Floor Statements

Madam Speaker. I rise to commend the exceptional leadership and invaluable contributions of the Denver Gay Men's Chorus on the occasion of its 25th Anniversary. It is fitting that we recognize this chorus for its extraordinary service and its enduring commitment to creative and performance excellence as well as the enrichment of the artistic and cultural experience in the 1st congressional district and throughout Colorado.

Since its inception, the Denver Gay Men's Chorus has proven to be a powerful force in promoting both artistic excellence and civic values. Founded in 1982, the chorus was the first openly gay organization in Denver. The group is a talented choral ensemble dedicated to musical excellence and it has been a beacon of strength and support for the gay and lesbian community. Touching ears and hearts alike, the Denver Gay Men's Chorus, with its unique ability to convey acceptance and pride, continue to be in high demand with diverse audiences. Truly, the chorus has established itself as a major cultural presence that has served to expand the appreciation of choral music and its enduring value as a means of poignant artistic expression.

The Denver Gay Men's Chorus has openly declared that it exists to build community through music. Members have joined together for the explicit purpose of providing educational, cultural and social enrichment for themselves and their audiences. It is an organization of gay people and their friends that is actively engaged in making a positive contribution to the entire community.

The Denver Gay Men's Chorus has amassed a distinguished record of service to our State and our Nation. It has participated in the Gay and Lesbian Association of Choruses festivals in six cities--Denver, Montreal, New York, San Jose, Seattle, and Tampa--representing Denver and Colorado as cultural ambassadors to the world. It has participated in exchange concerts with gay men's choruses in Boston, Chicago, Minneapolis, Portland, Philadelphia and Washington, DC.

In 1990, Rich Geraghty of Denver was appointed administrative director of the Gay and Lesbian Association of Choruses Board of Directors. Prior to locating in Washington, DC, the first national offices of the GALA Choruses were in Denver. In 1992, the Denver Gay Men's Chorus welcomed over 3,500 delegates and hosted 65 choruses at the GALA Choruses Festival IV held at the Denver Center for the Performing Arts. ``Of Rage and Remembrance,'' by featured composer John Corigliano, was performed at the festival's special AIDS Memorial Concert during the peak of AIDS deaths nationwide.

Over the past 25 years, the Denver Gay Men's Chorus has performed over 130 different concert programs featuring over 1,300 compositions, arrangements, commissioned works, and medleys. It comes as no surprise that the chorus was honored with the Denver Mayor's A ward for Excellence in the Arts for 1992.

As a choir member at Montview Presbyterian Church, I have an appreciation of choral music's power and its capacity to inspire both singers and audiences alike. It has been noted that ``singing is the bridge between heaven and earth; between ages and cultures. It has the power to move hearts and to touch us in ways that truly transcend mundane experience.'' Today, we celebrate the transforming power of choral music. We celebrate the invaluable contributions of the Denver Gay Men's Chorus as it continues to promote artistic excellence, pride and community. Choral music touches all of us and we are indeed fortunate to have a cultural asset of such magnitude. Please join me in commending the Denver Gay Men's Chorus, a distinguished choral ensemble. It is the leadership and dedication which members of this chorus exhibit on a daily basis that continually enhance our lives and build a better future for all of our people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express frustration, frustration that I share with millions of Americans around this country. Every day, millions of patients suffer from debilitating diseases and conditions. For many, embryonic stem cell research is the most promising source of potential cures and treatments. Unfortunately, because of the stubbornness of one man, President Bush, these people continue to suffer as they wait.

Since the discovery of embryonic stem cells in 1998, the vast majority of biomedical researchers in this country identify embryonic stem cell research as the most promising source of treatments for diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, spinal cord injury and multiple sclerosis. With the unique ability to become any cell in the body, embryonic stem cells truly are the key to taking science to a whole new level.

Unfortunately, President Bush has stubbornly refused to pay attention to these scientists and the patients who might be helped by this research. In August 2001, the President announced that he would prohibit the National Institutes of Health from funding research on embryonic stem cells lines created after August 2001. Assertions to the contrary, there are fewer than 20 stem cell lines in existence, and most of these researchers are finding less and less workable.

Despite the President's opposition to the research, Congress has acted over and over again for this funding. In 2006, we passed the first bill. This year, as H.R. 3, we passed the second bill. And all of the bills, including S. 5, have the same provisions: Embryos used to derive stem cells which were created for fertility treatments and are in excess of clinical need, the individuals for whom those embryos were created, have determined the embryos are not needed and voluntarily donate them and the individuals provide written consent.

Let me remind my colleagues that under current law there are no ethical guidelines like these that govern any stem cell research that happens today. Unfortunately, the President vetoed the bill. But in the 2006 elections, embryonic stem cell research became a critical issue, and it passed this House again in January with an overwhelming majority.

It is time to pass this bill again now with the Senate language and send a clear message to the President and this country: The majority of Americans want stem cell research.

While the NIH remains limited to a few number of stem cell lines, the rest of the world has eagerly filled the void.

California has recently authorized several billion dollars to conduct embryonic stem cell research. Japan, the U.K., Singapore and others have allocated billions of dollars. But the NIH lags behind. Not only is it not participating in this research, it has lost its cutting edge.

Since I first began working on this issue, public support for embryonic stem cell research has soared. According to a Gallup poll released just this week, since May 2002, it has gone up to 64 percent, steadily increasing.

Mr. Speaker, the Senate gets it. The public gets it. The House gets it. Why doesn't the President of the United States get it?

Opponents of this research say there are other types of cell research that are being explored. And, in fact, yesterday, shockingly, another new advance, which seems to happen every time we bring this bill up. We welcome these advances as we welcome all advances in ethical life- saving research. However, this new scientific research should not be used as an excuse to say that it is a substitute for embryonic stem cell research.

