Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5682, the ``United States and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act of 2006.''

As the world's largest democracy in a strategically important part of the world, India is a critical ally for the United States. Continuing the process of improving our relationship is thus very important. This agreement, H.R. 5682, will help us build a stronger partnership with India by allowing the United States to provide nuclear technology and fuel in order that India may meet its growing energy needs.

This agreement also is an improvement over the current situation with respect to India and the threat posed by the spread of nuclear weapons. As a nonsignatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), India is outside the international nuclear nonproliferation scheme. This agreement provides incentives to gain its cooperation because under H.R. 5682 the United States can only provide India nuclear assistance if the President certifies that India is taking certain specific steps to reduce the spread of nuclear weapons. These steps include the provision of a credible plan to separate its civilian and military nuclear programs, an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to apply IAEA safeguards to its civilian nuclear apparatus, and the taking of steps to prevent the export of sensitive nuclear materials or technology.

Furthermore, after the President makes the necessary certifications, Congress still has to approve any nuclear supply agreement with India before it can go forward. This provides an opportunity for Congress to make its own independent analysis of the extent to which India has followed through on its commitment to nuclear nonproliferation.

I do have some concerns about this legislation. It does not provide as many protections against the proliferation of nuclear weapons as I would have liked. And, I would have preferred that as a condition for aid India would at least have been required to agree to halt or limit its production of fissile material used for nuclear weapons. I will support the amendments offered by Representatives Sherman and Berman which would achieve this later goal.

Despite the fact that it is not perfect, H.R. 5682 is a net plus for the United States and

the world. This legislation and the resulting nuclear supply agreements with India should improve an important strategic relationship and reduce the likelihood nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of those wish to do us harm, including rogue states and terrorists.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, today the President of the United States has snuffed out the candle of hope for 110 million Americans who suffer from debilitating diseases like diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, nerve damage and many, many more. He snuffed out this candle of hope because he used the first veto of his 6-year Presidency to veto H.R. 810, the embryonic stem cell legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this is the President's first veto in over 1,100 bills. The President issued veto warnings in nearly 150 bills, but he signed all of those bills. The President has signed bills to increase the national debt. He has signed bills to increase tax cuts for wealthy corporations and oil companies. He signed hundreds of post office naming bills, but he decided he would veto this one bill. This is not some minor legislation. This is legislation that would foster the only research that has shown hope for millions of Americans.

He said in his veto message that he was vetoing this legislation because ``American taxpayers would be compelled to fund the deliberate destruction of human embryos.'' One might think that the President would read this bill, his first veto, before he said that, because if he had read that bill, he would know that H.R. 810 specifically does not allow Federal funds to be used for the destruction of embryos. Rather, H.R. 810 says that Federal dollars can be used for the research on embryonic stem cell lines which have already been created with private dollars.

This policy is the same as the policy President Bush looked at in 2001 when he issued an executive order restricting the number of stem cell lines used. What he said at that time was embryonic stem cell research was okay, but he limited it to embryonic stem cell lines in existence as of that day.

So I ask the President, why is it wrong to simply expend Federal money for stem cell lines that have been created by private researchers since that date? It seems wrong, and it is certainly not what this bill is intended to do.

The President wants it both ways. He wants to say that he supports embryonic stem cell research, but he doesn't want to do it in a way that will actually effect cures.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the President is confused about his role as chief executive of this country. We don't live in a theocracy. We live in a constitutional democracy in this country where we form a consensus about ethics and medical research. There is a widespread consensus. The public supports this almost three-quarters. Prolife, prochoice, Democrat, Republican, Independent, all of them share the same concern that we protect lives, but that we expand research in a way that will benefit millions and millions of Americans.

I urge this House to take this very seriously. Don't make a political vote. Think about the lives that could be saved. Think about what H.R. 810 actually does, and vote ``yes'' to override this veto.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), a leader on this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), another fine leader in this movement.

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

(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, of course, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania refers to the South Korea experiment which was not embryonic stem cell research. Rather, it was somatic cell nuclear transfer, not at issue today. And, furthermore, it only points out why we need Federal oversight and ethics in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

(Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Engel.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Democratic whip, Mr. Hoyer.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Democratic leader (Ms. Pelosi).

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, this is a sad day for America. But what is so sad is that our opponents would so distort the facts to stop research that would benefit so many. Many have talked today about the so-called snowflake babies, embryos which are donated to other couples. I don't oppose that. I think that is great.

But right now couples undergoing IVF treatment have three options for the spare embryos that are necessarily created. They can freeze them for future use by themselves. They can donate them to other couples, as several hundred have done, or they can say that the embryos that are left over should be destroyed as medical waste, and tens of thousands of those embryos have been destroyed.

All we say today, give those couples a fourth choice. Let those embryos that would thrown away as medical waste be donated for ethical embryonic stem cell research. The opponents of this bill also continue to claim that adult stem cell and core blood cells are just as good as embryonic stem cells. Shame on them. This is a bald lie.

Harold Varmus, the former director of the NIH, said just this week, compared to adult stem cells, embryonic stem cells have a much greater potential according to all existing scientific literature. Let's not distort the facts just for a political argument.

This Congress has been politicizing science in a way that the American public disagrees with. Earlier this year, we tried to assert our jurisdiction over end-of-life decisions with the terrible vote that we took in the Terry Schiavo case. Now, today, we are trying to stop ethical scientific research that could help tens of millions of people.

Many on the other side say, well, the taxpayers shouldn't fund this research. Excuse me, I thought we had a national consensus, 72 percent of Americans agree with this precept, people who are Democrats, Republicans, independents, prolife, prochoice. I don't know who decided that they were God and that Congress could not fund this research, because their religious thinking trumps the national consensus.

A majority of my constituents don't think we should fund the war. Does that mean we shouldn't fund the war? Of course not.

We need this ethical research. We need it for our colleague, Jim Langevin, so he can walk again. We need it for our colleague, Lane Evans, whose Parkinson's has made him so sick that he cannot be here today to vote to override this bill.

Let's give hope to millions of Americans. Let's give hope for ethical research. Let us override this veto.

I just must say, Mr. Speaker, this has got to be a new record of transmission of a bill from the Senate to the House. I was literally on the Senate floor a few minutes ago when S. 3504 was passed, and I had to run to the House to have it considered.

I think this bill is just fine. I am not sure that there is a pressing problem in this country right now of fetal farming, but I will support it. Like my chairman, Mr. Barton, I have complete and abhorrent opposition to the idea of people doing fetal farming.

I must say, though, that if people are worried about women becoming pregnant so they can be paid for making fetal tissue available for research, I want to point out that the current law already prohibits the sale of fetal tissue. Section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act says: ``It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive or otherwise transfer any human fetal issue for valuable consideration.''

In addition, a yearly amendment that we do, called Dickey-Wicker, already forbids the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes. So while this bill is completely unnecessary, I guess we will just pass it today and move on.

