, problem solving and critical thinking. Regardless
of how much detail the young people remember from their classes by the
time they become parents, the instruction gives them a deep sense of
the reality of parenting, of the sacrifices and demands as well as the
joys. Prepare Tomorrow's Parents is a group working towards a society
in which every child is well-nurtured and parenting is valued and
undertaken by prepared adults.
Parenting education for students is being taught successfully in many
schools around the Nation, primarily through family and consumer
science classes, but not enough young people, especially boys,
participate in these elective courses. Expanding and requiring these
classes will save many more current and future families much heartache.
It will help us to help our young people succeed at being parents that
will make them, their children and their parents happy, productive and
proud.
Finally, establishing parent education classes honors the work of
mothers and fathers by teaching our young people what a complex effort
it takes to raise a child. As well as learning new skills, they will
begin to appreciate more and more the care they have received from
their parents.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Prepare Tomorrow's Parents for sponsoring
Prepare Tomorrow's Parents Month.
[[Page 11077]]
____________________
JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise truly disappointed at the
decision of my colleagues in the other body to negotiate this lose-lose
situation for minority and civil rights.
While I appreciate and understand my Senate colleagues and their
desire to preserve the Senate tradition and to avoid the nuclear option
which their leadership unfortunately threatened to use, I join with
Senator Feingold, Chairman Watt and members of the Congressional Black
Caucus in saying tonight that the deal that was brokered was a bad one
for the American people. In the words of the Congressional Black Caucus
today, we said that, one, we strongly oppose the deal that trades
judges who oppose our civil rights for a temporary filibuster cease-
fire.
This deal is more of a capitulation than a compromise. In fact, one
of our Republican friends in the other body stated that she thinks that
this deal really does help advance the goal of their majority leader.
This deal allows the right to filibuster only in extraordinary
circumstances. There is no question in my mind that the judicial
extremism of Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen and William Pryor
constitute extraordinary circumstances. Nonetheless, the right to
filibuster their nominations has been given away. I know that when it
comes time to vote on their confirmation, Americans are going to be
looking to Senators in both parties to reject them based on their
extremist views.
The question I have about this deal is, who will really define what
constitutes ``extraordinary circum-
stances''? I believe this deal weakens the filibuster and the
principles of dissent and minority rights that it was designed to
safeguard. As a minority, as a woman, as a Californian and as an
American, the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown to the United States
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is nothing short of an
extraordinary circumstance.
The American public needs to understand that we are not bickering
here about peanuts. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit is widely regarded as the second most important court
in America, second only to the United States Supreme Court. The court
is a stepping stone to the United States Supreme Court. The D.C.
Circuit has produced more justices to the Supreme Court than any other
circuit court. For the rest of their lives, these judges have the
potential to implement policies that affect all of us, not 52 percent
or 48 percent, but 100 percent of the American public.
Let us look for a minute at Judge Brown's record. First, she authored
an opinion that effectively ended meaningful affirmative action in
California. Her opinion was severely criticized both on and off the
court for its harsh rhetoric and its suggestion that affirmative action
resembled racist and segregationist laws that predated landmark civil
rights laws.
She has praised turn-of-the-century U.S. Supreme Court cases
declaring maximum hour laws to be unconstitutional and called the
decision reversing course and protecting workers the ``triumph of our
own socialist revolution.'' I could go on and on about her judicial
record, and I hope people take a good look at her record. If this does
not constitute extraordinary circumstances, I do not know what will.
Let us look at Justice Pryor's record for just a minute whose
nomination was given away in terms of the right to filibuster. Alabama
Attorney General William Pryor, nominated for the 11th Circuit, has
sought repeal of a critical section of the Voting Rights Act that has
proved highly successful in overcoming the historical denial of the
right to vote for African Americans.
{time} 2215
He also believes that some rights now protected by the Constitution
should be regarded as ``social disputes'' that would reduce rights that
protect minority views to majority votes in the States. As an African
American, again, I believe that his nomination constitutes an extreme
circumstance, an extraordinarily extreme circumstance; yet there can be
no filibuster based upon this deal that was negotiated. His view that
the eighth amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment
does not bar certain inhumane treatment of prison inmates, and this was
repudiated by the United States Supreme Court. Again, I believe this is
an extraordinary circumstance which again was negotiated away.
The same thing, I hope people look at Justice Owen once again. She
was nominated for the fifth circuit. She is known for her dissents
opposing women's rights and reproductive rights and favoring corporate
interests against consumers and workers.
Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about nominees with a record of
impartiality and informed reflection when making decisions. These are
administration choices who were nominated, nominated under the threat
of a filibuster. Heaven knows whom the administration will nominate now
that that threat is gone.
The American public needs to understand that this entire process, the
entire process, just threatening the nuclear option, is an abuse of
power. It was designed to water down our constitutional systems of
checks and balances and to turn the Congress into a rubber stamp for
the President.
So I appeal to my colleagues in the other body to uphold our
constitutional system of checks and balances and to at least vote
against these extreme nominees that are coming forward. Extraordinary
circumstance, I ask the Members, what constitutes an extraordinary
circumstance when we look at nominees who affect the decisions that
affect our daily lives, our children's lives?
____________________
CHRONIC FATIGUE AND IMMUNE DYSFUNCTION SYNDROME
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, over 800,000 Americans have
chronic fatigue syndrome, CFS, also known as chronic fatigue and immune
dysfunction syndrome, or CFIDS. This is a complex and debilitating
medical disorder characterized by profound exhaustion, intense
widespread pain, and severe problems with memory and concentration. It
usually lasts for years; and recovery, in the few cases where that
occurs, is slow and unpredictable. Because the symptoms of CFS are
common to other conditions and no diagnostic tests exist, it is often
overlooked by health care providers. In fact, government studies show
that only 15 percent of those who have CFS have been diagnosed by their
doctor. It is even more difficult for CFS patients to get appropriate
symptomatic treatment or to obtain disability benefits if they become
too disabled to work.
The cause of CFS is not yet known. Much of what we do know about CFS
has been documented by researchers funded by the National Institutes of
Health and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Here
are some facts: women age 30 to 50 are at greatest risk for developing
CFS, and Latinos and African Americans are at greater risk for CFS than
Caucasians or Asians. Children can get CFS too, although it is more
common in teens than younger children. The condition may begin suddenly
as with the flu, or it may build gradually over time. Physical or
mental exertion makes symptoms significantly worse.
Individuals with CFS are severely impacted by the disease; and
according to the CDC studies, their functional status is the same as or
worse than those suffering from obstructive pulmonary disease,
osteoarthritis, and coronary heart disease. People with CFS often lose
the ability to maintain full-time employment, attend school, and
participate fully in family life. Symptomatic treatment can provide
some improved quality of life, but is generally inadequate in helping
patients return to normal activity levels. The Nation's economy is also
seriously affected. The annual direct cost of lost
[[Page 11078]]
productivity due to CFS is $9.1 billion, an amount equivalent to our
largest corporations' annual profits. This sum does not include medical
costs or disability benefits.
There is hope, though. The Department of Health and Human Services
has chartered a CFS Advisory Committee that meets quarterly to advise
the Secretary for Health on research and on education policy as it
relates to CFS. The CDC is conducting promising research that may lead
to a diagnostic test. Other researchers are following important leads
that may improve treatment and deepen understanding of the way CFS
affects various body systems. However, in fiscal year 2004, just $15
million was spent by the Federal Government to conduct research on this
devastating illness.
CFS consistently ranks at the bottom of the NIH funding charts; and
even during the period when Congress was doubling the NIH budget,
support for CFS research declined. A June 2003 commitment by NIH Deputy
Director Vivian Pinn to issue a request for applications for CFS has
not been fulfilled. The Secretary for Health has not yet acted on a set
of 11 recommendations delivered by the CFS Advisory Committee on August
23, 2004.
Many challenges remain, and more Federal funding is needed to answer
basic questions. CFS warrants the support of this Congress, and we must
find a way to do more for the hundreds of thousands of Americans
affected by this serious illness.
____________________
HONORING FALLEN SOLDIER LANCE CORPORAL LAWRENCE R. PHILIPPON AND THE
STRENGTH OF HIS FAMILY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak of the
inspiration and strength of Ray and Leesa Philippon and their family in
confronting the ultimate sacrifice, the loss of their son Lance
Corporal Lawrence R. Philippon, who on Mother's Day, May 8, tragically
lost his life while serving his country in Iraq. In 2002 Lance Corporal
Philippon answered his country's call to service and joined the United
States Marine Corps. Again stepping forward for his country, Lance
Corporal Philippon came up and gave up his position with the
Washington, D.C. Color Guard to become an infantryman with the 3rd
Battalion Second Marines deployed to Al Qaim, Iraq.
In the eulogy, Ray Philippon spoke of his son's courage, his ability
to overcome life's obstacles, his Forrest Gump-like philosophical
manner in dealing with life. He was proud of his family, his fidelity
to the Marine Corps, his commanders, his President. He was 22 years
old.
Ray Philippon; his daughter, Emilee; and Olivia Lawrence, Larry's
fiancee, spoke eloquently and emotionally. How this father, a veteran
himself, found the strength and composure to deliver a compelling,
humorous, and heartfelt tribute to his son is among the remarkable
traits of the human character. He transcended his pain and heartache
and credited his strength as coming from his son. He capped his
comments with a final salute to his son that left no dry eye in the
church.
Reverend Miller quoted Scripture and the New Testament, repeating the
refrain: ``No greater love can a man have than to lay down his life for
his friends.''
Governor Rell rose and spoke tearfully and with empathy as both a
mother and the State's chief executive. Her heartfelt response, her
grace veiled only by her tears of motherly sympathy, were equally
moving.
As we all pause this Memorial Day to honor the fallen, our hearts are
filled with gratitude for those brave soldiers, like Lance Corporal
Philippon, who have laid down their lives for their country but also
for their families who gave their sons and daughters to military
service. In honor of those soldiers and families, I hereby submit for
the Record his mother's farewell, a letter Leesa Philippon composed on
Mother's Day, the day she learned of her son's death. This letter's
sincerity, love, and implicit truth comes shining through as radiant
and bright as her love for her son. I hereby submit this letter for the
Record, which reads:
``My Dear Sweet Boy Larry, I know how busy you were on Mother's Day.
Your commanding officer's message apologized that mothers may not get a
call on their special day. I knew that if you could find a way, you
would call. Your voice always calmed my fears. The day passed, and,
again, I prayed for your safe return home. I detailed my prayers,
trying to think of every danger you might encounter. No IEDs, no enemy
mortars, no friendly fire, no disease. And, God, please bring Larry
home safe, unharmed and of sound mind and body. But then they came, two
Marines marching to my door, carrying a cross that was so very painful
to bear.
``Larry, you played such a huge part in our lives. You were a Guidon
bearer and team leader all along. You marched through our lives and led
us to wonderful places. You imprinted your love on our hearts. It was a
joy to watch you grow and play. We laughed endlessly at your antics on
and off fields of grass and ice. You led us on an incredible patriotic
journey with your badge of courage. We anxiously waited those 13 long
weeks of boot camp to pass and we would be able to hold you in our arms
again. You conquered Infantry school and you called home every day,
keeping us informed from foxholes, rifle ranges, and even bars. I will
never forget answering the phone and hearing my 21-year-old son say
`Hi, Mommy.' Your daily calls home meant so much to me.
``Marching on, you paraded us through our Nation's capital. You
impressed us with your precision and pride. You walked in the sunshine
all the way. We watched you soar even higher the day that you waltzed
Olivia into our life. She fit so well into our plans, and I knew she
would take good care of you. I was happy to share you with her. Then
your dream to deploy came true and our hearts with dread. Oh, Larry,
how thankful I was to go and see you before you left. That time I spent
with you is so precious to me. You introduced me to your Marines. You
were always mindful to ask them to curtail their leatherneck language
in front of your mom, saying to them, `Hey, this is my mom. Watch your
mouth.'
``Then it came time to say good-bye. I prayed, and God graced me with
calmness so that I could look you in the eyes. Without a quiver in my
voice, I opened my heart and told you how deeply I loved you, how happy
I was to be your mother and that I would see you when you came home.
Olivia and I stood side by side. We held each other up as we watched
the buses filled with courageous and brave Marines drive away. You'll
be happy to know that Olivia picked up that Guidon and has called me
every day. Oh, dear Larry, no one will ever fill your magic shoes. So
many people loved you. It is so evident in these past days. Our home
has been filled with love from family, friends, community, and even
those we never met. You will continue to guide us into the future of
your family. We must regroup and, as we learned entering the Marine
Corps, `adapt and overcome; we thank God for your presence in all our
lives. He is working so faithfully to turn the evil that took you away
from us into everlasting love. Your flag will continue to wave in our
hearts. We proudly stand and watch you lead your fallen comrades to the
Gates of Heaven.
``Look for me when I get there, and we will walk hand in hand
together again.
``Semper Fi, love always, Mom.''
____________________
TRICARE COVERAGE TO GUARD AND RESERVE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but be moved by
what the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) just had to say. It
seems with all too much frequency, on a daily basis, either in the
local media, the national media, we are learning of young
[[Page 11079]]
Marines, young National Guardsmen, young members of the Army and Navy
who have given their lives in Iraq.
Right now, 40 percent of all the force in Iraq and Afghanistan are
Guardsmen or Reservists. That is something that is very different from
previous wars. In fact, in the Vietnam War, very few Guardsmen and
Reservists were sent over there. In the first Gulf War, there was a
substantial call-up. But I do not think at any time in our Nation's
recent history have we ever seen so many Guardsmen and Reservists
serving. If Members take the time to look at the casualty reports, they
will know that not only are 40 percent of the people serving over there
Guardsmen and Reservists, but a very high new number of the people who
are wounded, a very high number of the people who lose their lives are
in the Guard and Reserve.
Last Friday I had the great privilege to visit some Mississippians at
Walter Reed. I asked the folks on the floor if I could visit every
wounded Mississippian. It might surprise some people to find out of the
five soldiers that I was able to visit, every one of them was a
Guardsmen or Reservist.
{time} 2230
Young William Brooks, a student at Mississippi State University, in a
Humvee that ran over a mine, lost both legs. Young Corporal Rice, of
Hattiesburg, Mississippi, lost a leg with the Marine Corps Reserve.
Specialist Yancy, a reservist in the heating and air conditioning
business back home. Young Elliot Smith, who lost a foot with the 115th
Mississippi National Guard.
The stories go on. It is not unique to Mississippi. But what is I
think a unique burden that is borne by our Guardsmen and Reservists is
that unlike their regular counterparts that they serve next to every
day, they are not afforded an opportunity to buy into our Nation's
health care system.
It is called TRICARE, and it is not free. They do have to pay into
the system. They have to pay even more if they want their family
covered. But right now, if you are a Guardsman or Reservist, you cannot
even buy in. One of the things we found out is that 20 percent of all
our Nation's Guardsmen and Reservists do not have health insurance.
Twenty percent of our Nation's Guardsmen and Reservists also,
coincidentally, were found unfit for duty when they were called up, and
it might well be because of this lack of health insurance.
Last week in the House Committee on Armed Services I offered an
amendment, along with seven of my Republican colleagues and a number of
Democrats, to see to it that TRICARE was extended to every Guardsman
and Reservist, not just those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
After a spirited debate and over, by the way the objections of the
committee chairman, the ranking member, the gentleman from New York
(Mr. McHugh), by a vote of 32 to 30, the committee decided to extend
TRICARE coverage to every single member of our Nation's Guard and
Reserve, because we felt like they deserved it.
Sometime between 1 o'clock in the morning when this passed and 6
o'clock Thursday evening, the gentleman from California (Chairman
Hunter) informed me right there in the back of the room that there was
a budgetary concern about this, that there was some mandatory spending
associated with the bill, that the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman
Nussle) of the Committee on the Budget was going to raise a point of
order.
I would like to remind my colleagues that on 21 occasions already
this year, 21 major pieces of legislation came to this floor where they
waived every budgetary restraint. Sometimes it was so people like Paris
Hilton could inherit tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars
without paying any taxes on it. Sometimes it was for things like the
prescription drug benefit for seniors, that we were told at the time
would cost our Nation $435 billion, but it turns out it is really going
to cost $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years. But they waived budgetary
rules for that.
The one time they selectively chose to enforce the budgetary rules
was over $5 million for a very narrow bracket of National Guardsmen who
happen to be Federal employees who are already on FEHBP and who might
want to enroll in TRICARE. So the same folks who in the past 4 years
have added over $2 trillion to the national debt, giving the wealthiest
Americans, the political contributor class of America, enormous tax
breaks, decided that these folks who are serving in Iraq and
Afghanistan, that they do not deserve the opportunity to buy their
health care coverage. I think that is wrong.
I went to the Committee on Rules tonight, and as we speak the
Committee on Rules is going to vote on this. But I would like to remind
the Committee on Rules that since last Thursday, the Reserve Officers
Association of the United States, the Military Officer's Association of
America, the Adjutants General Association of the United States, which
is the Adjutant General of every single State, EANGUS, the National
Guard Association, they all have come out in support of this amendment,
and I will include their letters of support for the Record.
Mr. Speaker, I am putting the Committee on Rules on notice that it is
my intention to offer the motion to recommit should this amendment not
be made in order, and that I think it is most appropriate that this
amendment that has already passed the House Committee on Armed Services
be voted on by every Member of this House.
Reserve Officers
Association of the United States,
Washington, DC, May 24, 2005.
Hon. Gene Taylor,
Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Taylor, I am writing to confirm the
support of the Reserve Officers Association of the important
amendment to the FY 2006 National Defense Authorization Act
that you would like to bring to the House floor.
ROA agrees that TRICARE Reserve Select should be extended
to the drilling population on a cost-share basis.
Mobilization should not be the physical qualification test to
achieve medical readiness, as it puts the cart before the
horse.
The governments own studies have shown that between 20 to
25 percent of our Guardsmen and Reservists are without health
care coverage. Medical readiness is our number one challenge
when Reserve Components are mobilized.
A Reservist is required to meet the same health and
physical fitness standard as is an Active-duty member. Yet
Reservists are the only part-time federal employee not
offered health care coverage.
Better health care benefits will help our recruiting,
readiness and retention efforts. Providing TRICARE health
will help persuade spouses that the Guard and Reserve is a
career and not just a job.
The Reserve Officers Association with its 75 thousand
members thanks you for your support. With the Guard and
Reserves providing 40 percent of the deployed forces, seeking
parity of benefits is a national security issue.
Sincerely,
Robert A. McIntosh,
Major General, USAFR (Retired),
Executive Director.
____
Military Officers
Association of America,
Alexandria, VA, May 23, 2005.
Hon. David Dreier,
Chairman, Committee on Rules, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the 370,000 members of the
Military Officers Association of America (MOAA), I am writing
to urge you to support--or at least not to oppose--an
amendment that Reps. Gene Taylor and Joe Wilson wil1 offer to
the FY2006 Defense Authorization Act that would extend
TRICARE coverage eligibility to all members of the Selected
Reserve who are not eligible for the Federal Employees Health
Program (FEHBP).
A broader amendment was approved by the Armed Services
Committee, but the Congressional Budget Office identified a
potential mandatory spending problem because certain members
also are eligible for FEHBP. The proposed Taylor-Wilson
amendment will resolve this problem by excluding FEHBP
enrollees from eligibility for the Reserve TRICARE program,
since they already have access to federal health coverage.
MOAA believes strongly that it is essential to extend
health care eligibility to all Selected Reserve members.
These members make up 40 percent of our deployed forces, and
the Guard and Reserve already are experiencing recruiting and
retention difficulties.
State National Guard leaders have consistently told us that
extending health coverage to all of these members is one of
the most important things we can do to improve recruiting and
retention. It is essential to ensure all Guard and Reserve
families have access to quality health care and to preserve
[[Page 11080]]
continuity of health coverage, regardless of the member's
mobilization status.
I urge you to help facilitate this important initiative for
the Guard and Reserve members and families who are bearing
such a large and disproportional share of national sacrifice
in the war on terrorism.
Sincerely,
Steven P. Strobridge,
Colonel, USAF (Ret),
Director, Government Relations.
____
Adjutants General Association
of the United States
Washington, DC, May 23, 2005.
Hon. Gene Taylor,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Taylor: I am writing to advise that the
Adjutants General Association of the United States (AGAUS)
wholeheartedly endorses your amendment to the 2006 National
Defense Authorization Act which will provide full TRICARE
benefits to all National Guard and Reserve members. The AGAUS
met in Omaha, Nebraska on May 20, 2005 and voted
overwhelmingly to endorse the Taylor/Wilson amendment. The
Adjutants General from the fifty states and four territories
make up the AGAUS. All were represented in Omaho. The
discussion and vote were resoundlingly supportive.
We believe it to be in the best interests of our nation to
provide full TRICARE benefits to all National Guard and
Reserve members. Full time military technicians and Active
Guard/Reserve (AGR) members already receive full medical
benefits through existing programs or TRICARE. However, the
traditional force does not have this option completely. The
TRICARE Reserve Select program recently enacted is a welcome
and appreciated step. However, your amendment is necessary to
ensure reserve component members are always able to report
``ready for duty.'' Many will not require the benefit because
they have coverage through their civilian employment. This
will mitigate some of the concerns over the cost of program.
Our National Guard and Reserve members are fighting along
side active duty forces to defeat terrorism. They and their
families should have the ability to share in medical
benefits. On behalf of the AGAUS thank you for realizing this
and so proactively working to achieve the equity our members
and families deserve.
Roger P. Lempke,
Major General, ANG,
President, AGAUS.
____
Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United
States,
Alexandria, VA, May 23, 2005.