One of the lead researchers, Kevin Eggan, said: ``All of us agree strongly with human embryonic stem cell research. These experiments are not motivated by a desire to find an end run around these issues.''

This week, in fact, on the other end, embryonic stem cell research has led to huge new advances in curing macular degeneration in England. They believe that embryonic stem cell research will lead to a cure in humans within 5 years.

It is promising research. It is supported by a majority of Americans, by the House, by the Senate. Mr. Speaker, that's why we are here today: the chance for so many to live a life that others take for granted.

Vote for S. 5 to restore hope.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Space).

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), a true hero on this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, the only thing shocking about these recent scientific discoveries is they seem to be always revealed right at the same week that we do our embryonic stem cell bill on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I will be pleased to yield 2 minutes to our distinguished caucus Chair, Mr. Emanuel, from Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut, another leader on this issue, both in the State House and Congress, Mr. Murphy.

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire as to the time remaining on each side.

And on the other side, Mr. Speaker?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am now very pleased to yield 2 minutes to another distinguished leader on this issue, the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).

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

I'll continue to reserve, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if you did the math, 64 percent support embryonic stem cell research, so that's well in excess of a majority.

I am now pleased to recognize another leader, both at the State level and Federal level, in this, Mr. Mitchell from Arizona, for 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield to the very distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare) 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am now delighted to yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am now very pleased to yield to 1 minute to my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), a real leader on this issue.

Could I inquire of the Speaker how much time is left on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the first thing I want to do is I want to thank Mike Castle, my

friend, my compadre, and my fellow journeyman on this journey. We will win this. We will win.

I also want to thank my friend Joe Barton, who has helped so much not just in this session of Congress but in the past, and all of my leadership on my side who continue to fight for this bill.

Our constituents sent us down here to do the people's work, and they want us to do it in a bipartisan way. This is the best example I can think of in the 10 years that I have been in Congress.

I just want to talk about a few of the misconceptions that have been raised today. The first one is the allegation that the American people do not support stem cell research. This is patently untrue. A new Gallup poll this week shows an increase of 12 percent of Americans that support this research in the last 5 years to 64 percent. Another recent poll showed that when it was explained to them that these embryos are slated to be destroyed but they could be donated for hope that 51 percent of self-described pro-life Republicans support this research.

There is a national consensus. There is a strong majority in the House and the Senate, and there is one thing stopping that, and that is a stubborn President. President Bush needs to understand it is ethical and it is the right thing to do.

Our opponents try to muddle this issue by saying that adult stem cells will be a substitute. This is also patently false. It is amazing that there is new research every time that we come up with this bill, but we welcome that research. We welcome all research. But it is not a substitute for embryonic stem cell research.

In fact, this recent study this week with the mouse cells, the scientists said success with mouse cells does not guarantee quick success with human cells. They called on Congress to pass the bill which would give federally funded researchers access to embryos slated for destruction at fertility clinics. These types of research are years away. Embryonic stem cell research has only been in existence for 7 or 8 years. But 1,300 scientists are sending a letter to President Bush today telling him that this is the research that shows promise, and 80 Nobel Laureates have endorsed the bill. The scientists say that embryonic stem cell research has promise in and of itself and that adult stem cell research, including amniotic research, cord blood, mouse cells, all of these cells are not a substitute.

Mr. Castle and I and all of our allies support all of these types of research, but it is not a substitute. But that is also why S. 5 has a provision that supports these.

Vote for hope. Vote for research. Vote for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am now honored to recognize the Speaker of the House for our remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to commit.

Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear. This motion to commit guts S. 5, pure and simple. What it does, it strips out the embryonic stem cell research portion of the bill, which of course is the bill. Instead, it simply leaves the section that also encourages alternative forms of research. So any Member of this House who supports embryonic stem cell research and who has voted for it in the past must oppose this motion to commit. Let me say it again: What this motion to commit does, it strips the embryonic stem cell research out of the bill.

Now, when I was a high school and college debater, one of the things that used to drive me crazy was inconsistency in my opponent's position. We have seen that in spades today. Mr. Gingrey just said, for example, that he supports adult stem cell research because it doesn't have the same kinds of problems that some embryonic stem cell research in mice have shown. In fact, though, the new study, which coincidentally just came out this week, just as a new study comes out every time we vote on embryonic stem cell research, the study on mice specifically says that these mouse cells, that the approach would have to be changed somewhat for use with human cells because it could cause cancer, just the criticism our opponents make of embryonic stem cell research. It's true that embryonic stem cell research is relatively new. However, these other sources that our opponents tout are even newer and have provided no evidence and no hope for cures. That is why 80 Nobel Laureates and 1,300 scientists have endorsed embryonic stem cell research as well as research into adult stem cells and other types of research.

What our bill does is, it says, let's do everything in an ethical way. Let's have ethically conducted embryonic stem cells, but only on embryos that are scheduled to be discarded as medical waste. Let's not throw them out. Let's use them to give hope to the millions of Americans who suffer from diseases for which adult stem cell research has shown no promise at all. That is why all of these researchers say we have to support both embryonic stem cell and adult stem cell and other types of alternatives.

They say there have been no cures found, but, again, just last week, researchers in Great Britain, because this research is going overseas, have found evidence that embryonic stem cell research may cure macular degeneration, which causes blindness in humans. Our friends, many of them formerly from U.S. universities who are in Great Britain, think that we will have a clinical application of this embryonic stem cell research within 5 years.

I want to conclude by saying, it is not either/or. It is both, so long as they are done ethically. Alan Leshner, Ph.D., with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said, ``It is only through Federal support of research on both adult and embryonic stem cells that we may better understand the potential value and limitations of each type. We owe all those who may be helped by such research in the future to pursue all avenues of potential treatments and cures for serious diseases.''