But here is the real reason this bill has been fast-tracked from the Senate, why there is a second bill that will be fast-tracked from the Senate, and that is because of H.R. 810, the Embryonic Stem Cell Enhancement Act, which has been cosponsored by my friend Mike Castle from Delaware and myself.

This important piece of legislation expands embryonic stem cell research so that the 110 million Americans and their families who suffer from diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, nerve cell damage and on and on, so that the bill would allow embryonic research to be expanded so that those patients can have hope for cures.

Unlike many other kinds of stem cells, adult stem cells and cord blood, embryonic stem cells have shown great promise in being a potential cure for these diseases. That is why a majority of this body passed that legislation on May 24 of 2005.

This is why the Senate is poised to pass that legislation with over 60 votes today.

H.R. 810 will go directly to the President's desk. Sadly, the President has announced his intention to make H.R. 810 the very first veto of his 6-year administration. He has signed over 1,600

bills, but he has announced he is going to veto a bill that could provide hope for tens of millions of Americans.

In order to do that, though, the President will need cover, since 72 percent of Americans support embryonic stem cell research, and that is what this bill, S. 3504, and its companion bill from the Senate will hopefully I guess give the administration cover.

There will be no solace, these bills, to the patients of America. These bills are merely a fig leaf to show that the veto that is happening is going to prevent the most promising research that could happen for all these patients, and so while I support S. 3504, no one would support fetus farming. Let us really call this what this is.

This is the first in a pair of fig leaf bills designed to give cover to the President, and I, for one, think it is a sad day when we are rushing to judgment on such an important research potential.

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

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

That message from the Senate, I guess, means that within moments, sheer moments, S. 2754 will also be up on the House here because, as I said, this entire package is being railroaded through so that it can reach the President's desk in a neat little package.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).

Mr. Speaker, we rushed over here literally from the Senate floor. I do have other Members who would like to speak on this bill, but they are not here yet. I intend to close for my side.

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

Mr. Speaker, S. 3504, the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act of 2006, which as we mentioned just passed the Senate a few moments ago, is important in the sense that it is Congress' way of saying that we need to ensure that the scientific research that we do is ethical, that what we do to try to cure diseases is always ethical.

I, frankly, very rarely find myself agreeing with people like Mr. Smith and Mr. Weldon on this issue. But in the case of S. 3504 I do, because I don't agree we should have fetal farming. None of us agree that we should have fetal farming. It is wrong, and it is unethical.

But nobody should again convince themselves that this bill has anything whatsoever to do with the great promise that embryonic stem cell research holds. In addition, S. 2754 which came over here just on the heels of the other legislation, this bill is also attempting to give cover to those who say that they want to support research, but they don't support embryonic stem cell research.

As I will discuss moments from now when we bring up that bill, that bill is no substitute for embryonic stem cell research. In fact, the greatest promise for creating cures to diseases that affect millions of Americans is H.R. 810 which, as we just now learned moments ago again, has now passed the Senate by a solid majority, bipartisan Members who consider themselves pro-choice and Members who consider themselves pro- life. The reason they support embryonic stem cell research is because the vast majority of scientists agree that research holds the cure to potentially curing diseases that affect 110 million Americans and their families.

I have a 13-page letter signed by many, many groups, universities, patient advocacy groups, all kinds of folks, and this letter says: ``We, the undersigned patient advocacy groups, health organizations, research universities, scientific societies, religious groups and other interested institutions and associations, representing millions of patients, scientists, health care providers and advocates, write you with our strong and unified support for H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.

``Of the bills being considered simultaneously, only H.R. 810 will move stem cell research forward in our country. This is the bill which holds promise for expanding medical breakthroughs. The other two bills are not substitutes for a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 810.

``H.R. 810 is the pro-patient and pro-research bill. A vote in support of H.R. 810 will be considered a vote in support of more than 100 million patients in the U.S. and substantial progress for research.''

I include this letter for the Record.

July 14, 2006.

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senator: We, the undersigned patient advocacy groups,

health organizations, research universities, scientific

societies, religious groups and other interested institutions

and associations, representing millions of patients,

scientists, health care providers and advocates, write you

with our strong and unified support for H.R. 810, the Stem

Cell Research Enhancement Act. We urge your vote in favor of

H.R. 810 when the Senate considers the measure next week.

Of the bills being considered simultaneously, only H.R. 810

will move stem cell research forward in our country. This is

the bill which holds promise for expanding medical

breakthroughs. The other two bills--the Alternative

Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act (S. 2754) and

the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act (S. 3504)--are NOT

substitutes for a YES vote on H.R. 810.

H.R. 810 is the pro-patient and pro-research bill. A vote

in support of H.R. 810 will be considered a vote in support

of more than 100 million patients in the U.S. and substantial

progress for research. Please work to pass H.R. 810

immediately.

Sincerely,

AO North America, AAALAC International, AARP, Abbott

Laboratories, Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Accelerated Cure

Project for Multiple Sclerosis, Adams County Economic

Development, Inc., AdvaMed (Advanced Medical Technology

Association).

AMDeC-Academic Medicine Development Co., America on the

Move Foundation, American Academy of Neurology, American

Academy of Nursing, American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry,

American Academy of Pediatrics, American Association for

Cancer Research, American Association for Dental Research,

American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry, American

Association for

the Advancement of Science, American Association of

Anatomists, American Association of Colleges of Nursing,

American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine,

American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, American

Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological

Surgeons, American Association of Public Health Dentistry,

American Autoimmune Related Diseases Association, American

Brain Coalition, American Chronic Pain Association, American

College of Cardiology, American College of Medical Genetics,

American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, American College

of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

American Society for Cell Biology, American Society for

Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, American Society for

Microbiology, American Society for Neural Transplantation and

Repair, American Society for Nutrition, Affymetrix, Inc.,

Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University,

Alliance for Aging Research, Alliance for Lupus Research,

Alliance for Stem Cell Research, Alnylam US, Inc., Alpha-l

Foundation, ALS Association, Ambulatory Pediatric

Association, American College of Surgeons, American Council

on Education, American Council on Science and Health,

American Dental Association, American Dental Education

Association, American Diabetes Association, American

Federation for Aging Research, American Gastroenterological

Association, American Geriatrics Society, American Institute

for Medical and Biological Engineering, American Lung

Association, American Medical Association, American Medical

Informatics Association, American Medical Women's

Association, American Pain Foundation, American Parkinson's

Disease Association, American Parkinson's Disease Association

(Arizona Chapter), American Pediatric Society, American

Physiological Society, American Psychiatric Association,

American Psychological Association, American Public Health

Association, American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular

Biology, American Society for Bone and Mineral Research,

American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental

Therapeutics, American Society for Reproductive Medicine,

American Society for Virology, American Society of Clinical

Oncology, American Society of Critical Care

Anesthesiologists, American Society of Hematology, American

Society of Human Genetics,

American Society of Nephrology, American Society of

Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, American Surgical Association,

American Surgical Association Foundation, American Thoracic

Society, American Thyroid Association, American Transplant

Foundation, Americans for Medical Progress, amFAR, The

Foundation for AIDS Research, Arizona State University

College of Nursing, Arthritis Foundation, Arthritis

Foundation, Rocky Mountain Chapter, Association for Clinical

Research Training, Association for Medical School

Pharmacology Chairs, Association for Prevention Teaching and

Research, Association for the Accreditation of Human

Research, Protection Programs, Inc., Association of Academic

Chairs of Emergency Medicine, Association of Academic

Departments of Otolaryngology.