Re H.R. 1815 National Defense Authorization Act of 2006 Rule.
Hon. David Dreier,
Chairman, House Committee on Rules, Capitol Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Dreier: I am writing on behalf of 45,000
members of the Enlisted Association of the National Guard
(EANGUS). We urge you to adopt a Rule making in order the
amendment to be offered from Congressman Gene Taylor that
would allow cost-share access to TRICARE for eligible members
of the National Guard and Reserves.
Since September 11, 2001, over 400,000 members of the
reserve component have been deployed. While we appreciate the
enhancements to TRICARE included in the committee bill (H.R.
1815), they will not address the issues of medical readiness
and continuity of care for members of the reserve component.
The availability of health insurance has a direct affect on a
service member's access to healthcare, health status, job
decisions and financial security.
There is considerable bipartisan support for cost-share
access to TRICARE for all members of the National Guard and
Reserves, regardless of status. In the past two years, the
Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) has included a
provision in their version of the Defense Authorization bill
that provided cost-share access to TRICARE.
The House Committee on Armed Services passed an amendment
that would provide TRICARE to all National Guard and Reserve
members by a vote of 32-30. We understand that the amendment
was stricken by the Chairman of the committee due to
budgetary implications. The new amendment that will be
offered by Congressman Taylor will address those issues.
We believe this issue deserves full consideration by every
member of the House of Representatives. Therefore we urge you
to adopt a Rule making in order the Taylor amendment allowing
cost-share access to TRICARE for eligible members of the
reserve component.
Working for America's Best!
Michael P. Cline
MSG (Ret), AUS,
Executive Director.
____
National Guard Association
of the United States, Inc.,
Washington DC, May 23, 2005.
Hon. David Dreier,
Chairman, House Committee on Rules, Capitol Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Dreier: Late last week, thirty-one members of
the House Armed Services Committee voted to pass an amendment
which would provide access to health care, on a cost-share
basis, to members of the National Guard. Subsequently,
Chairman Hunter struck the amendment from the bill based on
potential budgetary implications which violated the rules.
I am writing on behalf of the men and women of the National
Guard Association of the United States to urge you to create
a rule which would allow such a measure to be included in the
National Defense Authorization Bill.
Just like the Minutemen at Concord and Lexington, today's
citizen-soldiers have left their homes, families, and careers
to take up the fight. When they are called to duty, they must
arrive physically fit for duty. Yet, many do not have access
to basic health care. We consider it a key readiness issue
that soldiers and airmen have access to health care so that
they are ready for duty when called. Other part time Federal
employees have the option of buying into a government
sponsored health plan. We believe our soldiers and airmen
deserve no less.
Congressman Gene Taylor plans to offer a revised amendment
to the Authorization Bill which would allow members of the
National Guard access to the military healthcare system, on a
cost-share basis. We strongly urge your committee to pass a
rule which would make consideration of this amendment
possible.
Thank you very much for your kind consideration.
Sincerely,
Stephen M. Koper,
Brig. Gen. (Ret.), USAF,
President.
____
National Guard Association
of the United States, Inc.,
Washington, DC, May 23, 2005.
Hon. Gene Taylor,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Taylor: I am writing to thank you for
your efforts on behalf of the 450,000 members of the National
Guard who so desperately need the opportunity to access
health care for themselves and their families.
As recently as May 17, 2005, the National Guard Association
of the United States testified before the Defense
Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee on this
critical issue. We said in part:
``This committee is well versed in the contributions being
made by members of the National Guard in operations in Iraq,
Afghanistan and the Global War on Terror. As the Secretary of
Defense has said repeatedly, ``The War on Terror could not be
fought without the National Guard''. Battles would not be
won, peace would not be kept and sorties would not be flown
without the citizen soldier and citizen airman. We are asking
on their behalf for the resources necessary to allow them to
continue to serve the nation.
``At the top of that list of resources is access to health
care. The National Guard Association believes every member of
the National Guard should have the ability to access TRlCARE
coverage, on a cost-share basis, regardless of duty status.
``While we are encouraged by the establishment of TRICARE
Reserve Select, which is a program where members ``earn''
medical coverage through deployments, we don't believe it
goes far enough. Healthcare coverage for our members is a
readiness issue. If the Department of Defense expects Guard
members to maintain medical readiness, then it follows that
they should also have access to healthcare. As you know, when
a National Guardsman is called to full time duty, he or she
is expected to report ``ready for duty''. Yet, studies show
that a significant percentage of our members do not have
access to healthcare. Making TRICARE available to all members
of the National Guard, on a cost-share basis, would provide a
solution to this problem. And, it would finally end the
turbulence visited on soldiers and their families who are
forced to transition from one healthcare coverage to another
each time they answer the nation's call.
``In addition to addressing readiness concerns, access to
TRICARE would also be a strong recruitment and retention
incentive. In an increasingly challenging recruiting/
retention environment, TRICARE could make a significant
difference. Part-time civilian federal employees are eligible
to participate in federal health insurance programs. NGAUS
believes that National Guard members should receive, at a
minimum, the opportunity afforded other federal part-time
employees.''
We have worked diligently for the last five years to secure
legislation that would provide the healthcare access that you
propose. You have our unwavering support in this endeavor and
the thanks of Guard and Reserve members and their families
across the country. Please continue your effort on their
behalf.
Sincerely,
Stephen M. Koper,
Brigadier General (Ret), USAF,
President.
[[Page 11081]]
____________________
APPROVAL RATE OF CONGRESS AT LOWEST POINT IN 10 YEARS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Westmoreland). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pallone) is recognized for half the remaining time until midnight as
the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, as we prepare to return to our districts
for the Memorial Day work period, I think it is important for us to
take a look at where we are today and how exactly we got here in the
Congress. I think, for the most part, and certainly a lot of recent
polls indicate it, the American people are fed up with the Congress,
that the approval rate of Congress is at its lowest point in 10 years,
and it leads me to wonder how did we get to this place? I think we have
to take a look back at the first 5 months of the 109th Congress this
year to get some answers.
Earlier this year, the Republican leadership went ahead and changed
the way the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct does its
business. In the past, whenever ethics changes were being considered,
they were addressed in a bipartisan fashion with both Democrats and
Republicans at the table, and that is the only way ethics reform can
honestly be addressed. But the Republican leadership ignored that
protocol and strong-armed enough of their Members to pass new and
weakened ethics rules, without any support from our Democratic
colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, I think the American people understood that these new
ethics rules were basically a blatant attempt by the majority to
protect one of their Republican leaders. These new rules allowed either
party, Democrat or Republican, to protect its own Members. Under the
new Republican rules, if a majority of the committee could not
determine whether or not an investigation should proceed after 45-days
of receiving a complaint, that complaint would simply be dropped. Since
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is made up of five
members from each party, either side could prevent an ethics
investigation from moving forward against one of its Members.
That is not the way the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is
supposed to work. Under the old bipartisan rules, which have now been
restored, an investigative committee was created after a 45-day
deadline if a majority of the committee could not determine how to
proceed.
The weakened ethics rules by House Republicans did not fool anybody,
certainly not the editorial writers around the country, both liberal
and conservative. They followed the House proceedings closely and they
were essentially fed up with the new Republican rules.
I will just give you some examples. The conservative Chicago Tribune
said, ``How do House Republicans respond to ethical lapses? By trying
to bury them.''
The Hartford Current wrote, ``The committee has been careening
towards ethical oblivion in recent years as the majority Republicans
have relaxed the standards, eased up on investigations and created trap
doors through which alleged transgressors could escape.''
Finally I cite the Sarasota Herald Tribune, which wrote, ``If the
GOP's leaders in Congress continue to change the rules to protect one
of their own, they will have ceded the ethical high ground they pledged
to take in 1994.''
Again, this is what I call the Republican abuse of power, and it is a
major reason why people have lost faith in Congress and why Congress is
at a 10-year low in terms of people's support or feelings about the
institution.
But the Republican leadership did not just stop at weakening the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct rules. No, the leadership
also purged three Republican members of the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct earlier this year, three members who ruled against a
Republican leader the previous year.
After losing his chairmanship on the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct, the Republican gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley)
told the Washington Post that there is ``a bad perception out there
that there was a purge in the Ethics Committee and that people were put
in that would protect our side of the aisle better than I did.''
He continues, ``Nobody should be there to protect anybody. They
should be there to protect the integrity of the institution.''
Mr. Speaker, it took congressional Republicans nearly 4 months to
finally listen to their former ethics chairman and the media. But,
fortunately, in the end they did restore the old bipartisan ethics
rules. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) was clearly right, the
integrity of the House is much more important than any one Member, and
I think it is time the Republican leadership learn that lesson, not
only on that Committee on Standards of Official Conduct issue but in
general.
The abuses of power by the Republican majority really make you wonder
why they are necessary now. It seems clear to me that the Republican
leadership went to all this trouble to protect one of its leaders. The
Wall Street Journal charged ``there is an odor, an unsavory whiff at
the highest reaches of the House of Representatives.'' Every single day
it seems the Members of this body and the American people are subjected
to another revelation of questionable actions by one of our colleagues.
It is a constant drip that is getting close to a large puddle.
Fortunately, as I said, the American people were not fooled by this
abuse of power by the Republican majority with the ethics process. They
saw the new rules for what they were, nothing more than an attempt to
protect a powerful Republican leader, and finally, after media and
public outcry became too much for the Republican majority to endure,
Republicans agreed to reinstitute the old bipartisan ethics rules.
However, it is important to remember that had the public been
indifferent and had the Democrats on the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct gone ahead and allowed the committee to organize under
the weakened rules, today this House would be structured under ethics
rules that would allow either side, Democrat or Republican, to shield
its Members from scrutiny.
Mr. Speaker, the Republican ethics reversal was good for this
institution and good for the American people.
Now, there are still a lot of questions remaining about what the
Republican majority is doing with the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct. Despite the majority's change of heart on weakening
the ethics rules, there are still several areas where the Republican
leadership is continuing to delay any action by the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct.
The new chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
has said that he wants to appoint his chief of staff from his personal
office to be the new staff director of the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct. This action would defy House rules, which state that
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct staffers are to be
nonpartisan.
It is inconceivable that the rules would allow the chairman to
unilaterally appoint a chief counsel without immediately running afoul
of the rules. Trying to do so would be a clear violation of the rules,
as well as an affront to the committee's tradition.
The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is supposed to be a
place where Members can get straight, unbiased, trustworthy ethics
guidance. How can Members who might have disagreements with the House
leadership feel comfortable going to the committee for advice if they
fear committee staff members are incapable of performing their official
duties in a nonpartisan fashion?
My point is that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
should be a politics-free zone. One way to ensure politics stops at the
committee doors is to hire staff whose first loyalty is to the ethics
rules of the House and second loyalty is in equal measure to the
chairman, ranking member and remaining members of the committee. If
committee staff are perceived as being loyal to or owing their position
to only one member of the committee, their ability to render advice and
investigate
[[Page 11082]]
sensitive ethics issues will be called into question.
I would say once again, Mr. Speaker, the American public see the
games the Republican leadership is playing with the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct and they simply do not like it. They
would rather see this committee go back to work in a bipartisan
fashion, and now, so the Congress can address their concerns.
Now I want to go from the one issue of abuse of power here in the
House related to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to the
other outrageous abuse of power in the other body, in the Senate, and
this relates, of course, to the Senate filibuster.
Senate Republicans have spent much of the last 4 months fixating on
seven extreme judges President Bush once again sent up for confirmation
after they had already been rejected during his first term. Rather than
dealing with rising gas prices and an economy that continues to falter
and other issues that people really care about, Senate Republicans
attempted to have a power grab, unlike any other in the history of the
U.S. Senate.
Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Republican quest for absolute power in
Washington was temporarily halted last night by 14 Senators. And this
was a truly bipartisan group. Seven Democrats and seven 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 on the filibuster. They
wanted to change the Senate rules in the middle of the game and wanted
to attack our historic system of checks and balances with the
filibuster so that they could ram through a small number of judicial
nominees who otherwise could not achieve a consensus.
In reality, the power grab by the Senate Republican leadership in
trying to eliminate the filibuster did not really have much to do
probably with the current judicial nominees, but instead it was an
attempt by the White House and conservative interest groups to clear
the way for a Supreme Court nominee eventually 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 makeup of the U.S. Supreme
Court. They do not want to see another David Souder or Anthony Kennedy
nominated to the Supreme Court, even though they both were confirmed
with nearly unanimous bipartisan support. They would 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 Justice Thomas's case, he only received 52 votes, and he
has proven to be an extremist.
If the Senate had proceeded with this power grab and gotten rid of
the filibuster, President Bush would have been able to appoint right-
wing judges to the Supreme Court.
{time} 2245
The President has already said he most admires Justices Scalia and
Thomas and I think it would be frightening to think of another Justice
with 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 this
extreme power grab. The bipartisan compromise that was reached last
night shows that President Bush is not going to be able to ignore the
moderate views of these senators when he appoints future justices to
the Supreme Court, and I think that is certainly good news for our
country.
I think certainly what was happening here, Mr. Speaker, was that the
White House was manufacturing a crisis with these judicial nominees.
The American people know that there was absolutely no reason for the
Senate to take the measure of eliminating the minority's right for
input on judicial nominees. The White House has essentially
manufactured this judicial crisis because if you look at the record,
over the past 4 years, the Senate has confirmed 208 of Mr. Bush's
judicial nominations and turned back only 10. That is a 95 percent
confirmation rate, higher than any other President in modern times,
including presidents Reagan, the first President Bush, and President
Clinton. In fact, it is thanks to these confirmations that President
Bush now presides over the lowest court vacancy rate in 15 years.
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 Ninth Circuit
Court. Senator Frist, the architect, of course, of eliminating the
filibuster now, voted to continue a filibuster of a Clinton nominee,
Richard Paez.
There are also other ways the senators can prevent a nominee from
receiving an up-or-down vote on the Floor, and this has happened many
times in the past, which shows why it is not the case that there has to
be an up-or-down vote. Judicial nominees have often been stalled in the
Senate Committee on the Judiciary. More than one-third of President
Clinton's appeals court nominees never received an up-or-down vote on
the Floor of the Senate because Senator Hatch, then the chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary, refused to bring the nominees' names up for
a vote in the committee.
And, I think 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. We did not hear him talking about an up-or-down vote then
when President Clinton was nominating judges.
I just want to say, once again, Mr. Speaker, I think that the
bipartisan agreement reached last night was extremely valuable. It will
keep two of the President's nominees from moving forward who really do
not deserve to be appointed, and I would hope that the President would
learn from last night's action that, unlike the House, the Senate is
not a chamber that will be a rubber stamp for his extreme views. Let us
hope that President Bush was listening and will resist nominating
extreme right-wing judges to our courts in the future.
But all of this, not only the action in the House on the ethics
rules, but also the action in the Senate on the filibuster, I think
they are examples really of how the Republican majority has abused its
power. And the consequence of that is that the public is increasingly
disappointed and feels that the Congress does not do its job, that it
is essentially a do-nothing Congress. And as we approach the Memorial
Day recess, I think I need to stress that, that I believe the reason
why the polling and the media shows that people no longer have faith in
Congress or that the support of Congress as an institution has dropped
significantly is because of the Republican leadership's fixation on
these issues that consolidate their power, that seek to consolidate
their power without focusing on the real issues that affect the
American people.
A USA Today CNN poll that was released today, Mr. Speaker, showed
that the American people are fed up with Republican control of Congress
and are ready for a democratic Congress. And who can blame them? If
they had been watching the abuses of power that had been taking place
in both the House and the Senate in the last four months, they would
have to be disgusted. Beyond that disgust, I think it is clear that
they just want Congress to address the issues of importance in their
lives, and we are going to be going into a Memorial Day recess without
most of those issues being addressed. It really has been, for the last
five months, a do-nothing Congress.
For five months now, congressional Republicans have done nothing to
reverse their abysmal economic record. The fact is that middle class
families are being squeezed at the gas pump, at the pharmacy with high
drug prices, and in the grocery store. There are
[[Page 11083]]
growing signs of a faltering economy, with President Bush still having
the worst jobs record in history.
Instead of addressing the serious kitchen table issues of American
families, education, health care, you name it, Republicans are focusing
on legislation that is written for the special interests and will
actually harm middle class families.
Instead of increasing the minimum wage and expanding prosperity,
Republicans are focused on undercutting bipartisan ethics rules.
Instead of creating good jobs with good paychecks by completing the
much-delayed highway bill, for example, Republicans choose to focus
instead on undercutting the checks and balances on judicial nominations
by focusing on the filibuster.
Instead of enacting an energy bill that improves our communities and
brings down gas prices and tries to create more energy independence,
the Republicans have channeled their energy into replacing Social
Security with a risky privatization scheme that clearly most Americans
do not support, and the President probably is going to have to
eventually abandon.
And, instead of passing a budget that reflects the values of
America's families, Republicans brought the entire Federal Government
to intervene in the personal tragedy of just one family, and I am, of
course, talking about the Terry Schiavo case. I think it is no wonder
that the American people are not pleased with Congress, and I think it
is time congressional Republicans take a hard look at these polls. I do
not say, Mr. Speaker, that we should always be looking at polls, but in
this case, the polls reflect what people are thinking.
I go back, and I will, of course, go back to my district during the
Memorial Day recess, and I know I am going to hear from people who are
saying, why are you not talking about health care, why are you not
talking about education? What are you doing about the trade deficit?
What are you doing about the budget deficit? What is the reason why a
crisis for everything from housing to groceries to gas continue to go
up, and we in Congress do not address the issues.
I am simply saying that the Republican leadership should listen to
their constituents. The polls reflect, I think, what our constituents
are telling us. I think the American people really want these abuses of
power to stop. They do not want to hear us talking about the filibuster
and about the ethics process; not that those are not important, they
are, in terms of the procedures and how we proceed. But, in each of
these cases, the Republicans wanted to change the procedure here so
that they could get their own way, and instead of concentrating on
those procedural issues and trying to change the rules, they should get
down and look at issues like the rising cost of college, the rising
cost of health care, the rising price of gas at a time when most
people's wages are shrinking.
It is simply time, I think, for us to get down to the people's
business. I hope that when we come back after the Memorial Day recess,
that we can see the end of these Republican abuses of power, we can see
the end of their trying to change the rules and, rather, focusing in a
bipartisan way on trying to address some of the Americans concerns of
the American people.
Steps Toward Peace in Israel
I just wanted to switch to a different issue, if I could, Mr.
Speaker, for a few minutes, because I know that this Thursday is an
historic day when the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is
going to be visiting Washington to talk to President Bush. I wanted to
discuss briefly the recent developments in the Middle East peace
process and how that relates to this historic visit to Washington by
the Palestinian leader.
This is the first time a Palestinian leader has visited the United
States since peace talks in 2000 collapsed into bloodshed. This is a
critical opportunity for Abbas to prove to Israel and the world that
their commitment to peace goes beyond rhetoric and that the Palestinian
leadership is taking concrete steps towards peace.
Just as this is an important opportunity for Abbas to show that he is
committed to peace, Abbas's visit to Washington is an equally important
opportunity for the United States to further encourage reforms in the
Palestinian Authority. As one of my constituents said to me this
afternoon, and this is one of the reasons that I am here this evening,
the United States must be willing to hold Abbas's feet to the fire.
That being said, in order for negotiations to move forward, Abbas
must rise to the occasion. He must take steps to dismantle Hamas and
the Palestinian terrorist network. Security is of the utmost concern
for Israel and Hamas is a direct threat to the safety of the Israeli
people.
Mr. Speaker, Israel has taken remarkable risks over the last few
months to advance the peace process.
By the end of this summer, Israel has agreed to withdrawal its
military and civilian presence from the Gaza Strip and four settlements
in the West Bank, and this decision was made at great political,
financial, and emotional risk for the Israeli people.
In his speech today in Washington at the annual meeting of the
American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC, Israeli Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon said that he is willing to work with Abbas to
ensure a secure transition in Gaza. Cooperation on this level is an
unprecedented step. It is critical that the Palestinians work to ensure
a safe transition, that any looting or violence is prevented. Israel
has taken the dramatic step of withdrawal; Abbas must then ensure that
Gaza does not become a haven for terrorists.
This morning, Sharon also announced that as a sign of good faith, he
plans to release 400 Palestinian prisoners. This is in addition to the
500 prisoners freed in February as part of an agreement between the two
sides.
I would urge President Bush to be firm in his meeting with Abbas on
Thursday that any support of terrorism will not be tolerated, that
these next couple months will be critical if the peace process is to
continue, the disengagement, and the upcoming Palestinian elections
must go smoothly.
Mr. Speaker, I would like all of my colleagues to be cautiously
optimistic about the situation in Israel. These initial steps are
heartening, but the words must be met with action.
I had the opportunity almost two years ago to go to Israel at the
time when there was a cease-fire and there was relative peace. At that
time Mahmoud Abbas was the Prime Minister, and I realized very quickly
that he was not in a position of authority and that it was not likely
that the peace process was going to continue or that the cease-fire was
going to continue. Very quickly, after myself and the rest of the
congressional delegation left, the violence began again, Abbas ceased
to be the Prime Minister, and we went through essentially another year,
over a year of violence, if not longer than a year.
I hope that this time is different. I hope that because of the
overtures and the steps that Ariel Sharon has taken, that we can see
now a situation where Abbas is ready to negotiate and to end the
violence. But I do think it is incumbent upon President Bush to make
that point, that we are not going to see peace, we are not going to see
any new negotiations, we are not going to see any roadmap unless Abbas
and the Palestinian Authority immediately take steps to ensure that
there is peace and that violence does not continue.