Mr. Speaker, this motion to commit will kill the bill. Anyone who supports hope for the 110 million Americans who suffer from these terrible diseases must vote ``no'' on the motion to commit and ``yes'' on final passage.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2560) to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prohibit human cloning, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2560, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2007. Tomorrow, the House will debate S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which will expand the number of stem cell lines that are eligible for federally funded research. Similar to legislation passed in the House earlier this year with overwhelming bipartisan support, the goal of S. 5 is to accelerate scientific progress towards cures and treatments for a wide range of diseases and debilitating health conditions. When we debated the bill in January, opponents of the bill chose to muddle the debate by offering a motion to recommit involving cloning, a topic unrelated to

Mr. Speaker, just briefly, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania knows, our committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, did have robust hearings on cloning several years ago where we brought in several scientists as well as a cult called the Raelians who are actually trying to clone human beings, and that is why we need this kind of limitation.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy), the cosponsor of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I just would make two points toward the gentleman from New Jersey's comments. The first one is the Weldon- Stupak bill, which he says he supports, also would make it a crime for a woman to carry a cloned embryo in her uterus as a

pregnancy. Frankly, we think that cloning should be a crime. I am surprised to hear the gentleman say that he does not think it should be.

Secondly, the so-called Greenwood-DeGette bill from several sessions of Congress ago that he is referring to is a completely different bill than this bill today. People should probably read the legislation in front of them to see that all this bill does is make reproductive cloning illegal.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), a real leader on these issues.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers, and so we're prepared to close. And, with that, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Well, I've been in Congress now 10 years; and some days I feel like I'm in Alice in Wonderland. Today happens to be one of them. Because when you listen to the arguments from the other side you'd never dream that the bill under consideration right now is a ban on human reproductive cloning.

Maybe I will start by talking about the status of the law in the United States today. Right now, in the United States, SCNT, somatic cell nuclear transfer, is legal. It is legal today, and there is nothing about H.R. 2560, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act, that changes that or alters it in any way.

We hear the other side talking about egg farms and forcing women to donate eggs and all of that. If that was going to happen, it would be happening today because this bill does nothing to stop the status of current law on SCNT or therapeutic cloning.

What we do have happening today, however, is there are some unethical scientists who are trying to do reproductive cloning. They are trying to take the results of SCNT, implant them in women's uteruses and create cloned human beings.

I just heard my colleague from Pennsylvania talking about Dolly the sheep and all of the failed attempts with animal cloning before Dolly the sheep. He is absolutely right. It is a terrible problem, and that is why it is reprehensible and immoral to try to clone human beings. That is also why we need to make it illegal in this country.

He also talked about the example of South Korea, and he's also absolutely right about South Korea. There was an unethical researcher in South Korea who, with no ethical standards or controls, tried to make experiments and lied about the results.

By the way, that's why we need to pass S. 5 tomorrow, because currently in this country there are no ethical controls either over embryonic stem cell research or SCNT research, controls which we could really use in this country, and they certainly could have used in South Korea, but that's all sort of aside from the point.

The point is, right now, in this country it is not illegal to clone a human being for reproductive purposes, and there's a national consensus that it should be.

I do want to apologize to my ranking member, Mr. Barton, about the process. Perhaps there should have been notice. But the truth is, there is a consensus on reproductive cloning.

This is a simple bill, and we have tried, over the years in Congress, to ban reproductive cloning. The reason we haven't been able to do it is because the other side gets up and makes all of these false arguments, which then complicate the situation, and we have not been able to ban reproductive cloning. We felt that under a suspension calendar, with a clean vote and a simple bill, it would work.

For people who try to say, well, somehow this is going to cause more problems, I can't believe that they would support reproductive cloning. I can't believe that the opponents of this bill would actually vote against a bill that bans reproductive cloning. I can't believe that they would say they think that we would encourage reproductive cloning in this country.

I would tell my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this vote will be a clear vote today. The vote will be, do you oppose human reproductive cloning and think that it should be a Federal crime in this country, or are you in the pocket of the special interests who will make any argument because they don't think this bill goes far enough to ban other types of research, which are legal right now in this country and for which the results which they fear have not happened to date.

I will say, let's make the clear statement in Congress. Let's stand up for our constituents. Let's ban reproductive cloning today. There is no Member of Congress who supports human reproductive cloning, which is exactly what this bill prohibits.

Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2560, and then we can have the rest of this debate tomorrow on S. 5.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment to be voted on today which will provide supplemental funds for the war in Iraq.

As I have said before on the floor of the House, it is time we ended our military involvement in Iraq. We are not making progress, despite losing thousands of lives, expending years of effort, and spending hundreds of billions of dollars. This is a viewpoint shared by the vast majority of the American people.

I strongly support our troops and understand we must provide resources for them in the field. However, today's amendment continues the President's failed policy in Iraq by not holding him accountable to his own benchmarks for success and failing to set a timetable for the redeployment of our troops. Although the amendment ties non-military aid to the Iraqi Government's progress in meeting certain benchmarks, the President can waive the requirement.

Spending billions on the war in Iraq without providing a prescription for withdrawal or benchmarks with meaningful consequences for the Iraqi Government, as the amendment before us would do, does our troops and our entire Nation a disservice. It suggests that we will continue this war without end or without putting meaningful pressure on the Iraqi Government to do its fair share.

Unfortunately, President Bush and most Republicans in Congress believe that this is exactly what we should do. President Bush vetoed H.R. 1591, which imposed benchmarks with real consequences on the Iraqi Government and mandated that our military forces would have left Iraq by August 2008. So far he has refused to accept any major changes in his Iraq policy,

If President Bush continues to be intransigent, Congress has the responsibility to use its spending power to truly make a meaningful change in the direction of the war in Iraq. The amendment under consideration does not do that and I ask my colleagues to vote against it.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R 493, the ``Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2007.''

This bill will protect people from discrimination in securing health insurance or employment based on their genetic make-up. Such discrimination is wrong and should not be tolerated. I am proud to support a bill that would outlaw it. I applaud Representative Slaughter and Representative Biggert for their hard work in bringing this bill to the floor today.