Association of Public Health Laboratories, Association of

Reproductive Health Professionals, Association of Schools and

Colleges of Optometry, Association of Specialty Professors,

Association of University Anesthesiologists, Assurant Health,

Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, Athena Diagnostics,

Aurora Economic Development Council, Axion Research

Foundation, B'nai B'rith International, Baylor College of

Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine Graduate School of

Biomedical Sciences, Biotechnology Industry Organization,

BloodCenter of Wisconsin, Inc., Blue Cross and Blue Shield

Foundation on Health Care, Boston Biomedical Research

Institute, Boston University School of Dental Medicine,

Boston University School of Public Health, Brigham and

Women's Hospital, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Broadened

Horizons, LLC.

Children's Research Institute (Columbus), Children's

Research Institute (Washington), Children's Tumor Foundation,

Childrens Hospital Boston, Christopher Reeve Foundation, City

and County of Denver, City of Hope National Medical Center,

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Coleman Institute for

Cognitive Disabilitites, University of Colorado System,

Colfax Marathon Partnership, Inc., Colorado Bioscience

Association, Colorado Office of Economic Development and

International Trade, Colorado State University, Association

of Academic Health Centers, Association of Academic

Physiatrists, Association of American Medical Colleges,

Association of American Physicians, Association of American

Universities, Association of American Veterinary Medical

Colleges, Association of Anatomy, Cell Biology and

Neurobiology Chairs, Association of Anesthesiology Program

Directors, Association of Black Cardiologists, Association of

Chairs of Departments of Physiology, Association of

Independent Research Institutes, Association of Medical

School Microbiology and Immunology Chairs, Association of

Medical School Pediatric Department Chairs, Association of

Medical School Pharmacology Chairs, Association of Professors

of Dermatology, Association of Professors of Human and

Medical Genetics, Association of Professors of Medicine,

Brown Medical School, Buck Institute for Age Research, Burns

& Allen Research Institute, Burrill & Company, Burroughs

Wellcome Fund, C3: Colorectal Cancer Coalition, California

Biomedical Research Association, California Institute of

Technology, California Institute for Regenerative Medicine,

California Wellness Foundation, Californians for Cures,

Campaign for Medical Research, Cancer Research and Prevention

Foundation, Canon U.S. Life Sciences, Inc., Case Western

Reserve University School of Dentistry, Case Western Reserve

University School of Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Health System,

Center for the Advancement of Health, Central Conference of

American Rabbis, CFIDS Association of America, Charles R.

Drew University of Medicine and Science, Charles River

Laboratories, Child & Adolescent Bipolar Foundation,

Children's Memorial Research Center, Children's

Neurobiological Solutions Foundation, Columbia University,

Columbia University College of Dental Medicine, Columbia

University Medical Center, Community Health Partnership,

Conference of Boston Teaching Hospitals, Connecticut United

for Research Excellence, Inc., Conquer Fragile X Foundation,

Cornell University, Council for the Advancement of Nursing

Science, (CANS), Creighton University School of Medicine,

CURE (Citizens United for Research in Epilepsy), Cure

Alzheimer's Fund, Cure Paralysis Now, CuresNow, Damon Runyon

Cancer Research Foundation, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute,

Dartmouth Medical School, David Geffen School of Medicine

at UCLA, DENTSPLY International, Digene Corporation,

Discovery Partners International, Doheny Eye Institute,

Drexel University College of Medicine, Drexel University

School of Public Health, Duke University Medical Center,

Dystonia Medical Research Foundation.

FD Hope Foundation, Federation of American Scientists,

Federation of American Societies for Experimental, Biology

(FASEB), Federation of State Medical Boards of the United

States, Inc., Fertile Hope, Fitzsimons Redevelopment

Authority, Florida Atlantic University Division of Research,

Ford Finance, Inc., Fox Chase Cancer Center, Fred Hutchinson

Cancer Research Center, Friends of Cancer Research, Friends

of the National Institute for Dental and Craniofacial

Research, Friends of the National Institute of Nursing

Research, Friends of the National Library of Medicine,

Genetic Alliance, Genetics Policy Institute, George Mason

University, Georgetown University Medical Center, Guillain

Barre Syndrome Foundation International, Gynecologic Cancer

Foundation, Hadassah, Harvard University, Harvard University

School of Dental Medicine.

Jacobs Institute of Women's Health, Jeffrey Modell

Foundation, Johns Hopkins, Johnson & Johnson, Joint

Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations

(JCAHO), Joint Steering Committee for Public Policy, Juvenile

Diabetes Research Foundation, Keck School of Medicine of the

University of Southern California, Kennedy Krieger Institute,

Keystone Symposia on Molecular and Cellular Biology, KID

Foundation, Kidney Cancer Association, La Jolla Institute for

Allergy and Immunology, Lance Armstrong Foundation, Lawson

Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society, Leukemia and Lymphoma

Society, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown

University, Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at

Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, East Tennessee State University

James H. Quillen College of Medicine, Eli Lilly and Company,

Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, Emory University,

Emory University Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing,

Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, Emory

University School of Medicine, FasterCures.

Harvard University School of Public Health, Hauptman-

Woodward Medical Research Institute, Inc., Hereditary Disease

Foundation, HHT Foundation International, Inc., Home Safety

Council, Howard University College of Dentistry, Howard

University College of Medicine, Huntington's Disease Society

of America, IBM Life Sciences Division, Illinois State

University Mennonite College of Nursing, ImmunoGen, Inc.,

Indiana University School of Dentistry, Indiana University

School of Medicine, Indiana University School of Nursing,

Infectious Diseases Society of America, Institute for African

American Health, Inc., Intercultural Cancer Council Caucus,

International Foundation for Anticancer Drug, Discovery

(IFADD), International Longevity Center--USA, International

Society for Stem Cell Research, Invitrogen Corporation, Iraq

Veterans for Cures, Iris Alliance Fund, Iron Disorders

Institute.

Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center,

Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center School of

Dentistry, Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute, Loyola

University of Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Lung Cancer

Alliance, Lupus Foundation of America, Inc., Lupus Foundation

of Colorado, Inc., Lupus Research Institute, Lymphatic

Research Foundation, Mailman School of Public Health of

Columbia University, Malecare Prostate Cancer Support, March

of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation, Marine Biological

Laboratory, Marshalltown [IA] Cancer Resource Center, Masonic

Medical Research Laboratory, Massachusetts Biotechnology

Council, Massachusetts General Hospital, Massachusetts

Institute of Technology, MaxCyte, Inc., McLaughlin Research

Institute, Medical College of Georgia, Medical University of

South Carolina, Medical University of South Carolina

College of Nursing, MedStar Research Institute (MRI),

Meharry Medical College School of Dentistry.

Miami Children's Hospital, Midwest Nursing Research

Society, Morehouse School of

Medicine, Mount Sinai Medical Center, Mount Sinai School of

Medicine, National Alliance for Eye and Vision Research,

National Alliance for Hispanic Health, National Alliance for

Research on Schizophrenia and Depression, National Alliance

on Mental Illness, National Alopecia Areata Foundation,

National Asian Women's Health Organization, National

Association for Biomedical Research, National Association of

Hepatitis Task Forces, National Caucus of Basic Biomedical

Science Chairs, National Coalition for Cancer Research,

National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, National

Coalition for Women with Heart Disease, National Committee

for Quality Health Care, National Council of Jewish Women,

National Council on Spinal Cord Injury, National Down

Syndrome Society, National Electrical Manufacturers

Association, National Foundation for Ectodermal Dysplasias.

New York Presbyterian Hospital, North American Brain Tumor

Coalition, North Carolina Association for Biomedical

Research, Northwest Association for Biomedical Research,

Northwestern University, Northwestern University, The

Feinberg School of Medicine, Nova Southeastern University

College of Dental Medicine, Novartis Pharmaceuticals,

Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oral Health America,

Oregon Health & Science University, Oregon Health & Science

University School of Nursing, Oregon Research Institute,

Oxford Bioscience Partners, Pacific Health Research

Institute, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Parent Project

Muscular Dystrophy, Parkinson's Action Network, Parkinson's

Disease Foundation, Partnership for Prevention, Pennsylvania

Society for Biomedical Research, Pharmaceutical Research and

Manufacturers of America.

Society for Male Reproduction and Urology, Society for

Neuroscience, Society for Pediatric Research, Memorial Sloan-

Kettering Cancer Center, Memory Pharmaceuticals, Mercer

University, Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation.

National Health Council, National Hemophilia Foundation,

National Hispanic Health Foundation, National Jewish Medical

and Research Center, National Marfan Foundation, National

Medical Association, National Multiple Sclerosis Society,

National Osteoporosis Foundation, National Partnership for

Women and Families, National Pharmaceutical Council, National

Prostate Cancer Coalition, National Quality Forum, National

Spinal Cord Injury Association, National Venture Capital

Association, Nebraskans for Research, Nemours, New Jersey

Association for Biomedical Research, New Jersey Dental

School, New York Blood Center, New York College of

Osteopathic Medicine, New York State Association of County

Health Officials, New York Stem Cell Foundation, New York

University College of Dentistry, New York University School

of Medicine, Pittsburgh Development Center, Princeton

University, Project A.L.S., Prostate Cancer Foundation,

Pseudoxanthoma Elasticum International, Quest for the Cure,

RAND Health, Research!America, Resolve: The National

Infertility Association, RetireSafe, Rett Syndrome Research

Foundation, Rice University, Robert Packard Center for ALS

Research at Johns Hopkins, The Rockefeller University,

Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, Rush

University Medical Center, Rutgers University, Salk Institute

for Biological Studies, sanofi-aventis, Scleroderma Research

Foundation, Secular Coalition for America, Sjogren's Syndrome

Foundation, Inc., Society for Advancement of Violence and

Injury, Research (SAVIR), Society for Assisted Reproductive

Technology, Society for Education in Anesthesia Society for

Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Society for

Women's Health Research, Society of Academic Anesthesiology

Chairs, Society of General Internal Medicine, Society of

Gynecologic Oncologists, Society of Reproductive Surgeons,

Society of University Otolaryngologists, South Alabama

Medical Science Foundation, South Dakota State University,

Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, Spina

Bifida Association of America, Stanford University, State

University of New York at Buffalo School of Dental

Medicine, State University of New York Downstate Medical,

Center College of Medicine at Brooklyn, State University

of New York Upstate Medical University, Stem Cell Action

Network, Stem Cell Research Foundation, Steven and Michele

Kirsch Foundation, Stony Brook University, State

University of New York, Strategic Health Policy

International, Inc., Student Society for Stem Cell

Research, Suicide Prevention Action Network-USA (SPAN),

Take Charge! Cure Parkinson's, Inc.

The Georgetown University Center for the Study of Sex

Difference in Health, Aging and Disease, The Gerontological

Society of America, The J. David Gladstone Institutes, The

Jackson Laboratory, The Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg

School of Public Health, The Johns Hopkins University School

of Nursing, The Medical College of Wisconsin, The Medical

Foundation, Inc., The Michael J. Fox Foundation for

Parkinson's Research, The Ohio State University College of

Dentistry, The Ohio State University College of Medicine and

Public Health, The Ohio State University School of Public

Health, The Parkinson Alliance and Unity Walk, The Research

Foundation for Mental Hygiene, Inc., The Rockefeller

University, The Schepens Eye Research Institute, The

Scientist, The Scripps Research Institute, The Smith-

Kettlewell Eye Research Institute, The Society for

Investigative Dermatology, The Spiral Foundation, The

University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, The

University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine.

University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine,

University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Nursing,

University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Public Health,

University of Arizona College of Medicine, University of

Arkansas for Medical Sciences, University of Buffalo,

Targacept, Inc., Temple University School of Dentistry,

Texans for Advancement of Medical Research, Texas A&M

University Health Science Center, Texas Medical Center, Texas

Tech University Health Sciences Center, The Arc of the United

States, The Association for Research in Vision and

Ophthalmology, The Biophysical Society, The Brody School of

Medicine at East Carolina University, The Burnham Institute,

The CJD Foundation, The Critical Path Institute (C-Path), The

Endocrine Society, The FAIR Foundation, The Food Allergy and

Anaphylaxis Network, The Food Allergy Project, Inc., The

Forsyth Institute, The Foundation Fighting Blindness, The

George Washington University Medical Center.