____________________
{time} 2300
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Westmoreland). Pursuant to clause 12(a),
of rule I, the House is in recess, subject to the call of the Chair.
Accordingly (at 11 p.m.), the House stood in recess, subject to the
call of the Chair.
____________________
{time} 0010
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Putnam) at 12 o'clock and 10 minutes a.m.
[[Page 11084]]
____________________
REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1815, NATIONAL
DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a
privileged report (Rept. No. 109-96) on the resolution (H. Res. 293)
providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1815) to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for military activities of the
Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for
fiscal year 2006, and for other purposes, which was referred to the
House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
____________________
SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED
By unanimous consent, permission to address the House, following the
legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was
granted to:
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Pallone) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. DeFazio, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Jackson of Illinois, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Brown of Ohio, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Woolsey, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Emanuel, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Filner, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Lee, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Cleaver, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Davis of Illinois, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Larson of Connecticut, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Duncan) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Franks of Arizona, for 5 minutes, May 25.
Mr. Duncan, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Gibbons, for 5 minutes, May 25. (The following Member (at his own
request) to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous
material:)
Mr. Taylor of Mississippi, for 5 minutes, today.
____________________
SENATE BILL REFERRED
A bill of the Senate of the following title was taken from the
Speaker's table and, under the rule, referred as follows:
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; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now
adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 12 o'clock and 11 minutes
a.m.), the House adjourned until today, Wednesday, May 25, 2005, at 10
a.m.
____________________
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.
Under clause 8 of rule XII, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:
2106. A letter from the Acting Under Secretary for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Department of Defense,
transmitting a report presenting the specific amounts of
staff-years of technical effort to be allocated for each
defense Federally Funded Research and Development Center
(FFRDC) during FY 2006, pursuant to Public Law 108-287,
section 8028(e); to the Committee on Armed Services.
2107. A letter from the Principal Deputy Under Secretary
for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense,
transmitting a report to Congress on the use of Aviation
Career Incentive Pay (ACIP) and Aviation Continuation Pay
(ACP), pursuant to 37 U.S.C. 301a(a) 37 U.S.C. 301b(i); to
the Committee on Armed Services.
2108. A letter from the Acting Under Secretary for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Department of Defense,
transmitting the annual report on operations of the National
Defense Stockpile (NDS), detailing NDS operations during FY
2004 and providing information with regard to the
acquisition, upgrade, and disposition of NDS materials, as
well as the financial status of the NDS Transaction Fund for
FY 2004, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 98h-2; to the Committee on
Armed Services.
2109. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary for
Legislative Affairs, Department of Defense, transmitting a
report pursuant to Section 9010 of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2005 (Pub. L. 108-287); to the Committee
on Armed Services.
2110. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary for
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting the
final report on the Department's Alternative Fuel Vehicle
(AFV) program for FY 2004, pursuant to Public Law 105-388 42
U.S.C. 13211-13219; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
2111. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary for
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting
certification of a proposed license for the export of defense
articles or defense services sold under a contract to New
Zealand, Israel, and Canada (Transmittal No. DDTC 002-05),
pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2776(c); to the Committee on
International Relations.
2112. A letter from the Deputy Director, Defense Security
Cooperation Agency, transmitting pursuant to Section 23(g) of
the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), notification concerning
the request for the Goverment of Israel to cash flow finance
a Direct Commercial Contract (DCC) for the procurement of
Engineering, Development and Production of Hardware
Components for a Digital Army Program (DAP) for the Israeli
Defense Force (IDF) Command Control Division Headquarters; to
the Committee on International Relations.
2113. A letter from the Director, Defense Security
Cooperation Agency, transmitting pursuant to the reporting
requirements of Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control
Act, as amended, a correction to Transmittal No. 05-10 of 26
April 2005, concerning the Department of the Air Force's
proposed Letter(s) of Offer and Acceptance to Israel for
defense articles and services; to the Committee on
International Relations.
2114. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the
Treasury, transmitting as required by section 401(c) of the
National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1641(c), and section
204(c) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50
U.S.C. 1703(c), and pursuant to Executive Order 13313 of July
31, 2003, a six-month periodic report on the national
emergency with respect to the Development Fund for Iraq that
was declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, as
expanded in scope in Executive Order 13315 of August 28,
2003; to the Committee on International Relations.
2115. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary for
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a
Memorandum of Justification for a drawdown to support the
Transitional Islamic State of Afghanistan, pursuant to
Section 202 and other relevant provisions of the Afghanistan
Freedom Support Act (Pub. L. 107-327, as amended) and
Sections 506 and 652 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
as amended; to the Committee on International Relations.
2116. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary for
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting the
Department's final rule -- Aliens Inadmissable Under the
Immigration and Nationality Act -- Unlawful Voters (RIN:
1400-AC04) received April 26, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on International Relations.
2117. A letter from the Chairman, Parole Commission,
Department of Justice, transmitting a copy of the annual
report in compliance with the Government in the Sunshine Act
for the calendar year 2004, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(j); to
the Committee on Government Reform.
2118. A letter from the Chairman, Federal Mine Safety and
Health Review Commission, transmitting a report on activity
for FY 2004, pursuant to Public Law 107-174, section 203; to
the Committee on Government Reform.
2119. A letter from the Associate Special Counsel for Legal
Counsel and Policy, Office of the Special Counsel,
transmitting the Office's FY 2004 Annual Report pursuant to
Section 203, Title II of the No Fear Act, Pub. L. 107-174; to
the Committee on Government Reform.
2120. A letter from the Secretary, Judicial Conference of
the United States, transmitting a draft bill, ``To amend
title 28, United States Code, to clarify the jurisdiction of
the Federal courts, and for other purposes''; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
2121. A letter from the Under Secretary for Emergency
Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting notification that funding under Title V,
subsection 503(b)(3) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended, may exceed
$5 million for the response to the emergency declared as a
result of the record snow on December 22-24, 2004, in the
State of Ohio, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5193; to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
2122. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous
Amendments [Docket No. 30439; Amdt. No. 3117] received April
26, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
[[Page 11085]]
2123. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous
Amendments [Docket No. 30440; Amdt. 3118] received April 26,
2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
2124. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited, Bristol
Engine Division Model Viper Mk.601-22 Turbojet Engines
[Docket No. FAA-2004-18024; Directorate Identifier 2003-NE-
39-AD; Amendment 39-14034; AD 2005-07-10] received April 26,
2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
2125. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 757-200 and -200PF
Series Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-2004-18876; Directorate
Identifier 2003-NM-254-AD; Amendment 39-14032; AD 2005-07-08]
(RIN: 2120-AA64) received April 26, 2005, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
2126. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous
Amendments [Docket No. 30438; Amdt. No. 3116] received April
26, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
2127. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-200F and -200C
Series Airplanes [Docket No. 2001-NM-181-AD; Amendment 39-
14046; AD 2005-07-21] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received April 29,
2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
2128. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330, A340-200, and
A340-300 Series Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-2005-20025;
Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-208-AD; Amendment 39-14016; AD
2005-06-08] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received April 26, 2005,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
2129. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330, A340-200, and
A340-300 Series Airplanes [Docket No. 2001-NM-234-AD;
Amendment 39-14028; AD 2005-07-04] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received
April 26, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
2130. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company (GE) CF6-
80A1/A3 and CF6-80C2A Series Turbofan Engines, Installed on
Airbus Industrie A300-600 and A310 Series Airplanes [Docket
No. 99-NE-41-AD; Amendment 39-14015; AD 2005-06-07] (RIN:
2120-AA64) received April 26, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
2131. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; British Aerospace Model BAe 146 and
Model Avro 146-RJ Series Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-2004-
19757; Directorate Identifier 2001-NM-273-AD; Amendment 39-
14024; AD 2005-06-04] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received April 26,
2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
2132. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767-200, -300, -300F
Series Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-2004-19493; Directorate
Identifier 2004-NM-69-AD; Amendment 39-14018; AD 2005-06-10]
(RIN: 2120-AA64) received April 26, 2005, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
2133. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B,
747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-300, 747SP, and 747SR Series
Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-2004-19535; Directorate Identifier
2004-NM-78-AD; Amendment 39-14020; AD 2005-06-12] (RIN: 2120-
AA64) received April 26, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
2134. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company CF6-45A,
CF6-50A, CF6-50C, and CF-50E Series Turbofan Engines [Docket
No. FAA-2004-19463; Directorate Identifier 2004-NE-14-AD;
Amendment 39-14029; AD 2005-07-05] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received
April 26, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
2135. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Fairchild Aircraft, Inc. SA226 and
SA227 Series Airplanes [Docket No. 99-CE-12-AD; Amendment 39-
14023; AD 2005-06-13] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received April 26,
2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
2136. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Modification of Class E Airspace; Rolla, MO. [Docket No. FAA-
2005-20060; Airspace Docket No. 05-ACE-2] received April 26,
2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
2137. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Establishment of Class E2 Airspace; and Modification of Class
E5 Airspace; Newton, KS [Docket No. FAA-2004-19579; Airspace
Docket No. 04-ACE-69] received April 26, 2005, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
2138. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Revocation of Class E Airspace; Palmer, MA [Docket No. FAA-
2005-20584; Airspace Docket No. 05-AEA-05] received April 26,
2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
2139. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Modification of Class E Airspace; Nevada, MO. [Docket No.
FAA-200520062; Airspace Docket No. 05-ACE-4] received April
26, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
2140. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Modification of Class E Airspace; Parsons, KS. [Docket No.
FAA-2005-20573; Airspace Docket No. 05-ACE-10] received April
26, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
2141. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Veterans
Affairs, transmitting a letter reporting the FY 2004
expenditures from the Pershing Hall Revolving Fund for
projects, activities, and facilities that support the mission
of the Department of Veterans Affairs, pursuant to Public Law
102-86, section 403(d)(6)(A); to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
2142. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Veterans
Affairs, transmitting a draft bill, ``To amend title 38
United States Code, to improve veterans' health care benefits
and for other purposes''; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as
follows:
[Filed on May 25 (Legislative day, May 24), 2005]
Mr. COLE: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 293.
Resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R.
1815) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, to
prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2006,
and for other purposes. (Rept. 109-96). Referred to the House
Calendar.
____________________
PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions were
introduced and severally referred, as follows:
By Mr. JACKSON of Illinois:
H.R. 2560. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to require, as a condition of participation in
the Medicare Program, that hospitals make reasonable efforts
to contact a family member, specified healthcare agent, or
surrogate decisionmaker of a patient who arrives at a
hospital emergency department unconscious or otherwise
physically incapable of communicating with the attending
health care practitioners of the hospital, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in
addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to
be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. NORWOOD (for himself and Mr. Andrews):
H.R. 2561. A bill to amend the Federal Employees'
Compensation Act to cover services provided to injured
Federal workers by physician assistants and nurse
practitioners, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
By Mr. BROWN of Ohio:
H.R. 2562. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act to preserve the effectiveness of medically
important antibiotics used in the treatment of human
[[Page 11086]]
and animal diseases; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. OTTER:
H.R. 2563. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to conduct feasibility studies to address certain
water shortages within the Snake, Boise, and Payette River
systems in Idaho, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Resources.
By Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania (for himself and Mr.
Ford):
H.R. 2564. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to make permanent the qualified tuition deduction at the
2005 levels; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia (for himself, Mr. Waxman,
Mr. Souder, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Shays, Mr. Owens, Mr.
McHugh, Mrs. Maloney, Mr. Platts, Mr. Davis of
Illinois, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Clay, Mr. Issa, Mr. Lynch,
Mr. Dent, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, Ms.
Foxx, and Ms. Norton):
H.R. 2565. A bill to reauthorize the Office of National
Drug Control Policy Act and to establish minimum drug testing
standards for major professional sports leagues; to the
Committee on Government Reform, and in addition to the
Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Education and the
Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. YOUNG of Alaska (for himself, Mr. Oberstar, Mr.
Petri, and Mr. DeFazio):
H.R. 2566. A bill to provide an extension of highway,
highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other
programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending
enactment of a law reauthorizing the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century; to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committees on Ways
and Means, Science, and Resources, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. ACKERMAN (for himself, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mrs.
Wilson of New Mexico, Mr. Upton, Mrs. Bono, and Mr.
Tanner):
H.R. 2567. A bill to amend the Federal Hazardous Substances
Act to require engine coolant and antifreeze to contain a
bittering agent so as to render it unpalatable; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. ANDREWS:
H.R. 2568. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to
provide for the award of a military service medal to members
of the Armed Forces who served honorably during the Cold War
era; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. ANDREWS:
H.R. 2569. A bill to amend the accountability provisions of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
By Mr. ANDREWS:
H.R. 2570. A bill to amend the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 to provide for the
collection of data on the availability of credit for women-
owned business; to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Mr. ANDREWS:
H.R. 2571. A bill to require the establishment of programs
by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
the Director of the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health, and the Secretary of Health and Human
Services to improve indoor air quality in schools and other
buildings; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in
addition to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for
a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. ANDREWS:
H.R. 2572. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
require that employers of members of the National Guard and
Reserve who are called to active duty continue to offer
health care coverage for dependents of such members, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and in
addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to
be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina:
H.R. 2573. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
cuprammonium rayon yarn; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland (for himself, Mr. Gingrey,
Mr. Norwood, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Culberson, Mr. English
of Pennsylvania, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Price of
Georgia, and Mr. Cannon):
H.R. 2574. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
provide for a program at the National Institutes of Health to
conduct and support research on animals to develop techniques
for the derivation of stem cells from embryos that do not
harm the embryos, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. BONNER:
H.R. 2575. A bill to extend the suspension of duty on
Methyl thioglycolate (MTG); to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. BONNER:
H.R. 2576. A bill to extend the suspension of duty on Ethyl
pyruvate; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BONNER:
H.R. 2577. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Indoxacarb; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BONNER:
H.R. 2578. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Dimethyl carbonate; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BONNER:
H.R. 2579. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on 5-
Chloro-1-indanone (EK179); to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. BONNER:
H.R. 2580. A bill to extend the suspension of duty on
Methyl-4-trifluoromethoxyphenyl-N-(chlorocarbonyl) carbamate
(DPX-KL540); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BONNER:
H.R. 2581. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on the
formulated product containing mixtures of the active
ingredients 5-methyl-5-(4-phenoxyphenyl)-3-(phenylamino)-2,4-
oxazolidiedione) (famoxadone) and 2-cyano-N-
[(ethylamino)carbonyl]-2-(methoxyimino)acetamide (cymoxanil)
and application adjuvants; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. BONNER:
H.R. 2582. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on ortho
nitro aniline; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BONNER:
H.R. 2583. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Decanedioic acid, Bis(2,2,6,6,-tetramethyl-4-piperidinyl); to
the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BONNER:
H.R. 2584. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Benzoxazole, 2,2'-(2,5-thiophenediyl)bis(5-(1,1-
dimethylethyl)-; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. BONNER:
H.R. 2585. A bill to extend the suspension of duty on
2methyl-4,6-bis[(octylthio)methyl]phenol; to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
By Mr. BONNER:
H.R. 2586. A bill to extend the suspension of duty on 4-
[[4,6-bis(octylthio)-1,3,5-traizine-2-yl]amino]-2,6-bis(1 1-
dimethylethyl)phenol; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. CUNNINGHAM:
H.R. 2587. A bill to make amendments to the Reclamation
Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992; to the
Committee on Resources.
By Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia (for herself, Mr.
Scott of Virginia, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Cardin, Mr.
Platts, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr.
Goode, Mr. Holden, Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia, Mr.
Hoyer, Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. Wolf, and Mr. Forbes):
H.R. 2588. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior
to carry out a study of the feasibility of designating the
Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Watertrail as
a national historic trail; to the Committee on Resources.
By Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts:
H.R. 2589. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on certain filament yarns; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts:
H.R. 2590. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on certain filament yarns; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts:
H.R. 2591. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
certain yarn (other than sewing thread) of synthetic staple
fibers, not put up for retail sale; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. HASTINGS of Florida (for himself, Mr. Serrano,
Mr. Lynch, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Wexler, Ms.
Corrine Brown of Florida, Mr. Delahunt, and Ms. Moore
of Wisconsin):
H.R. 2592. A bill to designate Haiti under section 244 of
the Immigration and Nationality Act in order to render
nationals of Haiti eligible for temporary protected status
under such section; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. HYDE:
H.R. 2593. A bill to encourage more vigorous investigation
and prosecution, under section 2339B of title 18, United
States Code, of drug crimes committed to provide material
support to terrorist organizations; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky (for himself, Mr. Tanner, Mrs.
Blackburn, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Jenkins, Mr. McCrery, Mr.
Gordon, Mr. Ford, Mr. Foley, Mr. Doggett, Mr. English
of Pennsylvania, Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, Mr.
Hayworth, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Davis of Kentucky, Mr.
Davis of Tennessee, Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Hall, Mr.
Taylor of Mississippi, Mr. Engel, Mr. Coble, Mr.
Brady of Texas, Mrs. Bono, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Franks of
Arizona, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Brown of South Carolina, Mr.
Goode, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Chandler, and
Mr. Herger):
[[Page 11087]]
H.R. 2594. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide capital gains tax treatment for certain self-
created musical works; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Ms. NORTON:
H.R. 2595. A bill to authorize the Administrator of General
Services and the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain
Federal property to the District of Columbia to increase the
District's taxable property base as compensation for a
structural fiscal imbalance caused by Federal mandates; to
the Committee on Government Reform, and in addition to the
Committee on Resources, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. REICHERT:
H.R. 2596. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
modified steel leaf spring leaves; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. REICHERT:
H.R. 2597. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
suspension system stabilizer bars; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. REICHERT:
H.R. 2598. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on steel
leaf spring leaves; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. ROHRABACHER:
H.R. 2599. A bill to improve the quality, availability,
diversity, personal privacy, and innovation of health care in
the United States; to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in
addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and the
Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. SHAW:
H.R. 2600. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act with respect to the sale or trade of
prescription drugs that were knowingly caused to be
adulterated or misbranded, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. SMITH of New Jersey (for himself and Mr. Payne):
H.R. 2601. A bill to authorize appropriations for the
Department of State for fiscal years 2006 and 2007, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on International Relations.
By Mr. TERRY:
H.R. 2602. A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on
Formulations of Azoxystrobin; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. TERRY:
H.R. 2603. A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on
Cypermethrin Technical; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. TERRY:
H.R. 2604. A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on
Formulations of Pinoxaden/Cloquintocet-Mexyl; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. TERRY:
H.R. 2605. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Formulations of Difenoconazole/Mefenoxam; to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
By Mr. TERRY:
H.R. 2606. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Fludioxonil Technical; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. TERRY:
H.R. 2607. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Formulations of Clodinafop-propargyl; to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
By Mr. TERRY:
H.R. 2608. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Emamectin Benzoate Technical; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. TERRY:
H.R. 2609. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Cloquintocet Technical; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. TERRY:
H.R. 2610. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Mefenoxam Technical; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. TERRY:
H.R. 2611. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Cyproconazole Technical; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. TERRY:
H.R. 2612. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Pinoxaden Technical; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. TERRY:
H.R. 2613. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Formulations of Tralkoxydim; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. TERRY:
H.R. 2614. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Propiconazole Technical - Bulk; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. TERRY:
H.R. 2615. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Permethrin Technical; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. WU (for himself, Ms. Lee, Ms. Bordallo, Mr.
McGovern, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mrs. Jones of Ohio,
Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. Millender-McDonald, Mr. Hinojosa,
Mr. McDermott, Mr. Schiff, Ms. Watson, Mr. Lantos,
Mr. Case, Mr. Crowley, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Honda, Mr.
Al Green of Texas, Ms. McCollum of Minnesota, Mr.
Blumenauer, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, Ms. Zoe
Lofgren of California, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Faleomavaega,
and Mr. Abercrombie):
H.R. 2616. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965
to authorize grants for institutions of higher education
serving Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders; to the
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
By Mr. ANDREWS:
H. Con. Res. 165. Concurrent resolution calling for the
immediate release of all political prisoners in Cuba,
including Mr. Jose Daniel Ferrer Garcia, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on International Relations.
By Mr. ISRAEL:
H. Con. Res. 166. Concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of the Congress that the Federal Government should not
infringe on State or private programs that fund embryonic
stem cell research; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. BOUSTANY:
H. Res. 294. A resolution supporting the goals of ``A Day
of Commemoration of the Great Upheaval'', and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Government Reform.
By Mrs. JONES of Ohio (for herself and Mr. Weldon of
Pennsylvania):
H. Res. 295. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives supporting the establishment of September
as Campus Fire Safety Month, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
By Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California (for herself and
Mr. Green of Wisconsin):
H. Res. 296. A resolution recognizing the achievements and
contributions of ``Teenangels'' and WiredSafety/WiredKids
Executive Director Parry Aftab, in addressing the growing
problem of cyberbullying in the United States; to the
Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. SALAZAR (for himself and Mr. Rogers of
Michigan):
H. Res. 297. A resolution supporting the goals and ideals
of a National Medal of Honor Day to celebrate and honor the
recipients of the Medal of Honor on the anniversary of the
inception of that medal in 1863; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
____________________
MEMORIALS
Under clause 3 of rule XII, memorials were presented and referred as
follows:
28. The SPEAKER presented a memorial of the Senate of the
State of Hawaii, relative to Senate Resolution No. 51, S.D.
1, memorializing the Hawaiian Congressional Delegation to
work towards National Park status for the Kawainui Marsh
Complex; to the Committee on Resources.
29. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of
Michigan, relative to House Concurrent Resolution No. 4
memorializing the Congress of the United States 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; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
____________________
ADDITIONAL SPONSORS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:
H.R. 22: Mr. Abercrombie.