During consideration of H.R 493 by the Committee on Energy and Commerce, of which I am a member, a concern was raised by Representative Stupak. The concern related to genetic discrimination dealing with embryos or fetuses, as well as adopted children and those in the process of being adopted. Like Representative Stupak, I do not want to allow insurance companies to use genetic information to discriminate. Period.

I worked out language with Representative Stupak to amend H.R. 493, which addressed his concerns in a mutually acceptable way. This language says that individuals cannot be discriminated against as a result of genetic information gleaned prior to birth. It further says that women cannot be discriminated against as a result of the genetic information of a fetus, embryo, adopted child, or child they are in the process of adopting. At the same time, it does not create a new legal status or convey new legal rights to fetuses or embryos. Thus, I feel it provides the proper balance between providing protections from genetic discrimination while not addressing other non-germane issues.

The compromise language was adopted by the full Committee on Energy and Commerce without objection during its consideration of H.R. 493. I am pleased that this language is included in the bill we are considering on the floor today.

I encourage all Members to support H.R. 493 and I look forward to its soon becoming law.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 99.

For the last 6 years we have been swimming in serious red ink. Deep red ink. Thanks to President Bush and the Republicans in Congress we have added almost three trillion dollars to our Nation's debt. This red ink also seemed to be without end. In the past the other side of the aisle put forward budgets that did not reflect a serious commitment to responsible fiscal policy. Those budgets also failed to reflect the priorities of the American people.

Well, Mr. Chairman, Congress is under new management. That new management has produced a budget for the House to consider about which the American people can be proud.

The Democratic budget is fiscally responsible. It reimposes pay-as- you-go (PAYGO) budgeting principles and achieves balance in 2012. At the same time, this budget puts our priorities in the proper order.

For example, it provides tax relief to those who it needs it most-- the middle-class. This tax relief includes the extension of certain tax breaks, such as the child tax credit, and reform of the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).

This budget also increases spending on the things that matter most to the American people, such as our children, education, health care, and veterans. Today we will be providing for a $50 billion increase in funds to provide health insurance to millions of more uninsured kids. Education, training, and related programs will receive three billion more than current levels and almost eight billion more than requested by the President. Funding for veterans' health care services is increased by 14.4 percent.

I am proud to support this budget. It reflects a responsible fiscal position and puts our limited resources towards programs and policies that are important to this nation. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote in favor of H. Con. Res. 99.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1591.

In considering what to say about H.R. 1591, I looked back at what I said in the Congressional Record about House Resolution 861, an Iraq resolution from the 109th Congress in June of last year. I lamented the fact that 2,500 soldiers had died, 18,000 had been wounded, and 320 billion dollars had been spent or appropriated. I said that enough was enough and that it was time to begin redeploying troops to the periphery of the conflict and bring some of them home.

Sadly, in the last nine months, we have lost over 700 more troops and seen more than 5,000 additional soldiers wounded. We have little to show for our efforts, as Iraq is still in chaos and there is no peace in sight. I am afraid that if we do not take a different approach that this pattern will continue--progress in Iraq will not be made and increasing numbers of American soldiers will suffer. H.R. 1591 is a new, reasonable approach.

Like most Americans, I want Iraq to succeed as a stable democracy. But Iraqis have to want this too and actually work towards this goal in a meaningful way. H.R. 1591 encourages the Iraqi government to do this by offering our continued assistance, if it meets certain political and military benchmarks. These markers were laid out by President Bush in January. A further incentive for Iraq to take more responsibility for its own security is the knowledge that, under H.R. 1591, we will not be there forever. There will now be a date certain, August 2008, after which the Iraqi government could not longer rely on our soldiers for its security.

This is not just the right course for Iraq, it is the right course for America. After 4 long years, thousands dead and wounded, and hundreds of billions spent, it is time that this war comes to an end.

Ending the war in Iraq will stop the losses and devastating injuries inflicted on our troops. It will also allow us to redirect the billions that would otherwise be spent on Iraq to meet needed priorities here at home, such as providing health insurance to low-income children. I ask my colleagues to keep in mind this tremendous opportunity cost should we not stop the war.

While the legislation before us today will bring the war in Iraq to close over a reasonable period of time, it also supports our troops in the field. H.R. 1591 appropriates almost $100 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I strongly support our troops who have done everything asked of them with dignity, courage, and skill. It is with their safety and security in mind that I will vote in favor of this bill.

Beyond Iraq, H.R. 1591 contains over $20 billion to meet other emergency priorities. These include resources for veterans' health care, recovery from the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, relief for farmers and ranchers from years of drought, and money to states for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

Enacting H.R. 1591 is thus important to address these emergencies, support our troops in the field, and end our involvement in the war in Iraq. I strongly encourage all Members of the House to support its passage.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the exceptional accomplishments and extraordinary life of the Reverend Paul Martin, Senior Pastor of the Macedonia Baptist Church in Denver, Colorado. This remarkable gentleman merits our recognition and admiration as his impressive record of spiritual leadership and invaluable service has done much to improve the lives of our people.

Reverend Martin's standing within our community is rivaled by few others. He has been on the front line of progress for decades and has used his skills and talents to advance the public good and care for the spiritual well-being of many of our citizens. As a dynamic pastor, educator, scholar and radio commentator, Paul Martin's leadership and service has made us stronger, more caring and more resilient.

Reverend Martin began his life in South Central Los Angeles where he completed his secondary education in the public schools. He graduated with honors from Pepperdine University with a bachelor's degree in Religion, Psychology and Greek. He attained his Master of Divinity from the Samuel DeWitt Proctor School of Theology at Virginia Union University and went on to earn his Doctor of Philosophy at the California Graduate School of Theology. Reverend Martin also received an Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters from the Denver Seminary and has done additional study at Fuller Seminary, the Claremont School of Theology, and the Union Theological Seminary. Dr. Martin's many educational and scholarly accomplishments prepared him for a life of spiritual leadership that has left an indelible imprint on all of us.