The University of Iowa College of Dentistry, The University

of Iowa College of Public Health, The University of

Mississippi Medical Center, The University of Mississippi

Medical Center School of Dentistry, The University of

Oklahoma College of Dentistry, The University of Oklahoma

Health Sciences Center, The University of Tennessee Health

Science Center, The University of Tennessee HSC College of

Nursing, The University of Texas Health Science Center at

Houston, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San

Antonio, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center,

The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston School of

Medicine, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical

Center, The University of Toledo Academic Health Science

Center, Tourette Syndrome Association, Travis Roy Foundation,

Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, Tulane

University, Tulane University Health Sciences Center, Union

for Reformed Judaism, Union of Concerned Scientists,

Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, United

Spinal Association, University of California System,

University of California, Berkeley, University of California,

Berkeley School of Public Health, University of California,

Davis, University of California, Irvine, University of

California, Los Angeles, University of California, Los

Angeles School of Dentistry, University of California, Los

Angeles School of Medicine, University of California, San

Diego, University of California, San Francisco, University

of California, San Francisco School of Dentistry,

University of California, San Francisco School of Nursing,

University of California, Santa Cruz, University of

Chicago, University of Cincinnati Medical Center,

University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences

Center, University of Colorado at Denver and HSC School of

Dentistry, University of Colorado at Denver and HSC School

of Nursing, University of Connecticut School of Medicine,

University of Florida, University of Florida College of

Dentistry, University of Georgia, University of Illinois.

University of Michigan School of Dentistry, University of

Michigan School of Nursing, University of Michigan School of

Public Health, University of Minnesota, University of

Minnesota School of Public Health, University of Missouri at

Kansas City School of Dentistry, University of Montana School

of Pharmacy and Allied Health Sciences, University of

Nebraska Medical Center, University of Nebraska Medical

Center College of Dentistry, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

School of Dental Medicine, University of Nevada, Reno School

of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of

Dentistry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School

of Public Health, University of North Dakota, University of

North Texas Health Science Center, University of Oregon,

University of Pennsylvania School of Dental Medicine,

University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, University of

Pennsylvania School of Nursing, University of Pittsburgh

Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh

School of Dental Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of

Medicine.

Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, WE

MOVE, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, Whitehead

Institute for Biomedical Research, WiCell Research

Institution, Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, University

of Illinois at Chicago, University of Illinois at Chicago

College of Dentistry, University of Illinois at Chicago

College of Nursing, University of Iowa, University of Kansas,

University of Kansas Medical Center, University of Kansas

Medical Center School of Nursing, University of Kentucky,

University of Kentucky College of Dentistry, University of

Louisville, University of Louisville School of Dentistry,

University of Maryland at Baltimore, University of Maryland

at Baltimore College of Dental Surgery, University of

Maryland at Baltimore School of Nursing, University of Miami,

University of Michigan, University of Michigan College of

Pharmacy, University of Michigan Medical School.

University of Rochester Medical Center, University of

Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of

Rochester School of Nursing, University of South Carolina

Office of Research and Health Sciences,

University of South Dakota School of Medicine and Health

Sciences, University of South Florida, University of South

Florida College of Nursing, University of Southern

California, University of Southern California School of

Dentistry, University of Utah HSC School of Medicine,

University of Vermont College of Medicine, University of

Washington, University of Washington School of Dentistry,

University of Washington School of Nursing, University of

Washington School of Public Health and Community Medicine,

University of Wisconsin-Madison, Van Andel Research

Institute, Vanderbilt University and Medical Center,

Vanderbilt University School of Nursing, Virginia

Commonwealth University School of Dentistry, Virginia

Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Wake Forest

University School of Medicine, Washington University in St.

Louis, Washington University in St. Louis Center for Health

Policy, Wisconsin Association for Biomedical Research and

Education, Woodruff Health Sciences Center at Emory

University, Wright State University School of Medicine, Yale

University, Yale University School of Medicine, Yale

University School of Nursing.

Mr. Speaker, many have said that adult stem cell research can be a substitute for embryonic stem cell research. To those people I would say that is simply not true. I support adult stem cell research. I support cord blood research. I support anything that could help cure all of the diseases that affect Americans.

But those who say adult stem cell research will be a substitute are demagoguing that issue for political gain and that is wrong.

Dr. Harold Varmus summarized it for all of the hundreds of researchers and the people who have done studies when he said just this week: ``Compared to adult stem cells, embryonic stem cells have a much greater potential, according to all existing scientific literature.''

Some researchers have said well, maybe we can find cures through adult stem cell research. Some researchers have said maybe we could do embryonic stem cell research in alternative ways, but those methods have shown no promise whatsoever.

By way of contrast, recently researchers were able to create beta cells in mouse pancreases which then became insulin-producing islet cells. Even more recently, researchers were able to take embryonic stem cells and make nerve cells to help with nerve damage and paralysis. Adult stem cells cannot be used for that purpose.

So in fact, the only promise for many diseases like the ones I mentioned, is embryonic stem cell research. That is why, Mr. Speaker, it is all well and good if people want to vote for S. 3504. It is all well and good if they want to say they support these other kinds of research, but in truth the only research that the tens of millions of Americans will rely on is embryonic stem cell research.

In closing, our President has said that he will veto this legislation, H.R. 810, and sign S. 3504. I will say this to the President: In 6 years in office, over 1,600 bills he has signed, he has signed bills that make our budget deficit the worst in our country. He has signed bills that allow us to go to war against other nations. He has signed post office namings, and so many other bills. This bill, Mike Castle and I, we drafted this bill to be very narrow.

We only allowed embryos which are created to give life for in vitro fertilization clinics and are then slated to be destroyed as medical waste to be donated voluntarily by the donors to be used for embryonic stem cell research. This is the pro-life alternative. This is the alternative that lets people, once they have had their babies for in vitro fertilization, say, I don't want my embryos thrown away. I want them used for medical research. I want those embryos to be used to save lives.

I just have one personal thing to say in closing. When people say that a 12-celled embryo is more important than patients today, I think of my 12-year-old daughter who suffers from type I diabetes. I think of the medical test that she does every day, sticking her finger. I think of the insulin that she must have to stay alive, and I say to the President, and I say to those that think that those embryos are more important than they are, I say, you know, come walk in her shoes for a day.

Come walk in the shoes of Lane Evans, our colleague who cannot appear on this floor because of his debilitating illness.

Come walk in the shoes, unfortunately you couldn't walk in the shoes of our colleague, Jim Langevin, who was paralyzed in a tragic gun accident and never walked again. And you tell all of those people that an embryo which is going to be thrown away for medical waste is more important than those people.

And that is why tens of millions of people will be watching this vote, and tens of millions of people will be watching the President this week. I suggest that the most important vote we can take is a vote for life and a vote for 810.

I want to thank my colleagues in the House for passing this bill. It was a bipartisan effort. And I want to urge them to think about that later this week if, as expected, a veto override vote comes to the floor.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to myself.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 2754, the so-called Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act.

This bill may seem innocuous on its face. It just tells the Secretary of HHS to research these alternative therapies. But, in fact, it has several key problems. The first one is it sets a disturbing precedent. The bill requires the Secretary of HHS to conduct research into so- called alternative therapies. These therapies, however, do not exist. And they would shift precious resources from the NIH into this fake research that doesn't really exist.

Secondly, as a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, I am very concerned when we direct the NIH to pursue one type of research over another. Congress never directs the course of research.

Imagine if we told the NIH, Congress, I guess because we are the uber researchers now, to pursue one type of cancer research over another type of cancer research.