H.R. 63: Mr. Lynch and Mr. Clyburn.
H.R. 65: Mr. Hall and Mrs. Cubin.
H.R. 94: Mr. Ryan of Ohio and Mr. Bishop of Georgia.
H.R. 111: Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. Schwarz of
Michigan, Mr. Fattah, and Mr. Shaw.
H.R. 127: Mr. Delahunt.
H.R. 128: Mr. Moran of Virginia, Ms. Hooley, and Mrs.
Napolitano.
H.R. 181: Mr. Rohrabacher.
H.R. 195: Mr. Garrett of New Jersey, Mr. Paul, and Mr.
Wilson of South Carolina.
H.R. 215: Mr. Conaway.
H.R. 282: Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Honda, Mr. Moore of Kansas, Mr.
Strickland, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, Mr. Carnahan, Mr.
Cummings, Mr. Marchant, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mrs. Cubin,
Mr. Ryun of Kansas, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts,
and Mr. Graves.
H.R. 328: Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Shadegg, and Mr. Moran
of Virginia.
H.R. 333: Ms. Hooley.
H.R. 371: Mr. McCotter.
H.R. 376: Ms. Woolsey, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Boren, and Mr.
Bishop of Georgia.
H.R. 408: Ms. Woolsey and Mr. Hayworth.
H.R. 420: Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida, Mr. Rogers of
Michigan, Mr. Hen-
sarling, Mr. Akin, Mr. Stearns, and Mr. Inglis of South
Carolina.
H.R. 528: Mr. Alexander.
H.R. 554: Mr. Sodrel.
H.R. 558: Mr. Strickland.
H.R. 583: Mr. Sessions and Mr. Bishop of Georgia.
H.R. 602: Mr. Melancon, Mr. Bonilla, and Ms. DeLauro.
[[Page 11088]]
H.R. 615: Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island.
H.R. 700: Ms. Woolsey.
H.R. 712: Mr. Manzullo and Mr. Sweeney.
H.R. 713: Mr. Skelton and Mr. Ramstad.
H.R. 791: Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Mr.
Cardin, Mrs. Napoli-
tano, Ms. DeLauro, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, and Mr.
Kucinich.
H.R. 800: Mr. Weller.
H.R. 808: Mr. Allen, Ms. Berkley, Mr. Bonilla, Mr. Boozman,
Mr. Boren, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Carter, Mr. Davis of
Florida, Mr. Honda, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Larsen of Washington,
Ms. McCollum of Minnesota, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Rogers of
Kentucky, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Turner, and Mr. Weller.
H.R. 817: Mr. Lantos, Mr. Saxton, Mr. Ackerman, Ms. Zoe
Lofgren of California, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Inglis of South
Carolina, Mr. Shimkus, and Mr. King of New York.
H.R. 818: Mr. Holt and Mr. Moran of Virginia.
H.R. 874: Mr. Bishop of Utah.
H.R. 885: Mr. Snyder and Mr. Edwards.
H.R. 893: Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Lantos, Ms. Watson, and Ms.
Matsui.
H.R. 898: Mr. Waxman, Mr. Snyder, Mr. Taylor of
Mississippi, Mr. Inslee, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Gerlach, Ms.
DeGette, Mr. Allen, Mr. Engel, Ms. Hooley, Mr. Ross, Mr.
Coble, Mr. Gutierrez, Mrs. McCarthy, Mr. Dicks, Mr. Baca, and
Mr. Honda.
H.R. 916: Ms. Harris, Mr. Platts, Mr. Baird, Mr. Lewis of
Georgia, and Mr. Pickering.
H.R. 923: Mr. Kildee.
H.R. 963: Mr. McHugh and Mr. Foley.
H.R. 976: Mrs. Northup and Mrs. Kelly.
H.R. 983: Mr. Holt.
H.R. 998: Mr. Wynn, Mr. Walden of Oregon, Mr. Bradley of
New Hampshire, Mr. Dicks, Mr. Kuhl of New York, and Mr.
Grijalva.
H.R. 1002: Mr. Allen.
H.R. 1020: Mr. Stark and Mr. Ruppers-
berger.
H.R. 1049: Mr. Lucas.
H.R. 1106: Mr. Barrow and Mr. Capuano.
H.R. 1107: Mr. Cleaver.
H.R. 1124: Mr. Sullivan.
H.R. 1140: Mr. Platts.
H.R. 1145: Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Murtha, Mr. Price of North
Carolina, Mr. McCaul of Texas, Mr. Kind, Mr. Van Hollen, and
Mr. Reyes.
H.R. 1149: Mr. Green of Wisconsin.
H.R. 1152: Mr. Cox.
H.R. 1182: Mr. Ford, Mr. Meek of Florida, Mr. Sanders, Mr.
Moore of Kansas, and Mr. Scott of Georgia.
H.R. 1216: Mrs. Miller of Michigan and Mr. Petri.
H.R. 1232: Mr. Issa.
H.R. 1235: Mr. Aderholt.
H.R. 1259: Mr. Conyers, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr.
Levin, Mr. Berman, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr.
Scott of Georgia, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Ms. Harman, Mr.
Clyburn, and Ms. Kaptur.
H.R. 1306: Mr. Watt.
H.R. 1337: Mr. Gary G. Miller of California, Mrs.
Blackburn, Mr. Radanovich, and Mr. Ehlers.
H.R. 1352: Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California and Ms. Eshoo.
H.R. 1373: Mr. Delahunt and Mr. Cummings.
H.R. 1380: Mr. Bishop of Georgia.
H.R. 1397: Mr. Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 1399: Mr. Clay.
H.R. 1402: Mr. Tierney and Mr. DeFazio.
H.R. 1406: Mr. Gordon.
H.R. 1417: Mr. Blunt.
H.R. 1426: Ms. DeLauro.
H.R. 1443: Ms. Granger.
H.R. 1469: Mr. Aderholt.
H.R. 1480: Mr. George Miller of California.
H.R. 1498: Mr. Hall, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, and Mr.
Jones of North Carolina.
H.R. 1505: Mr. Alexander.
H.R. 1510: Mr. Hinojosa and Mr. McKeon.
H.R. 1558: Mr. Alexander.
H.R. 1563: Mr. Akin.
H.R. 1592: Mr. Schwarz of Michigan, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr.
Calvert, Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota, and Mr. Lipinski.
H.R. 1632: Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin.
H.R. 1671: Mrs. Emerson.
H.R. 1688: Mr. Sabo.
H.R. 1696: Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
H.R. 1704: Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Ms.
Schakowsky, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Ms. Carson, Mr.
Towns, and Ms. Millender-McDonald.
H.R. 1707: Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Meeks of New York,
Ms. Carson, Ms. McCollum of Minnesota, Ms. Eshoo, Mrs. Davis
of California, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Cleaver, and Mr. Michaud.
H.R. 1736: Ms. Hooley.
H.R. 1741: Mr. Stupak.
H.R. 1749: Mr. Paul, Mr. Pence, Mr. Souder, and Mr. Scott
of Georgia.
H.R. 1751: Mr. Alexander and Mr. Gallegly.
H.R. 1762: Mr. Lewis of Kentucky and Mr. Ramstad.
H.R. 1816: Mr. Bishop of Utah.
H.R. 1849: Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, Mr. Israel, Ms.
Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Moore of Kansas, and Ms. Linda T. Sanchez,
of California.
H.R. 1851: Mr. Conaway.
H.R. 1879: Mr. Hayworth, and Mr. Nussle.
H.R. 1929: Mr. Souder.
H.R. 1954: Mr. Alexander.
H.R. 1956: Ms. Hart, Mr. Cole of Oklahoma, and Mr. Garrett
of New Jersey.
H.R. 2012: Ms. Woolsey, Mrs. Capps, and Mr. Foley.
H.R. 2047: Mr. Taylor of Mississippi, Mr. Simpson, and Mr.
Otter.
H.R. 2049: Mr. Souder, Mr. Alexander, and Mr. Forbes.
H.R. 2061: Mr. Gillmor, Mr. Peterson of Minnesota, Mr.
Paul, Mr. Goode, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Terry, Mr.
Osborne, and Mr. Alexander.
H.R. 2063: Mr. Paul, Mr. Inglis of South Carolina, and Mr.
Kuhl of New York.
H.R. 2071: Ms. Eshoo.
H.R. 2089: Mr. Sessions, Mr. Carter, Mr. Issa, and Mr.
Terry.
H.R. 2108: Mr. Hastings of Florida.
H.R. 2177: Mr. Cox, Mr. Kind, and Mr. Doggett.
H.R. 2183: Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Pallone, and Mr. Andrews.
H.R. 2210: Mr. Boren.
H.R. 2233: Mr. Hastings of Florida.
H.R. 2238: Mr. Alexander.
H.R. 2259: Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island.
H.R. 2327: Mr. Pastor, Mrs. Lowey, and Mr. Meek of Florida.
H.R. 2349: Mr. Hastings of Florida.
H.R. 2350: Mr. Miller of Florida.
H.R. 2353: Mr. Pence.
H.R. 2355: Mr. Sodrel.
H.R. 2356: Ms. Berkley, Mr. Boswell, Mrs. Christensen, Mr.
Clay, Mr. Costa, Mr. Goode, Mr. Hinchey, Ms. Hooley, Mr.
McIntyre, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Price of
Georgia, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Towns, and Mr. Young of Alaska.
H.R. 2359: Ms. Schakowsky.
H.R. 2363: Mr. Alexander.
H.R. 2366: Ms. Bordallo, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, and Mr.
Gutierrez.
H.R. 2401: Ms. Slaughter.
H.R. 2423: Ms. Ros-Lehtinen and Mr. Alexander.
H.R. 2427: Ms. Moore of Wisconsin.
H.R. 2455: Ms. McKinney.
H.R. 2511: Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico.
H.R. 2533; Mr. Markey and Mr. Leach.
H.J. Res. 23: Mr. Porter.
H.J. Res. 46: Mr. Goode.
H. Con. Res. 24: Mr. Tierney.
H. Con. Res. 85: Mr. Moore of Kansas.
H. Con. Res. 107: Mr. Lewis of Georgia and Mr. Clyburn.
H. Con. Res. 141: Mr. Cox.
H. Con. Res. 144: Mrs. Myrick.
H. Con. Res. 148: Mr. Coble, Mr. Taylor of North Carolina,
Mr. McHenry, Mr. Jones of North Carolina, Mr. Etheridge, and
Mr. McIntyre.
H. Con. Res. 160: Mr. Nadler, Ms. Norton, and Mr. Scott of
Virginia.
H. Con. Res. 162: Mr. Conaway.
H. Res. 76: Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island.
H. Res. 199: Mr. Wolf, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr.
Turner, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Moran of Virginia, and Mr. McGovern.
H. Res. 245: Mr. Grijalva.
H. Res. 279: Mr. Dent, Ms. DeLauro, Mrs. McCarthy, and Mr.
Bishop of Georgia.
H. Res. 288: Ms. Waters.
____________________
PETITIONS, ETC.
Under clause 3 of rule XII,
The SPEAKER presented a petition of the Town Council,
Davie, Florida, relative to Resolution No. R-2005-81
petitioning the Congress of the United States to preserve the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program within the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and
provide a FY 2006 funding level of at least $4.7 billion
overall, with no less than $4.35 billion in formula funding
for the CDBG program; which was referred to the Committee on
Financial Services.
____________________
AMENDMENTS
Under clause 8 of rule XVIII, proposed amendments were submitted as
follows:
H.R. 1815
Offered by: Mr. Filner
Amendment No. 1. At the end of title VI (page 279, after
line 6), add the following new section:
SEC. __. REPORT ON SPACE-AVAILABLE TRAVEL FOR CERTAIN
DISABLED VETERANS.
Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a
report on the feasibility of providing transportation on
Department of Defense aircraft on a space-available basis for
any veteran with a service-connected disability rating of 50
percent or higher. The Secretary of Defense shall prepare the
report in consultation with the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs.
H.R. 2419
Offered by: Mr. King of Iowa
Amendment No. 6. Page 2, line 18, after the dollar amount,
insert the following: ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
Page 27, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert the
following:``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
H.R. 2419
Offered by: Mr. King of Iowa
Amendment No. 7. At the end of title I (before the Short
Title), insert the following:
[[Page 11089]]
Sec. 5__. Congress finds the following:
(1) The Secretary should provide a floodplain information
report for the Missouri River from River Mile 498 through
811.
(2) The floodplain information report should develop new
information as well as utilize information developed in the
Upper Mississippi, Lower Missouri, and Illinois Rivers Flow
Frequency Study completed during 2004 under authority of
section 206 of the 1970 Flood Control Act.
(3) The report should include water surface profiles for
the 10-, 50-, 100-, and 500-year floods; delineation of the
100-, and 500-year flood boundaries, as well as the
regulatory floodway for the Missouri River, within the States
of Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, and South Dakota.
(4) Products developed should include hydrologic and
hydraulic information and should accurately portray the flood
hazard areas along the Missouri River floodplain.
(5) Maps delineating the floodplain information should be
produced in a high resolution format and be made available to
the States of Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, and South Dakota in a
digital format, acceptable to the States.
(6) $3,000,000 should be made available for the completion
of the floodplain information report.
[[Page 11090]]
EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
____________________
A PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING JONATHAN OLIVITO
______
HON. ROBERT W. NEY
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker:
Whereas, Jonathan Olivito has devoted himself to serving others
through his membership in the Boy Scouts of America; and
Whereas, Jonathan Olivito has shared his time and talent with the
community in which he resides; and
Whereas, Jonathan Olivito has demonstrated a commitment to meet
challenges with enthusiasm, confidence and outstanding service; and
Whereas, Jonathan Olivito must be commended for the hard work and
dedication he put forth in earning the Eagle Scout Award.
Therefore, I join with the residents of Carrollton, the entire 18th
Congressional District of Ohio, Jonathan's family and friends in
congratulating Jonathan Olivito as he receives the Eagle Scout Award.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. TED POE
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, due to other obligations in my district, I
unfortunately missed the following votes on the House floor on Monday,
May 23,2005.
I ask that the Record reflect that had I been able to vote that day,
I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 200 (On Motion to
Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended--the Internet Spyware (I-SPY)
Prevention Act), and rollcall vote No. 201 (On Motion to Suspend the
Rules and Pass, as Amended--the Securely Protect Yourself Against Cyber
Trespass Act). I strongly support these two bills because they take
important steps to protect the identity and privacy of computer users.
I also ask that the Record reflect that had I been able to vote that
day, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 202 (On Motion to
Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended--Recognizing the 57th
Anniversary of the Independence of the State of Israel). As a cosponsor
of this legislation, H. Con. Res. 149, I congratulate Israel on its
57th Anniversary of Independence and their allegiance to the principles
of freedom and democracy. Israel has consistently been a vital and
strategic ally to the United States in the Middle East.
____________________
A PROCLAMATION IN MEMORY OF RUDY J. ZATEZALO
______
HON. ROBERT W. NEY
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker:
Whereas, I hereby offer my heartfelt condolences to the family,
friends, and community of Rudy J. Zatezalo; and
Whereas, Rudy J. Zatezalo was a retired press operator with Wheeling
Pittsburgh Steel Corporation; and
Whereas, Rudy J. Zatezalo was a member of St. John's Catholic Church
in Bellaire, the Knights of Columbus, and the Bellaire Lions Club; and
Whereas, Rudy J. Zatezalo bravely defended our country in the Army
during World War II; and
Whereas, the understanding and caring to which he gave to others will
stand as a monument to a truly fine person. His life and example
inspired all who knew him.
Therefore, while I understand how words cannot express our grief at
this most trying of times, I offer this token of profound sympathy to
the family, friends, and colleagues of Rudy J. Zatezalo.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. TED POE
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, due to other obligations, I unfortunately
missed a recorded vote on the House floor on Thursday, May 19, 2005.
I ask that the Record reflect that had I been able to vote that day,
I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 196 (On Agreeing to the
Amendment--prohibiting the use of funds for the sale or slaughter of
wild free-roaming horses and burros.)
____________________
A PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE OHIO ARMY NATIONAL GUARD'S 216TH
ENGINEER BATTALION
______
HON. ROBERT W. NEY
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker:
Whereas, the 216th was mobilized in January 2004 and supported the
1st Infantry Division in Iraq from March 2004 to February 2005; and
Whereas, the 216th conducted four hundred and fifty combat patrols
and completed over three hundred and fifty missions at forty separate
locations in north central Iraq and An Najaf; and
Whereas, the 216th played a critical role in improving force
protection at forward operating bases and fixed check points as well as
in preparation of Iraq's national election.
Therefore, I congratulate the Ohio National Guard's 216th Engineer
Battalion on their receipt of the Meritorious Unit Commendation for
exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding
services during military operations against an armed enemy.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. J. GRESHAM BARRETT
of south carolina
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, due to family obligations
in South Carolina, I unfortunately missed recorded votes on the House
floor on Monday, May 23, 2005.
I ask that the Record reflect that had I been able to vote that day,
I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 200 (Motion to Suspend
the Rules and Pass H.R. 744--Internet Spyware (I-SPY) Prevention Act of
2005), ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 201 (Motion to Suspend the Rules
and Pass H.R. 29--Securely Protect Yourself Against Cyber Trespass
Act), and ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 202 (Motion to Suspend the Rules
and Pass H. Con. Res. 149--Recognizing the 57th Anniversary of the
independence of the State of Israel).
____________________
A PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING TAMALA LONGABERGER
______
HON. ROBERT W. NEY
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker:
Whereas, Tamala Longaberger has been appointed by President George W.
Bush to chair the National Women's Business Council; and
Whereas, Tamala Longaberger will oversee the bipartisan federal
advisory body to provide advice to the President, Congress, and the
United States Small Business Administration on economic issues
important to women business owners; and
Whereas, Tamala Longaberger has served as the chief executive officer
of the number one maker of handmade baskets, Longaberger Company, for
ten years; and
Whereas, Tamala Longaberger should be commended for her service in
the Newark,
[[Page 11091]]
Ohio and surrounding areas and to the Republican Party.
Therefore, I join with the residents of the entire 18th Congressional
District of Ohio in honoring and congratulating Tamala Longaberger for
her outstanding appointment.
____________________
IN SPECIAL RECOGNITION OF QUINTEN S. WISE ON HIS APPOINTMENT TO ATTEND
THE UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY AT WEST POINT
______
HON. PAUL E. GILLMOR
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to pay special
tribute to an outstanding young man from Ohio's Fifth Congressional
District. I am happy to announce that Quinten S. Wise of Waterville,
Ohio has been offered an appointment to attend the United States
Military Academy at West Point, New York.
Quinten's offer of appointment poises him to attend the United States
Military Academy this fall with the incoming cadet class of 2009.
Attending one of our nation's military academies is an invaluable
experience that offers a world-class education and demands the very
best that these young men and women have to offer. Truly, it is one of
the most challenging and rewarding undertakings of their lives.
Quinten brings an enormous amount of leadership, service, and
dedication to the incoming class of West Point cadets. While attending
Anthony Wayne High School in Whitehouse, Ohio, Quinten has attained a
grade point average of 3.95, which places him near the top of his class
of more than three hundred students. While a gifted athlete, Quinten
has maintained the highest standards of excellence in his academics,
choosing to enroll and excel in Advanced Placement classes throughout
high school. Quinten has been a member of the National Honor Society,
Honor Roll, and has earned awards and accolades as a scholar and an
athlete.
Outside the classroom, Quinten has distinguished himself as an
excellent student-athlete. On the fields of competition, he has earned
letters in both Varsity Football and Baseball. Quinten has served as
class president for four years and was selected as a 2004 delegate to
the American Legion's Boys State. Quinten's dedication and service to
the community and his peers has proven his ability to excel among the
leaders at West Point. I have no doubt that Quinten will take the
lessons of his student leadership with him to West Point.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Quinten
S. Wise on his appointment to the United States Military Academy at
West Point. Our service academies offer the finest military training
and education available anywhere in the world. I am sure that Quinten
will do very well during his career at West Point and I ask my
colleagues to join me in wishing him well as he begins his service to
the nation.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. ELTON GALLEGLY
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, May 23, 2005 I was unable to
vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 744, the Internet
Spyware Prevention Act of 2005 (rollcall No. 200); H.R. 29, Securely
Protect Yourself Against Cyber Trespass Act (rollcall No. 201); and H.
Con. Res. 149, Recognizing the 57th Anniversary of the Independence of
the State of Israel (rollcall No. 202). Had I been present, I would
have voted ``yea'' on all three measures.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO CHARLES E. WALKER
______
HON. C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER
of maryland
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to
Charles E. Walker.
Charles Walker is a Government Affairs Officer with the Army Corps of
Engineers and he will be retiring this year after thirty years of
outstanding work in the Federal service.
Charles Walker has consistently demonstrated a high level of
performance throughout his career serving our nation, starting with his
service in the United States Army. He joined the Army in 1966 and
fought in the Vietnam conflict. He left the Army in 1969 and returned
to continue his education.
He earned his Russian Language Certificate from Leningrad University
and a P.h.D. from West Virginia University in 1973. Prior to Vietnam,
Charles Walker had been a secondary school teacher in Baltimore City.
He returned to teaching in 1973 as a History Lecturer at Anne Arundel
Community College and remained there until 1974.
In 1975, Charles Walker entered the Federal service as a historian in
the Historical Office of the Headquarters of the Army Corps of
Engineers. He left the Corps in 1978 to become an aide to the Mayor of
Baltimore City and returned to teaching in 1979, taking a position as a
U.S. Government instructor at Towson University.