Under Reverend Martin's leadership, Macedonia Baptist Church has become a beacon of hope and remains a positive force in the spiritual and civic life of our community. Not only has Reverend Martin moved us from the pulpit, he has also edified us through his numerous radio ministries. While in Los Angeles, he had four radio ministries and in Denver, he created and hosted Religion in Focus on KNUS Radio and cohosted Community Focus on KRKS Radio with his wife, Dr. Agnes Martin. He is the host of two weekly radio ministries on KLDC in Denver--Focus on Live and Charisma--and is cohost of the Agnes Martin Show on Channel 58, DCTV.

Those who know Reverend Martin know it is difficult to ignore his moving and resonant voice. His words give meaning and poignancy to the spiritual aspirations we all share. Over the years, I have had the privilege of working closely with Macedonia Baptist Church as part of a church exchange with my congregation, Montview Presbyterian. As a member of Montview's choir, I have had the opportunity to lift my voice with the remarkable choir at Macedonia. I have also had the opportunity to reflect with Reverend Martin on matters of social concern and I will never forget a discussion we had concerning the War on Poverty.

He reflected on how making poverty a national priority set in motion new laws and created programs such as Head Start, work study, Medicare and Medicaid. He noted how these programs brought about real results, reduced rates of poverty and improved living standards for America's poor. But what struck me was his conclusion--that this endeavor was great because it gave Americans the opportunity to care for and serve one another and that this kind of social stewardship changed our country for the better.

Clearly, community service matters. But for Reverend Martin, community service is not just an empty catchphrase. It is personal commitment and active engagement in outcomes--it is stewardship at its finest. Under the leadership of Paul Martin, Macedonia Baptist Church has touched the community through a host of specialized programs and outreach ministries designed to enhance the spiritual and educational growth of our youth. His service to our community is extensive and includes being past president of the Urban League of Metro Denver; special advisor to former Mayor Wellington Webb and Mayor John Hickenlooper; member of the Denver Police Task Force; and Board Chair of the Stapleton Development Corporation. He is the first African American minister to serve as President of the American Baptist Region of the Rocky Mountains. He is an adjunct professor at the Denver Seminary and the Iliff School of Theology and an instructor with the Congress of Christian Education of National Baptist Convention. He has been a past trustee of the University of Sioux Falls, a member of the Committee on Ministry for the Presbytery of Denver, Vice President for Membership for the East Denver Ministerial Alliance and a lifetime member of the N.A.A.C.P. and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

Martin Luther King, Jr., once noted that everybody could be great because everybody can serve. Reverend Martin has burnished a reputation of spiritual leadership that I think is the opposite of what most people think. His leadership is not only guidance, it is service. It is caring for one another. It is serving along side those whom you lead. It is service which is ordinary and yet extraordinary.

Reverend Martin's tenure as Senior Pastor of Macedonia Baptist Church is quickly drawing to a close. His leadership has been exemplary and his contributions are rich in consequence. On behalf of the citizens of the 1st Congressional District, I wish to express our gratitude and extend our best wishes to Pastor Martin, Agnes Martin and their family.

Please join me in paying tribute to the Reverend Dr. Paul M. Martin, a distinguished spiritual and civic leader. His stewardship and service command our respect and they speak to the spirit of our founders and future of our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution.

I fundamentally disagree with the President's plan to add thousands of troops to the Iraqi conflict. It is time for a new course in Iraq, a rational course, a more humane course of action. It is long past time to start a phased withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, this debate is about policy and direction. Surely, the facts on the ground cannot be used to support continued or increased combat involvement in Iraq. Iraq is in a civil war. That is the truth, and it is time we accept the implications of that fact. Our soldiers have no business acting as unwanted umpires or surrogate police officers.

The latest National Intelligence Estimate concludes the term ``civil war'' accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict. If this is the state of the current conflict, what do we expect the U.S. military to do about it? Settle centuries of theological or religious disagreement? Become diplomats? Whose side do they choose and what would their mission be?

I do not believe combat forces permanently stop such conflicts. The troops themselves tell us they are untrained for this role, a role that puts them at extreme risk.

Yet, the President mistakenly continues to believe we are fighting illusionary battalions on phantom battlefields. So, in his mind, we need more troops for victory, a surge that will overwhelm and destroy.

Well, that is how he sees it, but he ignores the evidence and reports of our generals, our troops, our Iraq Study Group, our diplomats, most of our allies, the views of the Iraqi people and anyone else who actually tries to find out the nature and state of the conflict.

He rapidly and recklessly proceeds ahead with one policy shift after another.

He searches for a light at the end of the tunnel, but there is no light. It was extinguished long ago. There is only darkness and despair. The chaos deepens daily, and the President sits in the Oval Office hoping that somehow, somehow it will turn out all right in the end.

This is neither policy nor leadership. The administration's policies are the stuff of dreams and fantasies, not hard core determinations of our Nation's interests or the best course for addressing strategic threats.

Mr. Speaker, hope is not a strategy. The escalation of troop levels makes no strategic sense. We must not hesitate to describe the President's policy in words that are honest and clear. We confront a policy that is wishful thinking, not realistic assessment. The administration's policy is like a conjuring trick of denial, delusion and determined folly, which will only deepen the disaster. We are given the vision of a make-believe story instead of a responsible and realistic policy.

Civil wars are solved through diplomacy, negotiation and political compromise. These are the types of developments identified by the NIE that will make a difference in Iraq. While the NIE warns against the rapid withdrawal of coalition troops, American forces can come home in a careful, safe and deliberate manner.