Thirdly, alternative methods for creating pluripotent stem cells are not a real scientific prospect at this time.

As I mentioned during the debate on the last piece of legislation, these types of research have been hypothesized from time to time, but no one has actually had any clinical application. The only promise has been shown in embryonic stem cell research.

Frankly, this bill does worse than nothing. This bill diverts attention and resources away from embryonic stem cell research, which is the research that really shows promise for diseases that affect tens of millions of people, diseases like nerve damage, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and so many others.

I support all legitimate research, but Congress and the White House should not be giving false hope to patients across America who just want to have cures for their diseases.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the prime cosponsor of H.R. 810.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, I would just correct the gentleman from Nebraska. I was in England over the Memorial Day recess, meeting with all of the major researchers. None of them have found clinical application in just taking cells out of embryos. They all agree that embryonic stem cell research shows the most promise.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Schwarz).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida says this is a strange argument, and he has got that right, because this is a very strange bill. What it does is it says the Secretary shall conduct research into these so-called alternatives. But these are alternatives not specified in the legislation. But what is worse is it will take resources away from the already minuscule amount of resources that are being put in at the NIH to enforce the little stem cell research that is going on in this country.

Frankly, some of the kind of research techniques that have been discussed on the floor today, including those by my friend Mr. Bartlett from Maryland, are techniques for alternative derivation of cells and so on that would, in fact, involve destruction of embryos.

And Dr. Leon Cass, who is the President's own chairman of his bioethics committee, said that it remains to be seen, in his view, whether any of those proposals for alternate sources of stem cells will succeed, and more discussion is surely required of some of the ethical issues.

So even their own expert thinks this bill may be unethical. Why would we do this when we have so many scientific advances that are just outside of our grasp? Why would we do this when there are thousands of embryos that are thrown away as medical waste? It would be as if your child was in a car crash, and you decided that the ethical thing to do would be to donate that child's organs so that someone else could live.

Why should we not allow people who have these embryos created for in vitro fertilization to donate those embryos which are slated to be thrown away as medical waste, in order that others may live?

We have heard the President intends to veto H.R. 810 and sign this bill. No one will be fooled by this fig leaf. The patients of America, the tens of millions of people who suffer from diseases like Parkinson's, diabetes, paralysis, cancer, heart disease, they know, they know that this research holds hope and they know that 72 percent of Americans support this.

And I would urge the President to think hard about whether this is where he wants to take the stand for his first veto. I would urge this House to think very, very hard about what they will do in that tragic incidence.

Mr. Castle and I asked the President to meet with us, so that we could look him in the eye and explain the bill, and explain the ethical controls that are in the bill, and explain how we too want ethical science but that we want science that is meaningful. He refused to meet with us. I have time tonight. If the President would like to meet with me and Mr. Castle, we would be delighted to explain the tremendous potential of embryonic stem cell research.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 9, the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006. I am honored to have an opportunity to vote for H.R. 9, a bipartisan bill which makes important changes to the Voting Rights Act and extends otherwise expiring provisions for another 25 years.

As we reaffirm the Voting Rights Act today, it is worth remembering where we were before its historic initial passage. During the end of the 19th and the first half of the 20th centuries, State and local governments, particularly in the South, used multiple schemes to deny minorities, mainly African-Americans, the ability to register and meaningfully vote. These insidious methods included poll taxes, property requirements, literacy tests, residency requirements, the changing of election systems, and the redrawing of municipal boundaries.

The real beginning of the end of this disenfranchisement was the enactment of the initial Voting Rights Act of 1965, courageously passed by Congress and signed into law by President Lyndon Baines Johnson. As applied to certain States and jurisdictions, among other provisions, it prohibited literacy tests, authorized the sending of Federal examiners and observers to make sure people could register and vote, and required changes in election laws or systems be approved by the Federal Government to ensure minorities were protected.

Over the years the Voting Rights Act has been extended and improved numerous times. Congress expanded its protections to cover language minorities, required elections services, in certain circumstances, to be provided in a language other than English, and overruled the 1980 Supreme Court case of City of Mobile v. Bolden, allowing plaintiffs to prove violations of voting rights laws by showing a discriminatory effect as opposed to requiring a showing of discriminatory intent.

The results of the Voting Rights Act have been dramatic. The registration of African-American voters in the 11 States of the former Confederacy increased from 43.1 percent in 1964 to 62.0 percent in 1968. The gap between African-American and White registration rates shrank as well across much of the South. For example, in Mississippi this gap decreased from 63.2 percentage points in March 1965 to 6.3 percentage points in 1988.

Having a meaningful opportunity to exercise one's right to vote is no longer simply an abstract idea we talk about, but is instead a goal we strive to achieve for all. The evidence shows it is a mark we are increasingly meeting and all Americans should be proud of what we have been able to accomplish. As we celebrate our progress, however, it is important to remember that challenges remain.

Whether it is because of outdated election machinery or long lines at the polls, many people still find it difficult to vote. Too often these impediments are faced disproportionally by minorities and low-income citizens. The Federal Government must continue the role it started in earnest back in 1965, and continued through the Help America Vote Act of 2002, of working to ensure that all Americas are free to exercise their right to vote. Through its involvement and commitment of resources, I know we will succeed.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces, or ICACs, are Federal-local partnerships that help track down the perpetrators of online child exploitation.

Ninety percent of this important work occurs at the local level by ICAC investigators all across the country. Their jobs become more important every day as the incidence of child pornography rises to nearly epidemic proportions.

I want to consider these chilling statistics: In fiscal year 2003, ICACs received 3,741 reports of Internet crimes against children. In fiscal year 2004, that number was 24,138. But, Mr. Chairman, in fiscal year 2005, that number was 198,883, an increase of 5,216 percent in just 2 years.

The increase is not just a result of better reporting. It reflects an unthinkable rise in the worst kind of crimes. The ICACs are in need of more funds for three reasons: number one, to increase investigations; number two, to enhance law enforcement training; and, number three, to conduct forensic analysis.

The budget for ICACs has increased incrementally the last few years; and, Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you and the committee for adding $5 million to the Internet Crimes Against Children Tasks Forces, but, frankly, with these increases in the crimes, even if we tripled the ICAC budget, it would still barely manage to keep up with online child pornography.

The extra funding is critical for training, for investigations, for forensic exams, and to stop these terrible perpetrators from committing these crimes against children.

Mr. Chairman, the problem of online child pornography is growing. This amendment will simply increase the budget by $3 million. And I ask my colleagues, what lengths are we willing to go to to save them? I urge a ``yes'' vote on the DeGette amendment.

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

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

Offered By: Ms. DeGette

Amendment No. 33: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Ms. DeGette

Amendment No. 4: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding work being done by Bayaud Industries, a non-profit organization dedicated to creating employment and training services to individuals with mental, emotional, physical, and economic disabilities and challenges in the City of Denver and throughout Colorado. Celebrating its 37th anniversary this year, Bayaud has been able to help over 5,000 individuals find jobs and currently serves over 300 each year.