Since 1980, Charles Walker has been working exclusively as a member
of the Federal service. First as a Senior Soviet Research Analyst at
the Library of Congress in 1980, he became a Public Affairs Specialist
with the Corps of Engineers. He again left the Corps in 1982. In 1987,
Charles Walker became the Public Affairs Director for the Maryland
Department of the Environment.
In 1991, Charles Walker began his current position as a Government
Affairs Officer with the Army Corps of Engineers. His professionalism,
dedication, diligence and enthusiasm have had a significant positive
impact on the Corps as it serves its mission.
The Baltimore District of the Corps serves five states and helps to
design and construct facilities and provide real estate services to
support America's Army. The Corps also plays an active role in
maintaining important navigation channels to secure the safety of
national commerce in addition to the many public service engineering
projects it performs in our communities.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Charles E.
Walker for his service to our nation and honoring him on the occasion
of his retirement.
____________________
A PROCLAMATION HONORING ARLENE WHITBECK KRUEGER
______
HON. ROBERT W. NEY
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker:
Whereas, Arlene May Whitbeck was born in Albany, New York on May 21,
1921; and
Whereas, Arlene Whitbeck married Robert Krueger on October 25, 1947;
and
Whereas, Arlene and Robert raised their two children, John and Karen;
and
Whereas, Arlene Krueger's professional career was spent in the family
business, Whitbeck Motors, in Troy, New York, where she succeeded her
father as President in 1965; and
Whereas, Arlene and Robert retired to Florida in the mid-1970s, but
missing their family, now including their two grandchildren,
Christopher and Sarah, they have returned to the New York of their
roots to enjoy their golden years; and
Whereas, Arlene Krueger has exemplified a love of life, caring, and
service for her family and neighbors.
Therefore, I join with the residents of the entire 18th Congressional
District of Ohio in congratulating Arlene Whitbeck Krueger as she
celebrates her 84th Birthday.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. JIM KOLBE
of arizona
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, on May 19, I missed the vote on agreeing to
the Terry amendment to H.R. 2361, making appropriations for the
Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2006 (#193). I intended to vote
``nay.''
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MOHAMMED KHAN, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE MONTACHUSETT REGIONAL
TRANSIT AUTHORITY
______
HON. JOHN W. OLVER
of massachusetts
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mohammed Khan,
Administrator of the Montachusett Regional Transit Authority,
[[Page 11092]]
in recognition of his work in meeting the needs of transportation-
disadvantaged individuals throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Today, the Secretary of Transportation will award Mr. Khan and the
Montachusett Regional Transit Authority the 2005 United We Ride
National Leadership Award from the Federal Interagency Coordinating
Council on Access and Mobility. The Montachusett Regional Transit
Authority is one of only five organizations nationwide that will be
recognized this year for exemplary coordination of transportation
services for older adults, people with disabilities, and individuals
with lower incomes. Through Mr. Khan's leadership, the Montachusett
Regional Transit Authority is specifically being recognized for their
Brokerage Services Program, a service that contracts with approximately
160 private sector vendors to provide over 11,000 rides a day.
It is not often that we are able to pay adequate tribute to our
Nation's community leaders. Mr. Khan has been a strong force for
progressive, efficient public service in the area of transportation. It
is through Mr. Khan's humility, integrity and vision that many
transportation-disadvantaged individuals receive quality, reliable
transit services in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Mr. Khan has
made outstanding contributions to his community and, is therefore,
worthy of our thanks.
____________________
STOP COUNTERFEITING IN MANUFACTURED GOODS ACT
______
HON. STEVEN R. ROTHMAN
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, as a proud cosponsor of H.R. 32, the Stop
Counterfeiting in Manufactured Good Act, I rise in support of this
legislation. In a time when U.S. manufacturing has been tested again
and again by foreign markets, we must do everything we can to ensure
that this vital industry continues to grow stronger. The Stop
Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act will do just that.
With its two pronged approach to destroy equipment used to
manufacture counterfeit goods and to prohibit the trafficking of such
goods, this legislation will save American manufacturers billions of
dollars every year. Furthermore, the Stop Counterfeiting in
Manufactured Goods Act will provide the same type of protection under
the law for manufacturers that we now grant to copyright owners. This
legislation is a welcome addition to the numerous efforts this Congress
has undertaken to preserve the manufacturing sector.
I commend Congressman Knollenberg for his interest in helping to
protect manufacturing by granting law enforcement authorities the tools
they need to put an end to counterfeiting practices. I urge my
colleagues to support this legislation that will not only go a long to
way in helping to preserve an American way of life, but it will also
protect all Americans from the deception of counterfeit goods.
____________________
A PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING RYAN KEITH GELTMEIER
______
HON. ROBERT W. NEY
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker:
Whereas, Ryan Keith Geltmeier has devoted himself to serving others
through his membership in the Boy Scouts of America; and
Whereas, Ryan Keith Geltmeier has shared his time and talent with the
community in which he resides; and
Whereas, Ryan Keith Geltmeier has demonstrated a commitment to meet
challenges with enthusiasm, confidence and outstanding service; and
Whereas, Ryan Keith Geltmeier must be commended for the hard work and
dedication he put forth in earning the Eagle Scout Award.
Therefore, I join with the residents of Sandyville, the entire 18th
Congressional District of Ohio, Ryan's family and friends in
congratulating Ryan Keith Geltmeier as he receives the Eagle Scout
Award.
____________________
MINNESOTA'S HISTORIC OLD LOG THEATER MARKS RECORD RUN OF 65 YEARS
______
HON. JIM RAMSTAD
of minnesota
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a historic
Minnesota and national treasure, the Old Log Theater.
The Old Log is a pioneering lighthouse in the history of theater in
our Nation, located on the shores of Lake Minnetonka in Greenwood, next
to Excelsior, Minnesota.
Just as Lake Minnetonka for generations has been a powerful
attraction for visitors from all over the world trying to escape the
summer heat, the rich tradition of the Old Log Theater has been a
magnet for theater fans around the globe.
On June 9th, the Old Log Theater will celebrate its 65th anniversary,
a truly remarkable accomplishment that is most deserving of special
recognition.
Mr. Speaker, the Old Log Theater, under the visionary guidance of Don
Stolz, is the Nation's oldest, continuously running professional
theater.
Don is largely responsible for the Old Log's legendary 65-year run.
He has worn every hat: producer, artistic director, company member,
ticket seller, public address announcer, theater host and many more.
Don's distinguished presence, the great respect he enjoys in the
community and the profession, and his wonderful sense of humor have as
much to do with the success of the Old Log as any other factor.
The enduring legacy of this great theater is that, at its roots, the
Old Log is a family affair. Don, his wife, Joan, and their sons, Tim,
Tom, Dony, John and Peter, have acted as a team, filling every role.
And author and public relations manager Bob Williams is really a
member of the Stolz family, too.
Originally opened in the spring of 1940 as a summer stock company in
a log stable, the Old Log has entertained over 6 million patrons over
the past six and a half decades.
In 1960, a new theater opened and the Old Log started running year-
round its stable of the best in contemporary comedies from Broadway and
London's West End.
Theater buffs can find some of the best comedic talent in the country
in the Old Log's resident company of Equity actors.
Famous stars too numerous to mention have started their careers at
the Old Log. Radio and TV personalities have graced its stage year
after year.
But those of us who have been in the audience--and we come back time
and again!--have been graced the most by the continuing excellence of
the Old Log.
Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating Don Stolz and the Stolz
family on the 65th anniversary of the Old Log Theater.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. PATRICK J. KENNEDY
of rhode island
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, on the evening of May 23, I
missed three rollcall votes. I respectfully request the opportunity to
record my position on rollcall votes. It was my intention to vote: yes
on H.R. 744--Internet Spyware (I-SPY) Prevention Act of 2005; yes on
H.R. 29--Securely Protect Yourself Against Cyber Trespass Act; yes on
H. Con. Res. 149--Recognizing the 57th anniversary of the independence
of the State of Israel.
At this time I would ask for unanimous consent that my positions be
entered into the Record following those votes or in the appropriate
portion of the Record.
____________________
NARCO-TERRORISM ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2005
______
HON. HENRY J. HYDE
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today the ``Narco-
Terrorism Enforcement Act of 2005.'' This legislation will provide yet
another tool for our law enforcement agencies in the struggle against
global terrorism and illicit drugs, and against those who traffick in
the illicit narcotics which help finance terrorism.
In a recent hearing before our International Relations Committee on
the heroin crisis in Afghanistan, our excellent and knowledgeable Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA) indicated that nearly half of the U.S.
Government-designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) around the
globe have links to illicit narcotics (18 of 40). The nexus between
terrorism and illicit narcotics grows more and
[[Page 11093]]
more as evidence emerges of their common, supportive links and as the
use also increases of drug trafficking routes to move both narcotics
and terrorists.
In the case of the Afghan narcotics, which help finance several of
the terrorist organizations that are today attacking American troops
and the new Afghan democratic government, much of the heroin produced
there is supplied to Europe and Asia, not to the United States. In
cases where there is not yet any known nexus to U.S. trafficking or any
domestic destinations here at home, our DEA agents on the front line
often rely on another foreign transiting nation or the producing nation
itself to bring indictments of these drug trafficking cases and proceed
with difficult and challenging prosecutions.
This bill makes clear that, even without direct U.S. nexus, if these
drugs help support or sustain a foreign terrorist organization, the
producers and traffickers can, and should be, prosecuted for material
support of terrorism, whether or not the illicit narcotics are ever
intended for, or enter, the United States. In addition, this bill
raises the penalties under the material support-for-terrorism statute
to reflect the seriousness of this offense. This bill reflects the new
reality, emerging challenges, and ever-clearer drug links on the global
terrorism front.
I look forward to enacting this reform as Congress continues its
effort to provide our national law enforcement agencies with the tools
needed to win the war on global terrorism.
____________________
WATER STORAGE
______
HON. C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER
of idaho
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, If there's one thing Idahoans understand,
it's the importance of matching our limited water supplies to what seem
to be unlimited demands on the water we have. Every year our water
supplies face demands from irrigation, power generation, industrial and
municipal users, as well as from environmental groups for fish recovery
and other Endangered Species Act requirements.
These demands are constantly growing, yet every spring we watch
hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of water pass through our system
that could and should be stored for beneficial uses. This is water that
could be used for aquifer recharge, expanding municipal systems or even
environmental mitigation.
I have been told that the days of building new dams are over.
However, I am not that easily convinced. Recently I convened a group of
interested water users to look at additional storage opportunities in
Idaho. The group is focusing on the Treasure Valley, but we are hopeful
that the group can find some success and we can use a similar process
in other regions of the state. We are not just talking about building
dams; we also are looking at adding to existing structures, off-site
storage, recharge and a host of other ideas.
As part of this process, the Bureau of Reclamation in Idaho is
undertaking the appraisal level study for the Boise and Payette river
systems. The legislation I am introducing today is the next step in the
process. It is a broad authorization for the Bureau to conduct
feasibility studies on the Snake, Boise, and Payette River systems.
Our communities, our economy and our families all depend on water to
survive, grow and prosper. Deciding how to use such a rare commodity in
a way that does the greatest good for the greatest number, while hewing
to the principles of law and equity on which our society is based, is
an enormous challenge. The task is further complicated, and brought
into sharp focus, by the continuing drought plaguing Idaho and much of
the arid West.
Our energy, our economy and our environment all will depend on the
ability to anticipate and prioritize future water needs. Our children,
our grandchildren and generations to come all are depending on the
choices we make today. Preserving water rights while providing for
continued growth are a top priority of mine and I will continue to work
to achieve that goal.
____________________
IN TRIBUTE TO ROBERT PETERS, OUTSTANDING MILWAUKEE EDUCATOR
______
HON. GWEN MOORE
of wisconsin
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my
gratitude to an outstanding leader within the Milwaukee educational
community, Mr. Robert L. Peters. Mr. Peters, who worked in the
Milwaukee Public Schools for over thirty years, is retiring this month
as Principal of James Madison University High School. As an educator
and principal, he made a difference in the lives of thousands of young
Milwaukee residents.
Mr. Peters came to Milwaukee from Mississippi. He received a B.S. cum
laude from Jackson State University in 1972, earning his M.S. shortly
thereafter from the University of Southern Mississippi.
As a principal, Mr. Peters sought to address long-standing problems--
like discipline and attendance--in new ways. Ever an educator, he
continued to teach and to develop new curricula throughout his career
as an administrator. Mr. Peters developed five Milwaukee Public High
Schools into praiseworthy educational facilities, creating nurturing,
safe instructional environments that fostered student learning and
academic excellence.
Mr. Peters is also an upstanding member of the Milwaukee community,
taking an active role in his church, Tabernacle Baptist Church, and
participating in numerous civic organizations and community activities.
As a member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People (NAACP), he was active in the Annual Fund Raising Campaign. As a
volunteer with Project Return, he provided counseling to local
residents attempting to make the difficult transition from
incarceration to regular society. He found ways to integrate this
community leadership with his educational mission, for example, by
developing a curriculum and conducting workshops for teachers to
prepare for Black History Month.
His awards and commendations are numerous. Mr. Peters was recognized
as one of North America's 100 Best Educational Administrators by
Executive Educator and has been selected as Wisconsin's Principal of
the Year.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Mr.
Robert L. Peters for the immeasurable service he has rendered to our
country and his community. I sincerely thank Mr. Peters for his
enduring commitment to Milwaukee's children, and wish him a long,
enjoyable retirement.
____________________
BUFFALO NEWS ARTICLE: CLOSE BASE ON LONG ISLAND, NOT IN NIAGARA, SAYS
PENTAGON OFFICIAL FROM REAGAN YEARS
______
HON. LOUISE McINTOSH SLAUGHTER
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter into the Record an
article that appeared in the Buffalo News on May 24. The article
details how a former Assistant Secretary of Defense under President
Ronald Reagan has disagreed with Secretary Rumsfeld's recommendation to
close Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station.
[From the Buffalo News, May 24, 2005]
Close Base on Long Island, Not in Niagara, Says Pentagon Official From
Reagan Years
(By Jerry Zremski and Sharon Linstedt)
A former assistant secretary of defense under President
Ronald Reagan has rushed to the defense of the Niagara Falls
Air Reserve Station, saying the Pentagon should consider
closing a base on Long Island instead.
Lawrence J. Korb, who oversaw personnel and base issues at
the Pentagon from 1981 to 1985, wrote an op-ed article for
the New York Times' Long Island regional edition Sunday that
criticized the proposed Niagara closing.
He urged the independent commission that is reviewing the
Pentagon's base-closure recommendations to instead consider
shutting an Air National Guard station at Francis S. Gabreski
Airport in Westhampton Beach.
``It should take a close look at Niagara and Gabreski,''
Korb wrote.
The two bases perform different tasks. The Niagara base
services a Guard unit that performs refueling missions and an
Air Reserve unit that hauls cargo, while the Gabreski base
services a search-and-rescue Guard unit.
Korb suggested that the search-and-rescue team be moved to
Stewart Air Force Base in Newburgh, north of New York City,
and that Niagara stay open for several reasons.
For one, he said, such a move would keep jobs in-state and
prevent the Niagara operations from being dispersed to
Arkansas, Maine and Georgia.
``Moreover, the Pentagon will need to spend a lot just to
bring Gabreski up to minimum standards,'' Korb wrote.
``Paradoxically, Congress allotted Niagara more than $14
million last year for upgrades.''
Korb, a native of Long Island, noted that while Gabreski
contributes about $100 million to Long Island's economy, the
Niagara base generates more than $150 million. ``Suffolk
County is better positioned than Niagara to absorb the
cutbacks,'' he said.
[[Page 11094]]
In an interview, Korb said he decided to write the opinion
article after reviewing the Pentagon's proposed closures.
``This just doesn't make sense'' that Gabreski would stay
open and Niagara would close, he said.
He said that it would be very difficult for part-time air
personnel from Niagara to travel to out-of-state bases to
train and that Long Island would be better able than Western
New York to withstand a base closing economically.
Korb, now a senior fellow at the liberal-leaning Center for
American Progress in Washington, is one of Washington's most
prominent and oft-quoted defense experts.
In another development, the Niagara Frontier Transportation
Authority board of commissioners is throwing its support
behind efforts to keep the Niagara Falls base open and will
ask NFTA workers to do the same.
The NFTA board Monday unanimously approved a resolution
backing the Niagara Military Affairs Council in its efforts
to get the base off the list for closing.
Commissioners also approved a plan to send letters to the
NFTA's 1,500 employees asking them to write to the Base
Realignment and Closure Commission showing their support for
keeping the base open.
``This is an important issue for the Niagara Falls
community and all of Western New York. I think we need a
full-court press,'' said Commissioner Henry M. Sloma, who
represents Niagara County.
``It makes a lot of sense to show support,'' NFTA Chairman
Luiz F. Kahl said of the USA Niagara-led effort to amass
10,000 letters before a June 27 hearing in Buffalo on the
Pentagon proposal.
____________________
COMMENDING VINCENT PAUL DIEGO, PH.D.
______
HON. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO
of guam
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and commend
Vince P. Diego for the completion of his Doctor of Philosophy in
Anthropology from the State University of New York at Binghamton. I had
the privilege of attending Dr. Diego's Doctoral degree presentation on
May 14, 2005, and was extremely impressed by the accomplishments of
this promising man who hails from the village of Inarajan and completed
his undergraduate studies in biology at the University of Guam. Vince
is an outstanding role model for young Chamorros in Guam and a shining
example that perseverance, dedication and excellence will be recognized
and rewarded.
One of Dr. Diego's primary research interests is the rare
neurodegenerative disease amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/Parkinsons-
dementia complex, which has a historically high prevalence in Guam
where it is known as lytico-bodig. Dr. Diego's ongoing research with
his dissertation advisor Dr. Ralph M. Garruto seeks to provide a
greater understanding of this disease, which is one of the most
compelling unresolved mysteries of modem medicine. He would like to
return to Guam after he completes his training to carry out his own
research on the biomedical problems of Chamorros, the indigenous people
of Guam, and other Micronesians.
His research interests also include diseases that are described as
``metabolic syndromes,'' which include heart disease, diabetes,
hypertension and obesity. Chamorros, Filipinos, and other Asian and
Pacific Islander American groups in Guam suffer disproportionately from
these diseases. As the Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific
American Caucus's Health Task Force, I have called for the need to
better understand how our communities are affected by these devastating
diseases. Dr. Diego is one of the scientists who is on the front line
of learning more about these diseases and how they can be prevented and
treated in our communities. His current research activities as a post-
doctoral scientist at the Southwest Foundation for Biomedical
Research's Department of Genetics include the statistical genetics of
the metabolic syndrome in American Indians, Alaskan Natives, and
Mexican Americans of San Antonio and on theoretical modeling in
statistical genetics.
Dr. Diego's parents are Frank Paulino Diego and Teresita Taitague
Diego of Inarajan and he is the youngest of six children. He graduated
from Guam's Father Duenas Memorial School in 1990.
____________________
REMARKS OF SECRETARY OF STATE CONDOLEEZZA RICE TO THE AMERICAN ISRAEL
PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
______
HON. TOM LANTOS
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, the American Israel
Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is holding its annual policy
conference in Washington this week, and most of us will be receiving
visits this week from our constituents who are here for this important
yearly event.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, our Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice,
delivered the key address on behalf of the Administration to the AIPAC
conference. Secretary Rice articulated in a clear and elegant manner
the diverse and intense ties that bind the United States and our
democratic ally Israel. As Secretary Rice reaffirmed as she began her
speech, ``Israel has no greater friend and no stronger supporter than
the United States of America.''
The strength of our relationship with Israel has transcended
administrations and political parties. It was a critical and an intense
relationship from the founding of the state of Israel in 1948, when
President Harry Truman extended U.S. recognition to the Jewish state
only eleven minutes after its independence was proclaimed. This
relationship has continued through 57 years and eleven presidential
administrations of both parties. Israel continues to enjoy strong
bipartisan and bicameral support here in the Congress of the United
States.
Though Israel and the United States have had close ties for more than
half a century, conditions have changed, the world has changed, and our
relationship has changed with the times as well. Secretary Rice has put
American-Israeli ties in the framework of our ongoing fight against
terrorism and our increasingly globalized world. She has emphasized the
continuing importance of America's relationship with Israel to the
American people and its relevance to the Administration's effort to
foster democracy and respect for human rights and the rule of law
throughout the Middle East.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that Secretary Rice's address be placed in the
Record, and I urge my colleagues to read and give attention to her
thoughtful remarks.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Remarks at the AIPAC Annual Policy
Conference May 23, 2005
Thank you very much. Let me begin by saying that Israel has
no greater friend and no stronger supporter than the United
States of America. For over half a century, AIPAC has
strengthened the religious, cultural and political bonds that
unite our two great nations, and I thank you for that.
The United States and Israel share much in common. We both
affirm the innate freedom and dignity of every human life,
not as prizes that people confer to one another, but as
divine gifts of the Almighty. As Thomas Jefferson once wrote,
``The God that gave us liberty and life gave them to us at
the same time.''
Moral clarity is an essential virtue in our world today and
for 60 years cynics and skeptics have proven that we have
been looking to false choices in the Middle East. They have
claimed that we must choose either freedom or stability,
either democracy or security. They have said that the United
States could either uphold its principles or advance its
policies.
But by trying to purchase stability at the price of
liberty, we achieved neither and we saw the result of that on
a fine September morning. That is why President Bush has
rejected 60 years of false choices in the Middle East. And as
he said last week at the International Republican Institute,
``The United States has a new policy, a strategy that
recognizes that the best way to defeat the ideology that uses
terror as a weapon is to spread freedom and democracy.''