As the Nation's Representatives, it is our constitutional duty to stop this madness. It is our constitutional mandate to conduct oversight, and it is our constitutional imperative to act. That is what the Founding Fathers wanted. They constructed the Constitution to provide checks and balances. They did not give the President a blank check.

The Constitution is a sacred document to this body. We swear to uphold it and to defend it. We do just that when we demand accountability from the President. We honor our constitutional requirement when we scrutinize policy. We defend our constitutional process when we demand that the President listen to the American people and end unilateral actions that undermine our Nation's strength and place our troops in an untenable, lethal and unwinnable situation.

Mr. Speaker, I did not come here to ignore my oath to the American people. I did not come here to watch our Constitution be rewritten by presidential arrogance and disregard. And I did not come here to relinquish my sworn duty to protect and defend this sacred document. I did not come here to ignore the American people who want this war stopped now.

Mr. Speaker, support this resolution and begin a phased withdrawal.

Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate Denver's East High School for winning the ``We the People'' state competition on December 13, 2006. These students will represent Colorado in the national finals, held in Washington, DC on April 28-30, 2007.

This fantastic program seeks to develop the civic understanding of our nation's elementary, middle, and high school students. Each year competitions are held across the country, with students demonstrating their knowledge of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

After months of preparation, the students of East will represent the State of Colorado at the national competition, ``testify'' before a panel of judges, and display their knowledge of American government and history.

I am so proud to have these students representing the First Congressional District and the entire state of Colorado. I wish them luck in the national finals, and look forward to welcoming them to Washington.

I want to personally recognize the participating students, including Caitlin Bell, Tucker Larson, Tessa Caudle, Sean McCarthy, Mats Engdahl, Manon Scales, Dan Aschkinasi, Matt Valeta, Catie Gliwa, Brian McQuinn, Katrina Sondermann, Tyler Castle, Davis Wert, Kaitlyn Randol, Mackenzie Gilchrist, Carlo Davis, Morgan Hall, Tim Hambidge, Emery Donovan, Rachel Banks, Rye Finegan, Charlie Fine, Michelle Murphy, Taylor Jones, Alexa Morrill, Max Viski-Hanka, Sam Keene, and Marissa Latta. Additionally, I would like to congratulate Kathy Callum, the principal of East, teacher Susan McHugh, and Loyal Darr, who coordinates the ``We the People'' program in Denver and is a tireless advocate for civic education.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the extraordinary life and exceptional accomplishments of the Reverend James D. Peters, Pastor of New Hope Baptist Church. This remarkable gentleman merits both our recognition and esteem as his spiritual leadership, service and lifelong devotion to civil rights have done much to advance the lives of our people.

While many have made notable contributions to our community, few have left a legacy of progress as has Reverend Peters. He is a powerful champion of social justice and has led with those who fought for civil liberty and whose deeds changed the very fabric of our nation. Reverend Peters has touched countless lives and he has built a ministry that joins faith with equality. He is a dynamic pastor whose teaching and counsel is infused with a spiritual fervor that constantly edifies us and moves us to do what is right.

Reverend Peters' journey began in Washington D.C., the son of a baseball player. He grew up poor but he grew up in church. He was a gifted student and grew to recite Longfellow, Keats and Kipling. He worked full time at the Navy Annex near the Pentagon and struggled to get an education, attending night school for ten years. Reverend Peters recently noted that ``I couldn't eat in restaurants, I couldn't sleep at a hotel or go to the movies. I could never go to school with white children. All the way through high school, I never sat in a classroom with white people, not until I went to college.'' Many of us in this country forget how far we've come. Although civil liberties have deep roots in our republic, there was a time when fundamental decency and equality for all people were not a part of our shared experience. The courage and the work of Reverend Peters during the dark days of the Civil Rights Movement helped make fairness and equal rights part of our shared values. Reverend Peters was at the founding meeting of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and he worked directly with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He faced guns and dogs during the marches and civil rights demonstrations in Albany, Georgia, in Selma and in Birmingham, Alabama. He was part of the March on Washington that led to the steps of the Lincoln Memorial where Dr. King gave his unparalleled ``I Have a Dream'' speech.

Reverend Peters' work ethic and his service to the Civil Rights Movement molded a life of enduring accomplishment and a vocation that included ministering to congregations in Connecticut and Virginia. He became pastor of Denver's New Hope Baptist Church in February of 1979 and during his twenty-eight year tenure, he led his congregation through construction of a new church home and the expansion of services for an ever growing congregation. As a spiritual leader, he has burnished a reputation as a powerful advocate for inclusion and expanding opportunity for all people. He served as a volunteer member of the Denver Housing Advisory Board for approximately ten years assisting the twenty-two thousand public housing residents in changing the quality and image of public housing.

He served as a member of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for nine years, serving as its Chairman from 1987 to 1989, during which time he traveled throughout Colorado and held countless civil rights hearings to secure justice and equality for all citizens,

Reverend Peters has received service recognitions from numerous organizations including the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Martin Luther King, Jr., the Anti-Defamation League, the Denver Post and the NAACP, He is also the recipient of the Carle Whitehead Award, the highest award given by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Reverend James Peters is an unrelenting advocate for the causes that elevate the human condition and his immeasurable contributions to the spiritual life of our community merit our gratitude. He has led in the struggle for freedom, justice and equality for all people. But Reverend Peters' leadership goes to the heart of what he means to be a leader. ``Nathalia Young, a pastor at New Hope Baptist Church. . . remembers how he helped homeless people himself, not delegating it to a deacon. (He) would get into his own car, and use his own money to get someone a hotel room. And then there was a Christmas season one year, when a woman and her children were suddenly homeless. `He didn't just get her connected with housing but also supplied her with gifts and food.''' Reverend Peters leads by example.