Bayaud uses an integrated approach to help those who have had minimal success in the mainstream work environment mostly because of the stigma associated with disability and mental illness. This approach includes a comprehensive vocational evaluation to assess skills and capabilities, work adjustment and personal adjustment training, and general office skills training. Bayaud also provides job placement services for its clients, and even works with the City of Denver to help move people from welfare to work.

Helping those who are disabled to find and keep work is good for both individuals and our economy. Employment gives people a sense of accomplishment and the satisfaction that they are contributing to their community. Sadly, according to the National Mental Health Association, ``the unemployment rate in the United States for individuals with disabilities is approximately 75 percent; the unemployment rate for individuals with psychiatric disabilities is even higher at 80 percent.'' With training and assistance from organizations like Bayaud, people with disabilities are able to hold a job and contribute to the economy of our country.

Mr. Speaker, Bayaud Industries should be considered a model for how we help all our citizens become productive. Bayaud is ensuring that the disabled of my community are able to play a vital role. I commend the important work this organization is doing and I know that both those in the disabilities and business communities have benefited greatly from the good work it has done for over the past 37 years.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the exceptional leadership and invaluable contributions of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Center of Colorado, ``The Center,'' on the occasion of its 30th anniversary. It is fitting that we recognize The Center for its record of extraordinary service in providing support and advocacy for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender, GLBT, communities in the 1st Congressional District and throughout Colorado.

The Center has been on the front lines of progress since its inception and has proven to be a powerful force in transforming the landscape of our State. Founded in Denver in 1976, The Center is a statewide, nonprofit community center and is one of the oldest organizations serving GLBT communities in the country. It is a powerful advocate on a broad range of issues that affect GLBT people in our State and is a catalyst for community organizing and providing needed support services.

Health and wellness is a key focus of The Center. Its Healthy Living Program offers extensive health care services including free HIV testing in conjunction with Denver Health, low-cost hepatitis vaccinations, free mammograms for uninsured women, health care provider referrals and access to mental health services. It also devotes sizable effort to community health education as well as disease prevention. The Lesbian Cancer Support Service strives to increase early detection and a higher rate of cancer survival in lesbian and bisexual women. The Center also maintains Rainbow Alley, a drop-in center designed for GLBT youth that provides heath care services, counseling and referral. Youth have access to a medical clinic, computer lab, kitchen and the Terry Mangan Library, all of which are drug, alcohol, tobacco and hate free.

The Center's advocacy and legal initiatives have done much to advance the cause of civil liberty and provide necessary assistance to those who experience discrimination, harassment and unequal treatment. The Legal Initiatives Project, CLIP, was founded in 1992 to challenge a discriminatory amendment to the Colorado Constitution. Amendment II would have precluded any action by the State or local governments designed to protect GLBT people. Amendment II passed by a slim margin, but due to CLIP's leadership, a lawsuit was filed and injunctive relief was granted to prevent the measure from taking effect. The decision was appealed to the United States Supreme Court and a national coalition of civil rights groups joined CLIP to uphold the lower court ruling. In a historic decision--Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996)--the Supreme Court held that Amendment II was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In 2000, CLIP merged with The Center and became its legal services program. It accomplishes its mission through the CLIP Legal Hotline, civil rights litigation and mediation, media work and public education. CLIP focuses on cases and issues that move the civil rights agenda forward serve the most oppressed and disadvantaged in the GLBT communities.

We are indeed fortunate to have The Center in our community. It is an invaluable resource and I am deeply appreciative of the good work The Center does in addressing systemic inequalities and providing continuity and stability in the efforts to secure greater equality, justice and participation in our democracy. The Center has helped provide a place at the table for GLBT people. It has provided needed health and community services. In summary, The Center's leadership and engagement has made a real difference in peoples lives and thereby in the communities it serves.

Please join me in commending the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Center of Colorado. It is the strong leadership and meaningful service it provides on a daily basis that continually enhances our lives and builds a better future for all of our people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Resolution 861. Calling this a true debate on Iraq is a joke, and the Republican majority knows it. The Majority Leader has admitted the true motive--to use this issue in the fall elections against the Democrats. Shame on him and shame on the Republican majority for callously restricting what should be a full debate about the most important issue facing our country. Shame on them for trying to set a political trap and not allowing amendments or a full debate. If we were allowed a fair process, the facts would be revealed. And the facts are not pretty.

After the tragedy and horror of September 11, 2001, everyone saw the threat posed by Al Qaeda. I voted for the authorization for President George W. Bush to use force against the Taliban in Afghanistan who were harboring Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. I am a strong supporter of the war on terrorism.

When President Bush came to Congress and asked for authorization to invade Iraq, he made no case that that country was an imminent threat to the United States, or, in fact, related to our international fight against terrorism. So, I opposed the authorization for President Bush to use military force against Iraq in 2002, and that vote was the proudest vote I have taken in nearly 10 years in Congress.

Despite the paucity of evidence to invade a sovereign nation, Congress authorized President Bush to go forward and we invaded Iraq. Instead of remaining focused on combating terrorists, the true imminent threat to our country, we got detoured into Iraq. Our courageous men and women in uniform did a tremendous job in the effort to defeat Saddam Hussein. I have supported them every step of the way and continue to support them as I stand here today.

Having toppled its government, I felt we had an obligation to see Iraq transition to a new democracy. Like most Americans I was patient as Iraq struggled to establish a new civil society and government after years of oppression.

In the three years since the invasion, Americans have provided security and rebuilding assistance. Despite the gross mistakes, mismanagement, and misjudgments of our civilian leadership, Iraq is now a sovereign, free country, a country with a new constitution and a new government. At this point in time, we have done what we can. We've given the Iraqi people an opportunity. It is now their opportunity to grab freedom. It is now their country to lose.

Unfortunately our efforts have come at a tremendous cost. Major General John Batiste, a commander in Iraq and military aide to Mr. Paul Wolfowitz, noted that ``Rumsfeld and his team turned what should have been a deliberate victory in Iraq into a prolonged challenge.'' 2,500 of our best and brightest young people have paid the ultimate sacrifice to our country. About 18,000 have been wounded. All Americans are forever in their debt. In addition to the heartbreaking human toll, there is a financial one as well. We have now spent or appropriated, according to the Congressional Research Service, about $320 billion on the war in Iraq.

Enough is enough. Enough devastation for mothers and fathers who have lost children in Iraq; enough heartache for their loved ones and friends; enough young lives cut short; enough being forced to shortchange domestic priorities like health care and homeland security because billions are being spent on Iraq. We have given the Iraqis a chance. That is all they can ask of us and that is all we can ask of ourselves. As such, it is time to shift troops to the periphery of the conflict and redirect some resources currently being used in Iraq back to America.