The President holds the deep belief that all human beings
desire and deserve to live in liberty. This idea, of course,
did not immediately find favor. Many continued to defend the
false choices of the past. But we knew then and we know now
America's message is clear, our principles are sound and our
policies are right, and today the nations of the world are
finally joining with the United States to support the cause
of freedom.
We measure our success in the democratic revolutions that
have stunned the entire world: vibrant revolutions of rose
and orange and purple and tulip and cedar. The destiny of the
Middle East is bound up in this global expansion of freedom.
The days of thinking that this region was somehow immune to
democracy are over. Working with our G-8 partners, the United
States has created the Broader Middle East and North Africa
Initiative to build partnerships with people in the region
who are working for greater liberty.
The flagship of this bold new policy is the Forum for the
Future, an unprecedented international venue to amplify the
voices of reform that are redefining the region. Together, we
will tackle the urgent goals of the Forum: political
openness, economic liberty, educational opportunity and the
empowerment of women.
Today, nations all across the world are speaking a common
language of reform and
[[Page 11095]]
they are helping citizens throughout the broader Middle East
to transform the parameters of debate in their societies. The
people of this region are expressing ideas and taking actions
that would have been unthinkable only one year ago.
Some in the Arab media have even asked why the only real
democracies in the Middle East are found in the ``occupied
lands'' of Iraq and the Palestinian territories. What an
incredible thought. Today, citizens in the region are
demanding that their governments respond to this simple,
audacious question.
And many states will have to answer their people's call for
genuine reform. Jordan and Bahrain and Qatar and Morocco are
all taking steps to introduce greater openness into their
political systems. Egypt has amended its constitution with
electoral reform. And even Saudi Arabia has held multiple
elections. And just last week, remarkably, the Kuwaiti
legislature granted its women citizens the right to vote.
Kuwait's recognition that it must include all of its people
in political life is, hopefully, an example that its
neighbors will follow. In Lebanon, hundreds of thousands of
citizens have demanded an end to the foreign suffocation of
their country. With strong international support, led by the
United States and by France, and with an explicit mandate
from the United Nations Security Council, Syria has gotten
the message loud and clear that it is not welcome in Lebanon.
The Syrian regime has withdrawn its decades-long military
presence. And at the end of this month, the Lebanese people
will go to the polls and set a new course of action. But we
cannot rest. Syria must also remove its intelligence forces
and allow the Lebanese people to be free.
To be sure, a vital source of inspiration for all of these
reformers comes from the people of Iraq, who defied threats
of murder to vote in free elections in January. They declared
with one voice that the will of the people, not the whim of a
dictator, would determine Iraq's future. They declared with
that same voice that no Iraqi regime would ever again torture
its people, invade its neighbors, attack its neighbors and
offer financial incentives to Palestinian homicide bombers.
Today, Iraq has a transitional government that will soon
begin framing a new national constitution. Free nations
everywhere have rallied to Iraq's side. There is a coalition
of 30 countries helping the Iraqi people to defend themselves
from murderers and terrorists. NATO is training Iraq's army
officers, police forces and civilian administrators. And next
month, at the request of Iraq's new government, the United
States and the European Union will co-host an international
conference to build greater support for democracy, prosperity
and security.
Now, I speak to these reform efforts because the United
States looks to a future and has a vision of a day when
Israel is no longer the sole democracy in the Middle East.
This aspiration shapes the very heart of our approach to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict as well. For four years,
President Bush refused to meet with Yasser Arafat. He did so
because Arafat valued neither Israel's security nor his own
people's liberty.
There were those who ridiculed this principled decision as
if the refusal to negotiate with a man who aided and abetted
terrorism somehow revealed a lack of concern for peace.
America and Israel had tried before to gain peace where
democracy did not exist and we are not going down that road
again.
Instead, President Bush advanced a vision of two democratic
states: Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and
security. And today, the Palestinian people are trying to
meet this democratic challenge. In January, they voted in
historic elections for a leader who rejects violence as a
path to peace. President Abbas has committed to both freedom
and security and President Bush has offered his hand in
friendship, just as he promised he would.
In three days, when they meet together here in Washington,
they will build a relationship that is one that is based on
the good faith that only democratic leaders can bring. The
President will be clear that there are commitments to be met,
that there are goals to be met, but that democracy is a goal
that is unassailable and incontrovertible.
Prime Minister Sharon has also recognized that Israel is
gaining a legitimate partner for peace and he has made
courageous decisions that could change the course of history.
Beginning in August, Prime Minister Sharon will implement his
plan to withdraw from Gaza and parts of the West Bank.
Israel's disengagement strategy presents an unprecedented and
incredibly delicate opportunity for peace and we must all
work together to capitalize on this precious moment.
To strengthen our present opportunities, all nations must
meet their obligations. Israel must take no actions that
prejudice a final settlement or jeopardize the true viability
of the Palestinian state. And Israel must help to create the
conditions for the emergence of that democratic state.
The Palestinian Authority must advance democratic reform
and it must dismantle all terrorist networks in its society.
Arab states must end incitement in their media, cut off all
support for terrorism and extremist education, and establish
normal relations with Israel.
To nurture our present opportunity, President Bush proposed
and the Quartet nations endorsed the appointment of James
Wolfensohn as Special Envoy for Gaza Disengagement. Jim
Wolfensohn will help the Israelis and Palestinians coordinate
on non-military aspects of their disengagement, including
disposition of assets and revitalization of the Palestinian
economy.
To protect our present opportunity, President Bush has sent
General William Ward to help the Palestinians reform their
security services. General Ward is also coordinating all
international security assistance to the Palestinians,
including training and equipment.
To expand our present opportunity, the United States has
greatly increased our financial assistance to the Palestinian
people. We are pledging $350 million to help the Palestinians
build the free institutions of their democratic state. This
is an unprecedented contribution to the future of peace and
freedom in the Middle East.
Yes, this past year has brought forth a dramatic shift in
the political landscape of the Middle East. But this moment
of transformation is very fragile and it still has committed
enemies, particularly the Government of Iran, which is the
world's leading sponsor of terrorism.
The United States has focused the world's attention on
Iran's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. And along with
our allies, we are working to gain full disclosure of Iran's
efforts to obtain nuclear weapons. The world must not
tolerate any Iranian attempt to develop a nuclear weapon. Nor
can it tolerate Iran's efforts to subvert democratic
governments through terrorism.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Middle East is changing and even
the unelected leaders in Tehran must recognize this fact.
They must know that the energy of reform that is building all
around them will one day inspire Iran's citizens to demand
their liberty and their rights. The United States stands with
the people of Iran.
President Bush has declared that advancing the cause of
freedom is the calling of our time and in the broader Middle
East, his policies are expanding the scope of what many
thought possible. With our support, the people of the region
are demonstrating that all great human achievement begins
with free individuals who do not accept that the reality of
today must also be the reality of tomorrow. Of course, there
will always be cynics and skeptics who hold the misguided
belief that if they can not see their goal, then it cannot be
possible. They will try to elevate their cynicism by calling
it realism and they will criticize all who echo the stirring
words of Theodore Hertzel, ``If you will it, it is no
dream.''
In 1776, cynics and skeptics could not see an independent
America, so they doubted that it could be so. They saw only
13 colonies that could never hang together and would surely
hang separately. But there were others who had a vision, a
vision of the United States as a free and great nation, a
democracy, and one day, a complete multiethnic society. With
perseverance, the American people made that vision a reality.
In 1948, cynics and skeptics could not see the promise of
Israel, so they doubted it, said it could never be fulfilled.
They saw only a wounded and wandering people beset on all
sides by hostile armies.
But there were those who had another vision, a vision of a
Jewish state that would shelter its children, defend its
sacred homeland, turn its desert soil green and reaffirm the
principles of freedom and democracy. With courage, the
Israeli people made that vision a reality.
Today, cynics and skeptics cannot see a democratic Middle
East, so they doubt that it is a realistic goal. They focus
only on the despotism that has shaped the region's past and
still defines much of its present. But ladies and gentlemen,
make no mistake, freedom is on the march in Afghanistan and
Iraq and in Lebanon and in Georgia and Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan
and in the Palestinian territories.
Yes, it is hard and progress is uneven. There are violent
men who will stop at nothing to prevent democracy's rise. Yet
people all across the Middle East today are talking and
demonstrating and sharing their vision for a democratic
future. Many have given their very lives to this noble
purpose.
The United States and Israel must defend the aspirations of
all people who long to be free. And with our unwavering
support, we can help to make the promise of democracy a
reality for the entire region. Thank you very much.
____________________
NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY AREA WATER RECYCLING PROJECT
______
HON. RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing legislation today that
will authorize the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to continue to
participate in the construction of the North San
[[Page 11096]]
Diego County Area Water Recycling Project which also includes, as a new
component, Phase II of the Olivenhain Water Treatment Plant. This
project is very important in the overall water supply plan in my
Congressional District and I am proud to offer this legislation that
will assist in its further development.
The North San Diego County Water Recycling Project is a regional
cooperative effort by the San Elijo Joint Powers Authority, the
Leucadia County Water District, the City of Carlsbad and the Olivenhain
Municipal Water District. When completed, the project will add up to 5
billion gallons annually to the San Diego region's local water supply.
With years of drought, exploding growth rates and California's reduced
intake of Colorado River water, this recycled water has become vital to
the region and it is extremely important that the project is completed
to its full potential.
In addition to the benefits to the San Diego County region, numerous
federal objectives are advanced through the development of the North
County Water Recycling Project. The project will directly reduce the
surrounding region's demand for imported water from the environmentally
sensitive California Bay/Delta and will help California live within its
4.4 million acre-feet allocation of water from the Colorado River. The
project will also reduce the amount of effluent discharged into coastal
waters and advance D.S./Mexico border environmental initiatives.
The legislation I offer today will increase the overall authorization
ceiling for this project from $20 million to $35 million within the
Bureau of Reclamation's Title XVI program. It is important to note that
the majority of the funds necessary to construct this project are
coming from local sources which represent a heavy financial burden on
local agencies. Federal participation will help make this innovative
water supply project a reality.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that this legislation be given prompt
consideration.
____________________
HONORING MASTER SERGEANT JOSE M. LOPEZ
______
HON. CHARLES A. GONZALEZ
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor a true American hero
even though that title is far too often overused. Master Sergeant Jose
M. Lopez of San Antonio passed away on May 16th of this year at the age
of 94 which in and of itself is remarkable but even more so when one
learns of this amazing man's story. Sgt. Lopez was the nation's oldest
living Hispanic Medal of Honor winner for his valor during the Battle
of the Bulge in World War II. Sgt. Lopez represents the best of us and
stands as a shining example of selflessness and sacrifice.
Perhaps it should not be a surprise Sgt. Lopez distinguished himself
in battle since he often told one of his granddaughters, June Pedraza,
``Fear is the one thing that will hold you back in life.'' Living that
credo time and again throughout his life, Sgt. Lopez faced and overcame
seemingly insurmountable odds. Born in Mexico in 1910, Sgt. Lopez's
mother died when he was 8 leaving him an orphan since he never met his
father. He then worked a series of hardscrabble jobs and eventually
made his way to the Rio Grande Valley where a family took pity on him
and let him sleep in their shed. Later, he rode trains across America
and in Atlanta, a bigger man antagonized Sgt. Lopez until he fought and
thoroughly whipped his larger opponent. Coincidentally, a boxing
manager happened to see the incident unfold and realized potential even
though it was packaged in a 5'5'', 130 lb. frame and began training
Sgt. Lopez. Rechristened Kid Mendoza, he went on to a professional
record of 52 wins and 3 losses and later recounted meeting Babe Ruth as
the highlight of his career.
In 1936, Sgt. Lopez joined the U.S. Merchant Marines and later worked
a number of other maritime jobs. Once, he found himself adrift on a
cargo ship without food except for bananas. After the start of World
War II, Sgt. Lopez enlisted in the Army and was among the troops who
hit the beaches at Normandy a day after D-Day commenced. Sgt. Lopez was
wounded as a bullet nicked his hip and as he told Bill Moyers in 1990
for a PBS documentary ``I was really very, very afraid. I wanted to
cry, and we saw other people laying wounded and screaming and
everything, and there's nothing you could do. We could see them
groaning in the water, and we had to keep walking.'' And, he kept going
despite his fears until he found himself at another of World War II's
turning points, the Battle of the Bulge.
On December 17th, 1944 shortly after the sun rose, Sgt. Lopez and his
troops in Company K were outside Krinkelt, Belgium when the Germans
launched their last-ditch offensive which came to be known as the
Battle of the Bulge. Patrolling in advance of Company K, Sgt. Lopez
heard a tank which he assumed was Allied since a soldier hundreds of
yards away failed to alert him otherwise. Carrying a Browning machine
gun, he jumped into a shallow hole when he realized the tank was a
German Tiger and the troops following it were German. Concerned for his
men, he opened fired even though he was exposed from the waist up.
First, he killed the 10 soldiers arrayed around the tank. After the
tank fired three shell blasts that knocked him over and left him
concussed, Sgt. Lopez got to his feet again and cut down 25 more
soldiers until he saw that the advancing Germans would soon outflank
his position. He lugged his machine gun to a fall back spot and fired
again. Officers witnessing the scene stopped counting when the death
toll reached 100. After delaying the German onslaught for precious
minutes, Sgt. Lopez dashed into the forest while dodging enemy fire
until he rejoined the men he had saved. The American forces in Krinkelt
burrowed in and forced the Germans to bypass the town.
His Medal of Honor citation commended his ``seemingly suicidal
missions in which he killed at least 100 of the enemy . . . [and which]
were almost solely responsible for allowing Company K to avoid being
enveloped, to withdraw successfully and to give other forces coming up
in support time to build a line which repelled the enemy drive.''
Despite his obvious valor, Sgt. Lopez remained a modest man who later
told the San Antonio Express-News in 2001, ``You learn to protect the
line and do the best you can with the ammunition you have, and I did
it.''
Later, Sgt. Lopez served during the Korean War, and undertook a
variety of jobs within the Army including overseeing a motor pool. He
retired in 1973, yet continued to be physically active as he jogged
until he was 88 and only gave up seeing a trainer three months ago. He
was a committed family man whose beloved wife passed away in February
of last year. As his son John Lopez said ``He was a great hero, without
being a hero around his family.'' He is survived by five children, 19
grandchildren, and 10 great grandchildren.
This quintessential American story reaffirms my belief in our nation
as a beacon for those willing to work and sacrifice to improve their
lot in life no matter how meager and humble one's beginning may have
been.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO THE NEW MICHIGAN CHAPTER OF JUSTICE FOR CHILDREN AND
DIRECTOR, CHIP ST. CLAIR
______
HON. JOE KNOLLENBERG
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, today I join the people of the 9th
Congressional District and the State of Michigan in announcing the
opening of the Michigan Chapter of Justice for Children. JFC is the
only nonprofit corporation formed to save at risk unprotected children
who have been physically abused or neglected.
Justice for Children intervenes on behalf of abused children when
child protection agencies and courts fail to protect them. They help
children whose cases have been closed by Children's Protective Services
before help has been provided and have no Court Appointed Special
Advocate or who even with CASA support, are on the verge of being sent
back to an abusive home.
Last year Mr. Chip St. Clair, a Rochester Hills resident, called the
JFC National Office in Houston and said he wanted to make something
good arise from his childhood of abuse and violence. Becoming a
regional director for JFC fulfills that desire and the abused children
of Michigan now have an ardent advocate to save them from the life he
had to endure as a child.
Mr. St. Clair was a victim of terrible abuse at the hands of his
father--Michael Grant--who was a convicted child murderer. That murder
took place in 1970 in Indiana. Grant escaped from the Indiana State
Penitentiary in 1973 with the aid of the woman who would become Chip's
mother. St. Clair was born in 1975 and did not discover that his father
was a murderer until 1998 when he was 23 years old.
``I emptied the glass which was full of horror stories of my
childhood and began filling that glass with nobility and honor. Joining
JFC and helping abused children represents a major step in the Journey
of Justice which began on that fateful day in 1998,'' said St. Clair.
[[Page 11097]]
Justice for Children has been acclaimed by the American Bar
Association, jurists from around the country, national television
networks, news programs, and bipartisan congressional leaders for its
work on behalf of abused and neglected children. Today we honor the
Michigan Chapter of Justice for Children and Director, Chip St. Clair
for their dedication to help abused and neglected children.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE RETIREMENT OF RUSSIAN CHESS CHAMPION GARRY KASPAROV
______
HON. CHRISTOPHER COX
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I wish to take a moment to honor the world's
greatest chess player, Garry Kasparov, on the occasion of his
retirement.
To chess enthusiasts around the world, Garry Kasparov's announced
retirement from professional chess comes as an enormous disappointment.
By the standards of international chess he is the greatest chess player
of all time. His retirement at the relatively youthful age of 41 raises
questions about unfulfilled possibilities. But given his legendary
achievements, we can only stand in profound admiration. He is a true
champion.
Throughout his career, Garry Kasparov has been a champion of human
rights as well. He has been resolutely committed to the freedom of
Russia and all of her citizens, and to the replacement of the grisly
legacy of Soviet communism with genuine democracy, free speech, freedom
of the press, religious liberty, and the rule of law. As chairman of
Committee 2008: Free Choice, Mr. Kasparov is leading a natural
coalition of concerned Russians dedicated to safeguarding democratic
institutions in that country. It is a task worthy of his considerable
ability.
Mr. Speaker, for over a decade I have had the privilege of calling
Garry Kasparov a good friend. I know that everyone in this chamber
shares with me their good wishes for his continued success, of
gratitude for all that he has given of himself and to make the world a
better place.
____________________
HONORING JOHN REX DE VLAMING, JR.
______
HON. JEB HENSARLING
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to honor the memory
of John Rex de Vlaming, Jr. who passed away earlier this year at the
age of 85. A distinguished Navy veteran of World War II, John was
instrumental in organizing and planning the Kaufman County Veteran's
Memorial Park currently under construction in Kaufman.
John was a lifetime member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) and
the American Legion, serving as the Post Commander of the Kaufman VFW
from 1976-1978, and later as Post Commander of the American Legion,
Hamlet P. Jones Post #165 from 1981-1986. In 1990, John earned the
Meritorious Service Award from the American Legion, and in 1997, he was
recognized by the VFW for his 55 years of membership.
President Calvin Coolidge once said, ``The nation which forgets its
defenders will itself be forgotten.'' As a veteran, John understood
that better than most Americans, and throughout his life he did his
very best to ensure that our nation never forgets the sacrifices that
our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen made to defend our freedom.
As the Congressional representative for the Fifth District of Texas,
today I would like to honor the life of John Rex de Vlaming, Jr. and
the outstanding work he did on behalf of our nation's veterans.
____________________
THE 60TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE DISAPPEARANCE OF RAOUL WALLENBERG
______
TOM LANTOS
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, later this week, the distinguished Swedish
Ambassador to the United States, His Excellency Jan Eliasson, will give
a briefing to members of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus on the
life-saving humanitarian work of Swedish citizen Raoul Wallenberg.
Mr. Speaker, this is a particularly appropriate time for us to recall
Wallenberg's sacrifices to serve his fellow man. Earlier this month, we
celebrated the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe,
and shortly before that we marked Yom HaShoah, the Day of Holocaust
Remembrance. In January the United Nations General Assembly held an
extraordinary session to mark the 60th anniversary of the liberation of
Auschwitz and other Nazi concentration camps during World War II.
This year also marks the 60th anniversary of the disappearance of
Raoul Wallenberg. After courageously saving the lives of tens of
thousands of people in Budapest during the Holocaust, Wallenberg was
arrested by Soviet troops in January 1945 and disappeared into the
Soviet gulag. His action during the Holocaust in Hungary led the
Israeli Knesset to bestow upon him the title ``Righteous Among the
Nations'' (``Righteous Gentile'').
Born in August 1912 in Stockholm, Sweden, Raoul Gustav Wallenberg,
could have lived out his life in luxury and relative obscurity as a
member of one of Sweden's most prominent families. At the University of
Michigan in 1935, he earned a bachelor's degree in architecture with
honors, as well as a medal for his outstanding academic record. After
returning to Sweden from America, he worked for the family business
selling building supplies in South Africa, and he worked in a bank in
Haifa, in what is now Israel.
In Haifa on the eve of World War II, he met many Jews who had escaped
the horrors of Hitler's Germany, and he became an impassioned defender
after hearing tales of horror under the Fascist state.
In March 1944, Mr. Speaker, the Germany army invaded Hungary, and
Adolf Eichmann arrived in Budapest to supervise the deportation of
Hungarian Jews to the Nazi death camps. At the request and with the
support of the United States government, Raoul Wallenberg arrived in
Budapest in June of 1944. Over the following six months, he became a
legend at saving Jewish lives, and his remarkable heroism and creative
efforts are now repeated with respect and awe around the world.
When the Soviet Army finally liberated Budapest in January 1945,
Wallenberg believed, or at least hoped, that he was finally safe, and
he went to the headquarters of the Soviet military command in eastern
Hungary to report on conditions in Budapest and to ask for food and
medicine for the surviving victims. The Soviet officers did not believe
his story. They were convinced that he was an American spy. He was
arrested on January 17, 1945, and he has never been officially heard
from since that day.
Mr. Speaker, the Russians have never provided a full and complete
account of the disappearance of Wallenberg. Numerous sightings of him
within the brutal Soviet gulag were reported for decades after his
untimely disappearance in Hungary. These sightings raise serious doubts
about the official Soviet position that he died of a heart attack in a
prison near Moscow in 1947.