In a recent Denver Post article, Reverend Peters expressed ``concern that young people don't understand what it was like before the Civil Rights Act and that some believe King's message is now irrelevant.'' At some level, I think we all share his concern. But I would submit that Reverend Peters' legacy provides a powerful example that not only affirms Dr. King's undertaking, but inspires all of us to remember the struggle and keep faith with those who have gone before.

Reverend Peters' tenure as pastor of New Hope Baptist Church is quickly drawing to a close. His leadership has been exemplary and his contributions are rich in consequence. On behalf of the citizens of the 1st Congressional District of Colorado, I wish to express our gratitude and look forward to his continued involvement in the life of our community.

Please join me in paying tribute to Reverend James D. Peters, a distinguished spiritual and civic leader. The values, leadership and commitment he exhibits set the mark and compel us to continue the work that distinguishes us as Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly 2 years since the House of Representatives passed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act in an attempt to lift the crippling ban on lifesaving research. During those 2 years, a lot has happened. The Senate overwhelmingly passed the bill, President Bush issued the first veto of his 6-year Presidency to kill it, new elections were held, and a rash of new pro-research Members won, in many cases defeating incumbents who oppose this research.

Public support has surged for stem cells. Over 71 percent of the public now supports this research, a stunning 20 percent increase since the vote in 2005.

There are other developments that have happened in the last 2 years. Great progress in research is being conducted overseas, out of the hands and out of the oversight of our distinguished scientists here at home. Stem cell research is proceeding unfettered and, in some cases, without ethical standards in other countries. And even when these countries have ethical standards, our failures are allowing them to gain the scientific edge over the U.S.

In Japan, scientists have used embryonic stem cell therapies to reduce hepatic failure in mice. In the U.K., the government has now committed to spending $1.3 billion on stem cell research in the next 10 years. Singapore is spending $7.5 billion on biomedical research over the next 5 years and is actively courting American stem cell researchers.

The first embryonic stem cell line may have been created in the United States, but the majority of new lines are being created overseas. We were once on the cutting edge of this groundbreaking research, but we have now effectively handed over the reins to those outside our borders while our own researchers remain tethered by a restrictive 6-year-old policy and we still have no Federal ethical standards over this research.

But there is one thing that has not changed since we last considered this bill. Millions of people in this country and around the world are still stricken by disease, accidents are still leaving people paralyzed, too many people are becoming victims of Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, heart disease, sickle cell anemia, diabetes, and many other debilitating diseases. Cancer hasn't been cured.

Some suggest that it is Congress' role to tell researchers what kinds of cells to use, adult stem cells, cord blood, so-called ANT, amniotic, and others. I suggest we are not the arbiters of research. Instead, we should foster all of these methods, and we should

adequately fund and have ethical oversight over all ethical stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research has shown the most promise of almost any current research today for potentially curing these and hundreds of other diseases and injuries.

The distinguished minority leader is wrong when he says amniotic stem cells are a substitute for embryonic stem cells. The researcher at Wake Forest University in fact says specifically that these cells are not a substitute, and we need to have both types of research, as well as all of the other kinds to have the maximum potential to cure disease.

The minority leader said we need to foster the kind of research that has the most promise. And there is the one place we will agree today, because the most promise, all researchers agree, is held by embryonic stem cell research.

Well, here we are again, and here we are going to come time after time until this bill passes. This bill will become law, and we will not tire in our efforts until it does for the millions of Americans who suffer from diseases.

Mr. President, today, we want to give you another chance to do the right thing. Today, the House will vote to give hope to millions of Americans. I urge my colleagues to vote for life, to vote for hope, to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 3.

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

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I am honored now to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) 3 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield now 2 minutes to the distinguished new Member from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished new Member from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire) for his maiden floor speech.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from several speakers on the other side that allegedly adult stem cells have cured a myriad of diseases. Apparently, the scorecard is now up to 72. In fact, as the researchers have shown, Dr. Shane Smith, William Neaves and Steven Teitelbaum, the opponents say that a myriad of diseases have been cured by adult stem cells, but, in fact, adult stem cell treatments fully tested, fully tested in all required phases of clinical trials, have cured nine conditions, not 65 or 72; and all of those conditions were blood- related conditions.

They were not the kinds of conditions that embryonic stem cells have shown promise for and have shown hope for. Embryonic stem cells have only been around for about 8 years, and the President's restrictions have greatly hampered research; but, nonetheless, these cells show great promise.

The researchers conclude: ``By promoting the falsehood that adult stem cell treatments are already in general use for 65 or more diseases and injuries, Prentice and those who repeat his claims mislead lay people and cruelly deceive patients.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished new Member from Ohio (Mr. Space).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker alleged that Dr. Atala, who is doing the embryonic stem cell research, said that it is not the way to go, that embryonic stem cell research is not the way to go.

In fact, in the letter that my distinguished colleague Mr. Castle has already submit for the record, Dr. Atala specifically says that amniotic stem cell research is not a substitute for embryonic research. And he further says: It is essential that National Institutes of Health funded researchers are able to fully pursue embryonic stem cell research as a complement to research into other forms of stem cells.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished new member from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. Speaker, I am now delighted to yield 2 minutes to another new Member, the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Patrick J. Murphy).

Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished new Member from Florida (Mr. Klein).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished new Member from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to now yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Mitchell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Indiana and several other people have said they don't think taxpayers should fund this research. But, in fact, we have a national consensus in this country in support of taxpayer funding for embryonic stem cell research, 72 percent, to be exact. We fund all other types of this research, so we have this national consensus.

My constituents in the First Congressional District of Colorado, the vast majority, the majority, do not want to fund this war. That doesn't mean, Mr. Speaker, that they don't have to pay their taxpayer dollars.

We should fund this with taxpayer dollars because the NIH and our public institutions are the driving force behind basic research for the private researchers, for the foreign researchers and for all of this wonderful research that is going to, we hope, cure diseases.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished new Member from Illinois (Mr. Hare).

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted now to yield 1 minute to the distinguished new Member from New York (Mr. Hall).