Despite what the Republican majority suggests through this Resolution, saying it is now time to begin redeploying troops and that President Bush needs to develop a plan to do so is not arbitrary. It is, in fact, a reasonable calculation that the cost of Iraq is no longer worth any benefit we may achieve by continuing our armed presence there. The majority of the American people have made it clear they feel it is simply not worth more blood to achieve perfection in Iraq. They are right. It is time we in Congress listened.

Mr. Speaker, I too ask unanimous consent that my name be withdrawn as a cosponsor of H.R. 2048.

Mr. Speaker, nearly 1 year ago today, we witnessed a truly historic event on the floor of this House: Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle joining together to put patients first by passing H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.

Two months later we were further encouraged when the majority leader of the other body announced his support for our bill. At that point, it appeared that the hopes of so many patients and caregivers would finally be realized as this critically important research would obtain the funding necessary to reach its true potential. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that is the last we heard of this bill; 364 days after passage of the bill in the House, the other body remains silent. They have proceeded to work on numerous other bills, including the designation of 46 post offices, but they have refused to put patients first.

In the meantime, in the last year, 1.5 million people have been diagnosed with diabetes; 55,000 were diagnosed with Parkinson's; and 8,700 with multiple sclerosis.

It is time for the other body to put patients first and pass H.R. 810.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the history and invaluable contributions of an exceptional organization in the 1st Congressional District of Colorado. It is both fitting and proper that we recognize this organization for its educational leadership and record of extraordinary service benefiting underrepresented young people in Colorado and the Denver area. It is to commend this exemplary organization that I rise to honor the Colorado Association of Black Professional Engineers and Scientists on the occasion of its 25th anniversary.

The growing importance of innovation in science and engineering to our economic well-being and to a better quality of life for our citizens is well documented. Currently, there is much discussion and concern in this Congress about the ability of the United States to sustain its scientific and technological superiority. Sustaining our leadership hinges upon expanding our human capital to meet the technical challenges of a new economy and its increasingly global and complex systems. In this regard, cultivating students with the requisite skills to enter the pipeline of future engineers and scientists has become a priority.

Over 25 years ago, a group of committed African-American engineers anticipated the future. They recognized the need to expand the pool of talent entering our colleges and universities. In 1980, they founded the Colorado Association of Black Professional Engineers and Scientists (CABPES) with the express purpose of increasing the representation of minorities in the fields of engineering and applied sciences. CABPES has been in the vanguard of cultivating talented youth and it has become a learning gateway for students from all walks of life desiring to expand their horizons. Its commitment to the future is longstanding and our communities are well-advised by its example and the foresight of its founders.

Professional mentoring sets CABPES apart and a cadre of dedicated parents and committed volunteers are responsible for its outreach and educational programs including: the Junior Engineers, Tomorrow's Scientists Program which concentrates on developing student interest in engineering and applied sciences; the Math Enrichment Program which tutors students with their mathematics assignments; the SAT Preparation Program which prepares students for the college entrance examination; and the Widening Our World Program which gives CAPBES' students the opportunity to use their computer skills and develop leadership abilities through community service. These programs have served to enrich the learning experience by providing an environment that offers real-world perspective, dialogue and exchange. Students have gained a richer and deeper understanding from practitioners who not only impart a passion and enthusiasm for their disciplines, but convey the sense of wonder that accompanies discovery and scientific endeavor.

We are indeed fortunate to have CABPES in our community. It is an invaluable resource and I am deeply appreciative of the good work CABPES does in making science and engineering careers more attractive to all our students, particularly the under-represented. CABPES' programs help improve performance in the classroom and its mentors provide solid role models that encourage achievement. We owe a debt of gratitude not only to CABPES' founders, its board, volunteers and management professionals, but to its private sector partners as well. Their engagement and support of this organization make a real difference in the lives of our young people and thereby, in the communities CABPES serves.

Please join me in commending the Colorado Association of Black Professional Engineers and Scientists. It is the strong leadership and meaningful service this organization provides on a daily basis that continually enhances our lives and builds a better future for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the extraordinary accomplishments of a remarkable woman in the 1st Congressional District of Colorado. It is both fitting and proper that we recognize Dianne Reeves for her preeminent artistic achievement and her excellence in numerous creative endeavors.

Dianne Reeves has used her talent, skill and energy to create an inimitable musical and artistic presence for which she has received international acclaim. She came to our

community from Detroit, Michigan where she and her sister Sharon were raised by their grandmother. Dianne inherited a love of music from her parents and as a child, took piano lessons and sang at every opportunity. While singing with the George Washington High School big band, she was spotted by jazz trumpeter Clark Terry at the National Association of Jazz Educators Conference in Chicago where the band took first place in the 1974 jazz festival. She studied music at the University of Denver before moving to Los Angeles in 1976. Dianne experimented with various musical genres including Latin American music and toured with Eduardo Del Barrio's group ``Caldera.'' She sang with the Billie Child's ``Night Flights'' jazz band and later toured with both Sergio Mendez and Harry Belafonte as his lead singer.

In 1987, Reeves was the first vocalist signed to the reactivated Blue Note/EMI label. Reeves has recorded with Daniel Barenboin and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, with Sir Simon Rattle and the Berlin Philharmonic and she has also recorded and performed extensively with Wynton Marsalis and the Lincoln Center Jazz Orchestra. Over the course of numerous recordings and hundreds of live performances, Dianne Reeves has burnished a reputation as a versatile and vivacious singer who has been compared to such masters of jazz as Ella Fitzgerald, Dinah Washington, Carmen McRae and Sarah Vaughn.

Dianne Reeves is in a class by herself. She won her fourth Best Jazz Vocal Grammy Award for the soundtrack to the critically acclaimed Good Night, And Good Luck, which chronicles Edward R. Murrow's confrontation with Senator Joseph McCarthy. Dianne is the only artist to have three consecutive recordings win in the jazz vocal category--A Little Moonlight, The Calling: A Tribute to Sarah Vaughn and In the Moment, She is an Ella Fitzgerald Award recipient and was awarded the Denver Mayor's Award for Excellence in the Arts. She was the first Creative Chair for Jazz of the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra and has performed throughout Europe and Asia. Reeves is the first internationally renowned jazz artist to perform in Qatar and recently, she was the featured performer at UNICEF's Annual Gala in New York City.

We are indeed fortunate to have an artist of such consummate reputation and international acclaim in our community. She has mastered a wide range of styles and interpretation, all of which reflect both a perceptive and unique artistic ability and skill. Her artistic sensibilities are set apart by a fidelity to the spirit of various compositions and renderings of notable artists; by an intimate expression of mood and emotion and a style of singular elegance, sophistication and grace.

We owe much to our artists as they have the unique ability to distill our cultural essence from our collective experience. Please join me in commending Dianne Reeves, a distinguished artist. Her gifts enhance our culture and her contributions have enriched the American Experience.