In February of this year, 2005 the Israeli Knesset honored Wallenberg
by officially granting him the title of ``Righteous Among the Nations''
(``Righteous Gentile''). President Moshe Katzav and Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon spoke with great eloquence about his heroic and selfless
actions. Many close family members were present for the wonderful event
honoring this great man.
Last October, the city of San Francisco in my congressional district
extended honorary citizenship to Wallenberg, just as the United States
by Act of Congress did 23 years earlier. Raoul Wallenberg is the second
person after Sir Winston Churchill to receive honorary United States
citizenship. His bust, which was placed in the United States Capitol
Building, is seen by tens of thousands of visitors to our Capitol every
year.
Mr. Speaker, as we mark the 60th anniversary of the triumph of the
democracy and freedom over Nazi brutality and horror, I invite my
colleagues to join with me in commemorating the heroic actions of Raoul
Wallenberg. His gift to the world is not merely the tens of thousands
of lives he saved, but as important is the inspiration he is to so many
people around the world.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO STEVEN SIYI HAO
______
HON. ZOE LOFGREN
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize
Steven Siyi Hao for his prize winning entry in the 56th
[[Page 11098]]
Intel International Science and Engineering Fair.
Last week, over 1,400 pre-college students participated in the Intel
International Science and Engineering Fair in Phoenix. Students from
several countries submitted entries in hopes that they would win a
portion of the $3 million in scholarships, tuition grants, internships
and scientific field trips given away. This annual competition awarded
six of nine Bay Area students for their entries, three of whom reside
in San Jose.
Steven is a 17 year old student from Silver Creek High School. His
project titled, ``The Effects of Oxidative Damage on Protein
Translation Efficiency'' studied the negative effects of oxygen-free-
radicals on protein production and DNA. His entry won him a paid summer
internship at an Agilent Technologies site.
The Intel International Science and Engineering Fair promotes
education and creativity in a way that is vital to a youth's
development. These types of activities encourage students to explore
the fields of science and engineering. This kind of innovation will
drive the United State's economy into the future. Being from Silicon
Valley, I fully understand the importance and impact that these studies
have on America's prosperity.
I am proud to stand here today and recognize Steven for his
accomplishments. I urge him and youth alike to continue to take
interest in these fields, and lead the United States in its development
of science and engineering exploration.
____________________
LIVING WORD BAPTIST CHURCH MEMORIAL SERVICE IN HONOR OF SERVICE MEN AND
WOMEN, PRESENT AND PAST
______
HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, and so it was said by Pericles, the
Athenian leader some 24 centuries ago, ``Not only are they commemorated
by columns and inscriptions, but there dwells also an unwritten
memorial of them, graven not on stone but in the hearts of men.''
Those words resonate true today as they did centuries ago. Above all,
I am awed by a greater sense of pride and appreciation for our fallen
soldiers and those serving abroad. We approach this day with solemn
affirmations of the sacrifices of our brave men and women, and in
celebration for every joy and freedom bestowed to us from the Almighty.
This day was born of human necessity and the answer to an
overwhelming desire to honor those who have given the ultimate
sacrifice so that we may live not with fear, but with hope. No matter
where he or she has served, a soldier stands in place for you, for me,
for us as a country and for freedom everywhere.
May they always be honored for their commitment and respected for
their bravery. For the stance taken by each man and woman is written
down in the archives of history. The stories and memories shape our
vision of the world and provide footsteps for future generations.
Bow one head; say one prayer; lay one flower; remember one soldier;
and may we all give thanks to God and honor Veterans today.
____________________
HONORING ALLISON MORGAN AND HER FOURTH GRADE CLASSMATES AT THE
CRANBERRY PINES SCHOOL IN MEDFORD, NJ
______
HON. ROBERT E. ANDREWS
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I recently visited the Cranberry Pines
School in Medford, NJ, where I met with a group of exceptional fourth
graders. They expressed to me their interest in saving wild horses from
being slaughtered. One exceptional young girl, Allison Morgan, wrote me
a letter about this issue which I have included below. I encourage my
colleagues in Congress to support this important cause.
Dear Congressman Andrews, Lately, I've been hearing things
on the news about how so many wild horses are being
slaughtered. You probably know that. You probably also know
that millions of people are concerned. Well, I'm one of those
people. I think wild horses deserve some help. Let's make
laws to save these spectacular creatures. Horses have rights,
too!
There are many reasons why we should protect the wild
horses. First, the wild horses have helped us in many ways.
We rode them in wars, and they helped us win those wars.
Also, Paul Revere rode a horse to warn us if the British were
coming by land or sea. If he had to walk, he'd be too late
for his message to matter. In addition, horses helped us get
mail across the country in the Pony Express. They helped
people all over the country communicate. Last, horses helped
us get places. Without them, we'd have to walk a long way.
Besides for helping us, horses deserve to be saved for
another reason. That reason is that they are animals too;
they deserve rights. First, horses never did things that
annoyed us. We kill these poor, innocent creatures. Second,
do you think animals want to die? Well, they don't; do you?
Third, we treat horses like dust in the wind. I bet you don't
want to be dust in the wind. Last, how would you like it if
horses started slaughtering us?
We've treated the wild horses horribly for so long, now
they are in danger of becoming extinct. First, people
sometimes kill wild horses just for fun. Next, in 1860 we had
two million wild horses. By 1970 there were only 17,000 left.
The horse population dropped dramatically then, it might do
the same now. Last, ranchers use wild horses to round up
cattle. Wild horses round up their herd all the time, so
rounding up cows is easy for them. They can guess where a cow
will move before it even turns. Domestic horses don't have
that ``cow sense.''
Horses are amazing animals and deserve to live. Without
them, so many things would be different. So please, make laws
to save these amazing animals--the wild horses.
Sincerely,
Allison M. Morgan.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO PETE REYES
______
HON. JOE BACA
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Costa and I rise to pay tribute to Mr.
Pete Reyes, who is being honored this weekend as an Eagle Award winner
by the Adelante foundation. Mr. Reyes is an individual of great
distinction, and we join with family and friends in honoring his
remarkable achievements and expressing great pride in the honor that is
to be bestowed on him.
Mr. Reyes has devoted his life to helping students through his chosen
profession in education. He has been an incredible resource to the
Clovis Unified School District and continues to work every day to
improve the school community.
For the past 38 years, Mr. Reyes has dedicated himself to educating
the young minds of tomorrow and is currently serving the Fancher Creek
Elementary School as Principal. In this capacity, he has been an
integral contributor to the management and administration of the
school, as well as leading the school to numerous awards in excellence
in performance.
Through his tenure as an educator, Mr. Reyes has exhibited kindness,
love, humility, and a deep resolve to ameliorate all aspects of
community life, so it is only appropriate that he receive this award
from Adelante.
We join with family and friends in thanking him for his 38 years of
service. He is a symbol of all that is good in his profession and an
inspiration to all that know him.
And so, Mr. Speaker, we salute Mr. Pete Reyes. We express admiration
in his career and hope that others may recognize his good works in the
community.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF LINCOLN PARK HIGH SCHOOL
______
HON. RAHM EMANUEL
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in proud recognition of
Lincoln Park High School, recently selected by Newsweek Magazine as one
of America's best high schools.
Lincoln Park High School, formerly named Robert A. Waller High
School, has served the students and families of Chicago's North Side
for over 100 years. Lincoln Park High School provides its students with
exciting opportunities for academic, athletic and artistic growth,
while instilling values that will serve its students throughout their
lives.
The students at Lincoln Park High School have established an
impressive record of academic achievement. Eighty-seven percent ofthe
school's 2004 graduates enrolled in a college or university. Lincoln
Park High School currently has 8 National Merit Semi-Finalists in 2005,
and has had more National Merit Semi-Finalists over the last 15 years
than all other Chicago Public Schools combined.
Students at Lincoln Park High School enjoy the support of strong
parent and alumni associations which take an active role in over 60
[[Page 11099]]
extra curricular activities and clubs. Community partnerships with
institutions such as Children's Memorial Hospital, Charlie Trotter's
Restaurant and the Lincoln Park Zoo also provide learning opportunities
outside of the classroom in a wide range of disciplines.
These activities and experiences teach students the importance of
academic achievement while also providing a balanced perspective on
life that promotes responsibility, justice and social service.
Mr. Speaker, Lincoln Park High School is a shining example of public
education at its best. I am proud of the students, faculty and families
of Lincoln Park High School and I wish them continued success in the
coming years.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO TERIK DALY
______
HON. ZOE LOFGREN
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize
Terik Daly for his prize winning entry in the 56th Intel International
Science and Engineering Fair.
Last week, over 1,400 pre-college students participated in the Intel
International Science and Engineering Fair in Phoenix. Students from
several countries submitted entries in hopes that they would win a
portion of the $3 million in scholarships, tuition grants, internships
and scientific field trips given away. This annual competition awarded
six of nine Bay Area students for their entries, three of whom reside
in San Jose.
Terik is a 15-year-old student from Oak Grove High School. His
project titled, ``The Derivation and Interpretation of Geochemical
Ratios Generated by Meteoritic Impact'' derived meteor composition by
examining chemical composition of granite before and after impact. His
entry won him a fourth-place prize ($500) in earth science; $8,000
tuition scholarship from Office of Naval Research (on behalf of U.S.
Navy and Marine Corps).
The Intel International Science and Engineering Fair promote
education and creativity in a way that is vital to a youth's
development. These types of activities encourage students to explore
the fields of science and engineering. This kind of innovation will
drive the United State's economy into the future. Being from Silicon
Valley, I fully understand the importance and impact that these studies
have on America's prosperity.
I am proud to stand here today and recognize Terik for his
accomplishments. I urge him and youth alike to continue to take
interest in these fields, and lead the United States in its development
of science and engineering exploration.
____________________
IN HONOR OF MATTHEW W. FREEMAN
______
HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a man, like
so many others in our Nation, who were truly American: Matthew Walden
Freeman.
Although I did not personally know Midshipman Matthew Freeman, I knew
of his valor and patriotism. His passing is somberly remembered by
those who knew him best. A senior at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy
in New York, Matt had shown a dedication to service his entire life. A
graduate of Ryan High School in Denton, Matt was honored to be awarded
status as an Eagle Scout.
While Midshipman Freeman was not activated, he was a reservist and
served as Navy Second Class. During his time at the Academy, Midshipman
Freeman devoted time and effort into helping others. The Superintendent
of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA) issued an Academy
Achievement Ribbon for Meritorious Service to Matt for his waterborne
rescue and relief efforts following the terrorist attack on the World
Trade Center in New York City. As an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT)
Matt interfaced with the midshipmen volunteers who manned Academy
vessels used to ferry firefighters, rescue personnel and emergency
equipment throughout New York Harbor in support of the New York City
Fire Department's emergency operations. He personally participated in
three watch tours and spent over 40 hours on the scene. As an EMT, he
provided first-aid services to firefighters working ashore near the
disaster and to midshipmen rescue personnel traveling aboard Academy
vessels. He also helped manage the EMT watch throughout the Academy's
operation and assisted with their blood drive on 9/11.
Along with the 89 other midshipmen participants, he displayed the
highest levels of leadership, professionalism and compassion and served
as an inspiration to his peers during the difficult days of the rescue
and recovery operation. Through his unselfish service, Midshipman
Freeman brought great credit to the Regiment of Midshipmen during a
time on national crisis and served as role model to his fellow
midshipmen, the 4th class in particular. His actions were in keeping
with the highest traditions of the Regiment of Midshipmen and the
USMMA. He received a citation for outstanding performance in support of
Operation Guarding Liberty, following the attack on WTC.
Today, we honor Matt Freeman for his commitment to America. I want
you to know, on behalf of a grateful Nation, we say, ``Thank you.'' He
will always be remembered for his kindness and generosity to others,
and may he serve as a role model for others in the future.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO COACH JOE SOLTERO
______
HON. JOE BACA
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Costa and I rise to pay tribute to Coach
Joe Soltero who has coached Little League in Delano, CA for over 37
years. By receiving the Adelante Eagle Award, Coach Soltero is being
recognized for his years of selfless service to his community and it
gives us great pleasure to acknowledge his years as a coach and mentor
to the students of Delano.
Coach Soltero is an exceptional individual who has not only devoted
his life to helping the Delano community at-large but has also been an
important pillar of support for generations of children. His kindness
and passionate spirit render him a vital resource and a beloved member
of his community.
As a little league coach, he instilled the values of teamwork,
dedication and perseverance. He is an inspiration to those who know him
and influenced countless people with his work ethic and love of
teaching. He has been an integral contributor to his community, as well
as an active participant and positive influence on the lives of his
little league players.
During his 30-plus years, Coach Soltero has played in 16
championships, winning 12 of them. He taught the values of
sportsmanship and winning humbly.
And so, Mr. Speaker, we salute Coach Joe Soltero. We join with family
and friends in honoring his incomparable accomplishments and
congratulate him on this well-deserved award.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO DAVID I. MARASH-WHITMAN
______
HON. ZOE LOFGREN
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize
David I. Marash-Whitman for his prize winning entry in the 56th Intel
International Science and Engineering Fair.
Last week, over 1,400 pre-college students participated in the Intel
International Science and Engineering Fair in Phoenix. Students from
several countries submitted entries in hopes that they would win a
portion of the $3 million in scholarships, tuition grants, internships
and scientific field trips given away. This annual competition awarded
six of nine Bay Area students for their entries, three of whom reside
in San Jose.
David is a 13-year-old student from Kehillah Jewish High School. His
project, titled ``Design for Biodegradation: Harnessing Natural Decay
by Managing Physical and Chemical Dynamics'' investigated optimal
nitrogen-carbon ratios, moisture and aeration for increasing the rate
and total degradation of compost. His entry won him a second-place
prize ($1,500) in environmental sciences.
The Intel International Science and Engineering Fair promotes
education and creativity
[[Page 11100]]
in a way that is vital to a youth's development. These types of
activities encourage students to explore the fields of science and
engineering. This kind of innovation will drive the United States'
economy into the future. Being from Silicon Valley, I fully understand
the importance and impact that these studies have on America's
prosperity.
I am proud to stand here today and recognize David for his
accomplishments. I urge him and all youth alike to continue to take
interest in these fields, and lead the United States in its development
of science and engineering exploration.
____________________
HONORING THE CIRCLE OF HOPE AWARD NOMINEES
______
HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the service and
commitment of Sherry Davidoff, Morgan Harvard and Julianna Tisdale.
These individuals have shown great dedication and loyalty in mentoring
and making a difference to those in need of it most.
Ms. Davidoff, Ms. Harvard, and Ms. Tisdale were recently honored by
The Colleyville Woman's Club at the annual Youth Volunteer Service
Awards with the Circle of Hope Award. This prestigious award recognizes
youth who have demonstrated laudable public service throughout their
community. The selfless way in which they serve as mentors and
volunteers speaks volumes to their loyalty and adherence to better
assist those who require it most. It is the noble efforts of
individuals such as the aforementioned that improve our community and
strengthen America.
It is with great honor that I stand here today to recognize these
ladies who have dedicated their young lives to assisting others. Their
contribution and services should serve as an inspiration to others in
their field and those who wish to make a positive difference in the
lives of others.
____________________
THE 30TH ANNIVERSASRY OF ALU LIKE, INC.
______
HON. ED CASE
of hawaii
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to recognize and
congratulate a remarkable organization, Alu Like, Inc., as it marks its
30th anniversary of service to my Hawai`i's Native Hawaiian community.
Alu Like, which means ``striving (working) together,'' was
established in 1975 to promote social and economic self-sufficiency
among Native Hawaiians. The organization was given its name by kupuna
Mary Kawena Pukui, and its motto, ``E alu like mai kakou, e na `oiwi o
Hawai`i'' (Let us work together natives of Hawai`i), by kupuna Edith
Kanaka`ole.
Now with 238 employees located throughout the State of Hawai`i
(Hawai`i, Kaua`i, Lana`i, Maui, Moloka`i, and O`ahu), it has grown into
one of Hawai`i's most successful service agencies and has been
instrumental in improving the quality of life for our Native Hawaiian
community from early childhood to kupuna (elderly) programs. These
include a range of services and activities such as economic
development, business assistance, employment preparation, training,
library services, and educational and childcare services for families
with young children, all tailored to the specific often unique, needs
of Hawai`i's indigenous people. Current services include: Ho`okahua--
Early Childhood; Ho`olokahi--High Risk Reduction; Ho`omanea `Oiwi--
Education and Employment; Ka Ipu Ka`eo--Education and Training; Kulia
Like--Financial Literacy and Kumu Kahi--Elderly Services.
Throughout its thirty years, Alu Like has served more than 100,000
people, and continues to form strong partnerships with other service
providers. To increase its outreach to our community, Alu Like has also
worked closely and collaboratively to expand its commitment to
education and language preservation through its Native Hawaiian Library
and to community service through its AmeriCorps Project.
As always, the success of any organization requires strong and
sustained leadership from its staff and board of directors, and Alu
Like has benefited greatly from a whole generation of such leaders.
These include its visionaries--Myron ``Pinky'' Thompson, Alvin Shim,
James Bacon, Yukio Naito, David Peters, and Winona Ellis Rubin--and
directors over the years, as well as its Presidents/CEOs, who have
included: Winona Ellis Rubin, Myron ``Pinky'' Thompson, David Helela,
Masaru Oshiro, S. Haunani Apoliona, and Tara Lulani Arquette.
Under the current leadership of Mervina K.M. Cash-Kaeo, President/
CEO, I have every confidence that Alu Like will continue to be a
leading service organization in its promotion of social and economic
self-sufficiency for all Native Hawaiians. But today is a time for us
simply to reflect on the great success of our Alu Like `ohana (family),
all of whom deserve our praise and commendation for a job truly well
done.
Mahalo, and aloha!
____________________
IN HONOR AND MEMORY OF SPECIALIST STEVEN RAY GIVENS
______
HON. JO BONNER
of alabama
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. BONNER. Mr. Speaker, just over ten days ago the First
Congressional District of Alabama and indeed, our entire state and
nation, said goodbye to another casualty of war in Iraq.
Army Specialist Steven Ray Givens, a native of Houston, Texas, and a
longtime resident of Mobile, Alabama, had recently volunteered for a
second tour of duty in Iraq after having already completed an earlier
14-month tour. Steven, a member of the Third Infantry, Third Brigade,
of Fort Benning, Georgia, returned to Iraq in mid-January, 2005, and
had planned to make a career with the Army. Unfortunately, on May 8,
2005, he was fatally wounded during an attack by Iraqi insurgents.
During his career with the Army, Steven set a standard of excellence
and displayed the qualities of discipline, devotion, and dedication to
country that are the hallmarks of men and women throughout the long and
distinguished history of the American military.
While serving his country with all his ability, Steven also showed
great concern and charity for those he fought to liberate, frequently
asking his friends and family back at home to send toys and snacks for
the children in Iraq. As he left for his second tour he told his
family, ``I can do something,'' and he truly did. This dedication to
devote his life to serving his country and his concern and charity
towards the children are a telling sign of what kind of man Steven was.
This young man has shown America and the world the values and ideals
our great country stands for.
It is appropriate for us to pause and thank God that there are still
young men like Steven, whose life personified the very best America has
to offer.
Mr. Speaker, as you can imagine, south Alabama is truly morning the
loss of this fine young man. I urge my colleagues to take a moment to
pay tribute to Army Specialist Steven Ray Givens and his selfless
devotion to not only our country and the freedom we enjoy, but to a
people who are in the infant stages of a new life--a new freedom--in
their own land.
We should remember his wife, Cayssia Givens, and his two-year-old
son, his parents, Joyce and Mike McDuffie, and his other family members
and many friends. Our prayer is that God will give them all the
strength and courage that only He can provide to sustain them during
the difficult days ahead.
____________________
IN SPECIAL RECOGNITION OF DANIEL R. BORCHERDT ON HIS APPOINTMENT TO
ATTEND THE UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY AT WEST POINT
______
HON. PAUL E. GILLMOR
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to pay special
tribute to an outstanding young man from Ohio's Fifth Congressional
District. I am happy to announce that Daniel R. Borcherdt of Archbold,
Ohio has been offered an appointment to attend the United States
Military Academy at West Point, New York.
Daniel's offer of appointment poises him to attend the United States
Military Academy this fall with the incoming cadet class of 2009.
Attending one of our nation's military academies is an invaluable
experience that offers a world-class education and demands the very
best that these young men and women have to offer. Truly, it is one of
the most challenging and rewarding undertakings of their lives.
Daniel brings an enormous amount of leadership, service, and
dedication to the incoming class of West Point cadets. While attending
[[Page 11101]]
Archbold High School in Archbold, Ohio, Daniel has attained a grade
point average of 3.80, which places him near the top of his class of
more than one hundred students. While a gifted athlete, Daniel has
maintained the highest standards of excellence in his academics,
choosing to enroll and excel in Advanced Placement classes throughout
high school. In addition, Daniel has earned awards and accolades as a
scholar and an athlete.
Outside the classroom, Daniel has distinguished himself as an
excellent student-athlete. On the fields of competition, Daniel has
excelled in Varsity Basketball where he was selected as First-Team All
Ohio. Daniel's dedication and service to the community and his peers
has proven his ability to excel among the leaders at West Point. I have
no doubt that Daniel will take the lessons of his student leadership
with him to West Point.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Daniel
R. Borcherdt on his appointment to the United States Military Academy
at West Point. Our service academies offer the finest military training
and education available anywhere in the world. I am sure that Daniel
will do very well during his career at West Point and I ask my
colleagues to join me in wishing him well as he begins his service to
the nation.
____________________
FDA AND GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS
______
HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring the following article to
the attention of my colleagues. We must continue to challenge the FDA's
assumption that all genetically engineered food is safe.