(Mr. HALL of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield now to the gentleman and new Member from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth) 1 minute.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from the Energy and Commerce Committee, my colleague, Ms. Eshoo, 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am now very pleased to recognize my friend and colleague from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) for 3 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Member from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the chairwoman of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Georgia holds up a picture of two beautiful little girls and says we would not want to destroy them for research. He absolutely has that right. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I take deep offense at any insinuation that we would kill children for this type of research.

The thing to know, H.R. 3 specifically says the only embryos we will allow for this research is embryos created for IVF clinics which are slated to be thrown away, embryos which are never implanted and will never become babies.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California, a member of the committee, Mrs. Capps.

No. The gentleman can use his own time.

No. He can use his own time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield now 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio, Mrs. Tubbs Jones.

(Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished new Member from Wisconsin, Dr. Kagen.

Mr. Speaker, I am now very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguish gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire as to the time remaining on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I now recognize the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Democratic Caucus Chair, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if now would be the time to yield 2 of my last minutes also to Mr. Barton.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Ranking Member Barton for his thoughtful, thoughtful approach and his support of this issue. I also want to thank my friend and compadre, Mr. Castle, who has fought hand in hand for this legislation with me for years now. And I also want to thank the many Members who have helped us through this long process and will be helping us long after today.

This is the first time I can remember a bipartisan whip effort in the 10 years I have been in Congress. Ms. Baldwin, Mrs. Bono, Mr. Bradley, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Carnahan, Mr. Dent, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Perlmutter, and Mr. Upton. Thank you, thank you, and our work is not completed.

I want to talk for a minute about what H.R. 3 does, because there are a lot of misstatements that have been made today on this floor. H.R. 3 simply expands the number of stem cell lines that can be used for research that is done in an ethical manner.

In 2001, President Bush restricted stem cell research to lines that existed as of that date. In the ensuing years, we have learned there were not 73 lines, as has been asserted today, but somewhere between 19 and 22 lines. We learned that all of those lines are contaminated with mouse feeder cells and are not appropriate for clinical use. We learned that the research is going offshore and into private hands. Perhaps most disturbingly, we learned that the U.S. Government has no ethical control over current private research or State research into embryonic stem cell lines.

For that reason, we drafted a bill that both expands the research and sets forward a rigid code of ethics. Only cells that are created to give life for in vitro fertilization but then are slated to be thrown away as medical waste, thrown away, can be donated for this research, by informed consent. It is very narrow and it is very ethical. That is why 522 patient advocacy groups, health organizations, research universities, scientific societies, religious groups, and other associations have endorsed this bill. It expands research, and it does it in an ethical way.

Embryonic stem cells were first identified from mouse embryos in 1981 and primate embryos in 1995; but until November 1998, animal embryos were the only source for research. In 1998, for the first time, researchers learned that embryonic stem cells could be used in humans, and that is when we found so much potential, potential for diseases that affect 110 million Americans and their families, Americans suffering from diabetes, Parkinson's, nerve damage, and on and on.

The great promise of this research is why people like Nancy Reagan, Michael J. Fox, Orrin Hatch, Mary Tyler Moore, pro-life and pro-choice, have come together to say, we cannot deny this research. We must not say let's just throw these cells away and discard them. Let's allow people to donate them in order to give life and to give hope.

Now, the opposition tries to obfuscate this issue time and time again, and we simply cannot let that happen. We are not researchers; we are Congress. It is our job to promote all ethical scientific research, not to pick and choose among methods. I can't think of a time when Congress says, oh, scientists, use that method to research cancer cures but not this method. That is not our job. Our job is to say let's support all ethical research, adult stem cells, cord blood, alternative methods, amniotic stem cells, and embryonic stem cell research.

In conclusion, I will say that this is the next step on a long road; and I implore all of you to think not about yourself, not even about your parents, but your grandchildren and your great grandchildren. When we find these cures, we will say we did the right thing today. Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 3.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, this motion does not ban human cloning. It does not ban reproductive cloning. What it is, is a desperate attempt to derail ethical scientific research on embryonic stem cell research, which is unrelated.

Not a single person in this House supports reproductive cloning. But again, the motion doesn't ban reproductive cloning. What it does is it says, if you are an entity conducting research on Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer, which is a way to look at these cells, with private dollars, not even with public dollars, you will be prevented from receiving Federal funding for conducting embryonic stem cell research. This will, frankly, tie the hands of some of the preeminent research entities in the world from conducting this life-saving research.

The motion is a thinly veiled attempt to define human life in a manner that can have profound implications beyond the issues raised in H.R. 3. It contains vague terms like ``assurances'' and undefined terms such as ``satisfaction of the Secretary.''

What the frank intent of this motion is, is to gut H.R. 3 by strapping it with undefined standards and terms that are extraneous to the bill. The motion is a procedural vote without meaning. It is a ruse, a red herring designed to frighten, to obfuscate and to distract.

We all think that banning reproductive cloning is important, and that is

why the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee has assured me that he will examine this issue further to see what legislation we can do to protect ourselves.

And I will finally say, I do not know of one research institution which would be eligible for Federal funds through the NIH under H.R. 3 that is conducting any experiments or attempts for human reproductive cloning; it is unethical, and our research institutions are not engaged in these efforts.

Rather than a sincere attempt to legislate on matters of great importance, this motion is partisan, and it should be defeated.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I plan to vote ``no'' on this motion, I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.''

And I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday next for morning hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 6 o'clock and 46 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Tuesday, January 9, 2007, at 10:30 a.m., for morning hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I am listed as voting ``yea'' during rollcall vote number 401 on H.R. 5013, the ``Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006,'' when it was before the House of Representatives on Tuesday, July 25, 2006. This is an error. I oppose H.R. 5013 and want it noted that had my intention been properly expressed I would be recorded as having voting ``nay.''