[From the Independent, May 22, 2005.]
Revealed: Health Fears Over Secret Study Into GM Food
(By Geoffrey Lean)
Rats fed on a diet rich in genetically modified corn
developed abnormalities to internal organs and changes to
their blood, raising fears that human health could be
affected by eating GM food.
The Independent on Sunday can today reveal details of
secret research carried out by Monsanto, the GM food giant,
which shows that rats fed the modified corn had smaller
kidneys and variations in the composition of their blood.
According to the confidential 1,139-page report, these
health problems were absent from another batch of rodents fed
non-GM food as part of the research project.
The disclosures come as European countries, including
Britain, prepare to vote on whether the GM-modified corn
should go on sale to the public. A vote last week by the
European Union failed to secure agreement over whether the
product should be sold here, after Britain and nine other
countries voted in favour.
However, the disclosure of the health effects on the
Monsanto rats has intensified the row over whether the corn
is safe to eat without further research. Doctors said the
changes in the blood of the rodents could indicate that the
rat's immune system had been damaged or that a disorder such
as a tumour had grown and the system was mobilising to fight
it.
Dr. Vyvyan Howard, a senior lecturer on human anatomy and
cell biology at Liverpool University, called for the
publication of the full study, saying the summary gave
``prima facie cause for concern''.
Dr. Michael Antoniu, an expert in molecular genetics at
Guy's Hospital Medical School, described the findings as
``very worrying from a medical point of view'', adding: ``I
have been amazed at the number of significant differences
they found [in the rat experiment].''
Although Monsanto last night dismissed the abnormalities in
rats as meaningless and due to chance, reflecting normal
variations between rats, a senior British government source
said ministers were so worried by the findings that they had
called for further information.
Environmentalists will see the findings as vindication of
British research seven years ago, which suggested that rats
that ate GM potatoes suffered damage to their health. That
research, which was roundly denounced by ministers and the
British scientific establishment, was halted and Dr. Arpad
Pusztai, the scientist behind the controversial findings, was
forced into retirement amid a huge row over the claim.
Dr. Pusztai reported a ``huge list of significant
differences'' between rats fed GM and conventional corn,
saying the results strongly indicate that eating significant
amounts of it can damage health. The new study is into a
corn, codenamed MON 863, which has been modified by Monsanto
to protect itself against corn rootworm, which the company
describes as ``one of the most pernicious pests affecting
maize crops around the world''.
Now, however, any decision to allow the corn to be marketed
in the UK will cause widespread alarm. The full details of
the rat research are included in the main report, which
Monsanto refuses to release on the grounds that ``it contains
confidential business information which could be of
commercial use to our competitors''.
A Monsanto spokesman said yesterday: ``If any such well-
known anti-biotech critics had doubts about the credibility
of these studies they should have raised them with the
regulators. After all, MON 863 isn't new, having been
approved to be as safe as conventional maize by nine other
global authorities since 2003.''
____________________
THE 85TH BIRTHDAY OF HELEN COLLINS FOOTE
______
HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Hoyer and I rise today to honor Helen
Foote, a woman of faith, family, a selfless spirit and infectious
laughter.
Ms. Foote was born to the late Reverend Benjamin Collins and
Henrietta Collins in South River, Maryland. One of eight children,
Helen received her education in a one-room school and spent her free
time like most children, fishing, hunting and picking apples from the
trees in a nearby orchard. On Sundays, Helen and her cousins spent time
learning the art of playing the piano. It was here, during those
lessons, her already well-known laughter earned her the nickname
``KeeKee'' embodying the sound of her continuous and infectious laugh.
As she grew up, Ms. Foote developed a reputation for spreading joy
both through her laugh and through her altruistic nature. Whether
helping wallpaper her parent's bedroom, caring for her ailing mother or
donating her time to her church, Helen Foote was the very model of
selfless dedication. In fact, her benevolence eventually led Hope
Memorial St. Mark United Methodist Church to name her Mother of the
Year in 2004. And as a mother of five daughters, one stepdaughter, 10
grandchildren, 5 step-grandchildren, 9 great-grandchildren, 6 step-
great-grandchildren and 1 great-great-grandchild, that award was well-
earned.
The daughter of a Reverend, religion always remained a pivotal aspect
of Ms. Foote's family life. At a young age she attended Chews United
Methodist Church in Owensville, Maryland. In her later years she became
a member of Hope Chapel now referred to as Hope Memorial St. Mark
United Methodist Church. It was here Ms. Foote served as a Communion
Steward, an Usher and a member of the United Methodist Women.
Today you can still find Ms. Foote doing the things she loves best:
working in her yard, cooking meals for her family, rooting for her
beloved Baltimore Orioles, and, occasionally, wallpapering a bedroom.
Helen Foote is truly a blessing to all she encounters. She is an
inspiration, a foundation for the young and dedicated, and a
distinguished and divine family woman. Helen Foote is truly a woman of
strength and I am honored to rise today and honor her in this Congress.
____________________
THE FAIR LAND TRANSFER COMPENSATION ACT OF 2005
______
HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON
of the district of columbia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Fair Land
Transfer Compensation Act, a bill for fee simple transfer of certain
federal lands to the District of Columbia to provide partial in-kind
compensation for the federally imposed structural balance documented in
a 2003 GAO report to be ``between $470 million and up to more than $1.1
billion.'' My bill would transfer 65.73 acres of land in Southeast
Washington, D.C. known as Reservation 13 and the parcel known as Poplar
Point, also in Southeast. The bill introduced today would assist in
providing the compensation that would be authorized by H.R. 1586, the
Fair Federal Compensation Act (FFCA) introduced by the bipartisan House
regional delegation and me in April. The FFCA would authorize an annual
federal contribution of $800 million (to increase annually with the
consumer price index) to partially compensate the city and relieve a
dangerous structural imbalance.
The extensively documented GAO report confirming exclusive federal
responsibility for
[[Page 11102]]
the District's structural imbalance and the bipartisan sponsorship of
the FFCA demonstrate the need for federal action. However, neither the
administration nor the Congress has responded, despite the District's
continuing apprehension and repeated introduction of the FFCA. Today's
bill providing valuable land to partially compensate the District would
mark the first significant federal response to the FFCA.
The District of Columbia has had administrative control of
Reservation 13, a GSA property, for 150 years and has used the parcel
for the D.C. General Hospital, the District of Columbia jail, and other
public facilities. Poplar Point is a strip of land owned by the
National Park Service but has never been developed for use as a park.
The transfer authorized in this bill has several advantages for the
District and for the federal government: an immediate benefit in
partial payment that the District has long sought from the federal
government to compensate the city for the structural imbalance;
satisfaction, through the transfer of valuable federal land, of some of
the responsibility the GAO reports that the federal government bears
for the District's structural imbalance; the highest and best use for
underused land that the District desires for mixed uses that are
unavailable if the District continues to have administrative control
but not ownership; a continuing revenue stream in the nature of an
annual contribution from investments the District will be able to
attract following transfer of the land; and compliance with the Federal
Property Act (FPA) requirement that the federal government receive
value for the transfer. The bill requires an appraisal and estimates of
the financial benefit to the District that are necessary to determine
the extent to which the bill would reduce the federal government's
responsibility for the structural deficit.
The federal government has never used the parcels in my bill, and has
no intention of doing so. At the same time, the District is unable to
get value from this strategically located land in the city. Achieving
maximum use of available sites located in the nation's capital, where
the federal government owns and occupies the most valuable land, is
essential to maintaining the financial stability of the District of
Columbia.
This bill would compensate the District for some of the costs
responsible of the structural imbalance which include the federal
removal from the tax rolls of more than 40 percent of District's land
for federal and other purposes; services provided by the District to
200,000 federal employees, notwithstanding a ban on taxation of
commuters, most of whom are federal employees; and the District's
responsibility for several state costs, although the city is not a
state and lacks the broad tax base of a state.
The costs to the District to cover this structural deficit are
unsustainable. Among the most serious are the city's debt service, the
highest in the country; its taxes, among the highest; and deferral of
major capital improvements for vital facilities such as schools and for
roads, a major factor inhibiting economic and population stability and
growth.
The existence, source and danger of the structural deficit imposed by
federal mandates have been fully acknowledged and are no longer
debatable. In addition to the definitive GAO report and the findings of
the District's Chief Financial Officer, the details are reported in two
other studies (McKinsey, March 2002, requested by the Federal City
Council consisting of regional business representatives; and Brookings,
October 2002, led by Alice Rivlin, former director of the CBO and of
the OMB).
According to the GAO, the only available options to eliminate the
federally imposed deficit are ``to expand the District's tax base or to
provide additional financial support.'' The bill I introduce today will
``expand the District's tax base,'' creating a continuing revenue
stream because ownership will allow the District to get the highest and
best use of valuable land through its own development initiative. I ask
that the House begin the process of compensating the District for the
federal deficit carried by the city by enacting the Fair Land Transfer
Compensation Act.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO RABBI LEONARD AND MRS. CAROLYNNE GUTTMAN
______
HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the National
Council of Young Israel Shofar Award recipient Rabbi Leonard Guttman
and his wife, Carolynne, and pay tribute to their involvement and
commitment to the Young Israel movement and to worldwide Jewry.
Rabbi Leonard B. Guttman, Esq. is an Assistant Vice President for
Intergovernmental Relations at the New York City Health and Hospitals
Corporation, the largest public health system in the United States. His
prime responsibility is to serve as an advocate in Washington for New
York's publicly funded hospitals and its over 1.3 million patients.
While new to the Young Israel Ohab Zedek of North Riverdale-Yonkers, in
1988-1989 he worked at the National Council of Young Israel where one
of his responsibilities was serving as editor of the Young Israel
Viewpoint. He has also been an adjunct Professor at the Borough of
Manhattan Community College and Touro College and an Assistant
Commissioner of the New York City Department for the Aging. From 1994-
1996, he served as First Deputy Commissioner/General Counsel at the New
York City Commission for the United Nations and Consular Corps. He
often worked behind the scenes to help Israel and Jewish individuals
who are suffering.
Rabbi Guttman is active in a vast array of non-profit organizations.
Among these activities, he serves on the Board of the American Friends
of the Sanz Laniado Medical Center (Netanya, Israel), which awarded him
and his wife its Community Service Award in May 2000, and also on the
board of the Metropolitan Council of the American Jewish Congress.
Since 1997, Rabbi Guttman has quietly taught a Torah class at the
United Nations for its Judaica Club. He has published articles in
Midstream, New York Affairs, Congress Monthly and The Jewish Press on
issues as varied as the Holocaust, Islam and Jewish and Communal
affairs and has also lectured extensively. Carolynne, originally from
Toronto, Canada, comes from a distinguished family active in Jewish and
Communal affairs both in Toronto and Houston, Texas where she spent her
formative years. A known expert on medical reimbursements, she serves
as billing manager at New Rochelle Radiology.
Mr. Speaker, I have been fortunate to witness the revitalization of
the National Council of Young Israel (NCYI). Nationally, the
Departments of Synagogue and Rabbinic Services and the Women's Division
and the Youth Department provide Young Israel congregations with much
appreciated support. When an Orthodox synagogue needs assistance, NCYI
is known as the organization to contact. On the international scene,
NCYI is at the forefront of speaking out in support of the State of
Israel, and to ensure the return of Israel's soldiers who are missing
in action. NCYI has spearheaded a campaign to provide the Israel
Defense Forces with Torah Scrolls for its troops who are in mobile and
isolated posts. NCYI has delivered over 100 Torah scrolls and has not
only facilitated but also encouraged many other individuals and
organizations to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is incumbent upon this body to recognize
the accomplishments of Rabbi & Mrs. Guttman for their outstanding
efforts in the betterment of the Jewish community and the City of New
York.
____________________
HONORING JACK HORKHEIMER FOR HIS OUTSTANDING CONTRIBUTION TO THE SOUTH
FLORIDA COMMUNITY
______
HON. ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN
of florida
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to pay tribute to Jack
Horkheimer, the Executive Director of the Miami Space Transit
Planetarium. For over 25 years, Jack has been a pioneer in the
advancement of science exploration and discovery.
Jack Horkheimer has worked diligently throughout his tenure at the
Miami of Science to enhance and transform planetarium presentations. He
is best known as the creator, producer and host of the television show,
``Star Hustler/Star Gazer,'' that has been shown weekly for over 25
years. His sign-off motto, ``Keep Looking Up,'' has become familiar to
many. Mr. Horkheimer has appeared on major television and radio
networks, and has led several solar eclipse expeditions, as well as the
first Halley's Comet Chase. Presently, Mr. Horkheimer is assisting
associates position a telescope on the International Space Station.
In January 2001, the International Astronomical Union renamed
``Asteroid 1999 FD,'' the asteroid that orbits between Mars and
Jupiter, to ``Asteroid Horkheimer'' in honor of his contributions to
astronomy. Mr. Horkheimer has also received the Outstanding Achievement
Award from the Astronomical League, as well as the 12 Good Men Award
presented to
[[Page 11103]]
him by the Ronald McDonald House. In May 2000, he was awarded an
Honorary Doctorate Degree by the International Fine Arts College, and
was also the recipient of the Klumpke-Roberts Award from the
Astronomical Society ofthe Pacific. He is the Founding Member of the
International Planetarium Society, co-editor of ``The Planetarium,''
and past editor of ``Southern Skies,''
In addition, Mr. Horkheimer has established several annual
scholarship funds for young students, providing them the opportunity to
study astronomy.
Mr. Speaker, many in my home state of Florida have benefited
immeasurably from Mr. Horkheimer's leadership and involvement in our
community. My daughters are among many South Floridians that have had
the unique opportunity to visit this exceptional facility. It is truly
an asset to our community, and I encourage my colleagues in the House
to pay tribute to Mr. Jack Horkheimer.
____________________
HONORING SAUL STERN, RECIPIENT OF THE PROJECT INTERCHANGE AM YISRAEL
CHAI AWARD
______
HON. TOM DAVIS
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Saul
Stern who will receive the Project Interchange Am Yisrael Chai Award on
May 25, 2005 at the Park Hyatt Hotel in Washington, DC.
This award is presented by Project Interchange to Mr. Stern to honor
his contribution to the organization. Project Interchange is the only
national organization solely dedicated to providing educational
seminars in Israel for America's policy and opinion makers. With
exceptional leadership, Mr. Stern has guided more than 3,500 prominent
Americans, including Members of Congress, congressional aides, state
officials and other community leaders to experience Israel through
intensive seminars. These seminars allow political and civil leaders to
witness democracy at work in Israel and to provide an understanding to
the complex challenges that face that country.
The Project Interchange Am Yisrael Chai Award recognizes Mr. Stern's
contribution to the Jewish community including his work in advocating
Jewish interests, strengthening public support for Israel, building
ties with other faith, minority, and ethnic groups and establishing a
framework for social action for over six decades.
Mr. Stern has served as a life-long civic leader and truly believes
in the mission of Project Interchange. In his own words, he believes
the eyewitness experience in Israel is one of the most effective ways
to understand the value of the U.S.-Israel relationship. While Mr.
Stern has impacted the Jewish Community at the international and
national level, he is also extremely influential in local Jewish and
secular community associations. He has served as an advisor and a
dependable colleague to local elected officials, business leaders,
academicians and community activists.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to congratulate Mr. Stern on
receiving this award. His significant contributions are much
appreciated and greatly admired. I call upon my colleagues to join me
in honoring Mr. Stern and wishing him the best of luck in all future
endeavors.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF COLORADO HISTORY DAY WINNERS
______
HON. JOHN T. SALAZAR
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Caitlyn Darnell
and all the other students who will represent Colorado in the National
History Day competition from June 12-16, 2005.
Caitlyn placed second in the Colorado History Day competition with
her dramatic performance ``Anne Sullivan: Reaching Behind Closed
Doors,'' which chronicles the life of the great teacher who taught
Helen Keller to communicate.
National History Day is a year-long education program for middle and
high school students across the nation. Students produce documentaries,
dramatic performances, exhibits, or research papers related to the
annual theme. They then compete in a series of local and state
competitions, with the very best traveling to the national competition.
I would like to recognize Caitlyn and all the students representing
the state of Colorado for their excellence and hard work. These
extraordinary students represent educational excellence in America. I
would also like to recognize the students' teachers, whose support and
dedication have encouraged students like Caitlyn to strive for
excellence.
____________________
INTRODUCTION STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ALCEE L. HASTINGS FOR THE HAITI
COMPASSION ACT
______
HON. ALCEE L. HASTINGS
of florida
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the
Haiti Compassion Act. Do our colleagues know that before Haiti had even
achieved its own independence in 1804, 500 Haitian troops joined
American colonists in an attempt to drive the British from Savannah,
Georgia? In that one battle, Haitians made up the largest military unit
to fight in the 1779 siege. Haiti demonstrated through noble action and
sacrifice its loyal friendship to the United States more than 225 years
ago. It is now time for Congress to do the responsible thing and
protect the lives and well-being of those who have stood by us for
centuries.
The year 2004 was a debilitating and tragic year for Haiti and her
people. Haiti remains severely devastated by the combined effects of
ongoing political turmoil and the aftermath of the natural disasters of
2004, such as Tropical Storm Jeanne and Hurricane Ivan. Political
oppression and human rights violations are rife in Haiti while poverty
and homelessness have become the norm for too many innocent people. To
return a Haitian national back to Haiti is not only morally
unjustifiable, but poses a severe threat to their personal safety.
If you don't take my word, then ask, U.S. Secretary of State
Condoleeza Rice. On March 11, 2005 the U.S. Department of State issued
a travel warning to U.S. Citizens, warning them of the ``absence of an
effective police force in much of Haiti, the potential for looting, the
presence of intermittent roadblocks set by armed gangs or by the
police, and the possibility of random violent crime, including
kidnapping, car-jacking, and assault.'' The Department of State's
Consular Information Sheet states, ``There are no ``safe areas'' in
Haiti.'' As a result, ``U.S. Citizens should avoid travel to Haiti at
this time.''
At a time when current U.S. policy is to compel its own citizens not
to travel to Haiti, it is unjust to return Haitian nationals to this
type of dangerous situation. To return a Haitian national back to Haiti
where there is ongoing violence and a devastating environmental
situation would pose a severe threat to one's personal safety. Both
Democrats and Republicans have mentioned the history of blatant
discrimination and mistreatment of Haitians in the immigration process.
Therefore, the time has arrived for us to offer some much-deserved
compassion and effective action on the behalf of our loyal friends.
My legislation would designate Haiti under section 244 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act in order to render nationals of Haiti
eligible for temporary protected status. In light of the political,
civil, and governmental crisis and tragic conditions caused by the
recent environmental disasters in Haiti, my legislation would make
nationals of Haiti eligible for temporary protected status.
I ask for my colleagues' support and urge the House Leadership to
bring it swiftly to the House floor for consideration.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. JOHN LEWIS
of georgia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast rollcall
votes No. 176 through 199 on May 17 through 19, 2005 because I was
attending to a personal matter. Had I been present I would have cast
the following votes: On rollcall No. 176, I would have voted ``yes'';
on rollcall No. 177, I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall No. 178, I
would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall No. 179, I would have voted
``yes''; on rollcall No. 180, I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall
No. 181, I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall No. 182, I would have
voted ``no''; on rollcall No. 183, I would have voted ``yes''; on
rollcall No. 184, I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall No. 185, I
would have voted ``no''; on rollcall No. 186, I would have voted
``yes''; on rollcall No. 187, I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall
No. 188, I would have voted
[[Page 11104]]
``yes''; on rollcall No. 189, I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall
No. 190, I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall No. 191, I would have
voted ``no''; on rollcall No. 192, I would have voted ``no''; on
rollcall No. 193, I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall No. 194, I
would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall No. 195, I would have voted
``no''; on rollcall No. 196, I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall
No. 197, I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall No. 198, I would have
voted ``yes''; on rollcall No. 199, I would have voted ``no.''
____________________
HONORING DR. RAJIV RANJAN
______
HON. ZOE LOFGREN
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the
achievements of Dr. Rajiv Ranjan and would like to honor his
extraordinary contributions and pioneering research work in the field
of magnetic recording, which have led to a number of technological
breakthroughs.
Dr. Ranjan has led the effort in the next generation of perpendicular
media technology that is destined for the market place in the near
future. His focus is in the field of low noise media. Prior to the mid-
1980s, industry recorded information on oxide media. These media had
limitations to attaining high areal density (recording density per unit
area). One proposed alternative was sputtered thin-film media, but the
media had high-levels of media noise. Rajiv, along with his team,
demonstrated low-noise possibilities for thin film media.
This work led to an industry-wide transition to sputtered thin-media.
These low-noise media led to a tremendous increase in areal density and
resulted in lower cost data storage products, followed by a wider usage
in the personal computers. These products are now being incorporated
into consumer electronic products, such as MP3 players, PDA, cell-
phones and more.
Another of his key inventions is laser texturing of a selective area
of the disc surface. This enabled the recording head to fly closer to
the medium surface and enabled increased areal density. This also
enabled a faster take-off of the head and reliable landing of the head
during power on/off. The net result is higher areal density and a more
reliable and safer drive. Over a billion disc-drives have been sold
with laser-textured media.
Rajiv holds over 54 U.S. patents, many of them currently used in
data-storage products.
Dr. Rajiv Ranjan has devoted his life to enrich and advance society
through technology, and his contribution deserves to be honored to
serve as an inspiration.
I am proud that Dr. Rajiv Ranjan lives in the 16th Congressional
District where he is an active and respected member of his community as
well as an admired scientist. Please join me, Mr. Speaker, in offering
our congratulations for his success and our admiration for his
leadership both in technology and the arts, but also in his family and
community.