Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concern that funding for Title VII programs have been cut in this bill. VII programs provide direct financial support for healthcare workforce development and education. It is imperative to provide adequate funding so that well- trained health care providers can continue to meet the needs of the American people.

The house showed great leadership last year by providing $300 million in funding, and I believe that any decrease could hamper the programs' ability to train health professionals to care for the neediest populations.

The President's budget proposes, for the fifth year in a row, to eliminate many of the programs that educate and train a variety of health care providers, such as pharmacists, dentists and pediatricians.

For a number of years now, I have organized Members to express support for this important program, and urged the Appropriators to fully fund it in the Labor-Health and Human Services-Education bill. For the first time this year, the House has failed to restore this funding.

These massive cuts will eliminate key programs that make it possible for our health professions schools to develop training infrastructures and high quality education.

The Title VII Health Professions programs are also the only federal programs designed to train providers in interdisciplinary settings to respond to the needs of special and underserved populations.

The programs have shown to increase minority representation in the health care workforce, which I believe is absolutely essential for our health system.

At a time when the American people have come to rely on their health care providers more than ever, eliminating this resource would be devastating to the country's neediest communities.

Mr. Chairman, despite its claims to the contrary, the Bush Administration continues to be dishonest with the American people about the situation in Iraq. First, it leads our country into war with Iraq under false pretenses--a war that has already cost more than 1,700 American lives and thousands more Iraqi lives. The Administration then refuses to admit that it does not have a viable plan to win the peace in Iraq and possesses no strategy for a withdrawal of United States troops. And most recently, while the President campaigns as a so-called ``War President,'' he refuses to request funding for military operations in Iraq in his own budget, instead funding it through the emergency appropriations process, a tactic that allows the President to keep the high costs of war out of his budget.

Although today Congress has the opportunity to insert some much- needed accountability into the funding process, it will--like it has so many other times--function as a rubber stamp and approve another large funding bill--$45 billion--for Iraq without demanding answers from the Administration. Once this is approved, total funding for the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will reach a mind-boggling $322 billion. And this certainly won't be the last of it. In fact, at current expenditure rates, the $45 billion will only cover the first six months of 2006, which means that Congress will be forced to approve tens of billions more in funding for Iraq in a matter of months.

I believe it is critical that our country properly fund the operations in Iraq to ensure that our soldiers in the field have the equipment, munitions and protection they need and the benefits they so rightfully deserve when they return home. The majority of the $45 billion will go directly to support our troops in the form of equipment, body armor, increased pay and improved benefits for them and their families. While I will vote for this $45 billion funding package, I am concerned that the Majority in Congress has once again rebuffed efforts to require the Administration to be honest with the people about the situation in Iraq. To date, despite repeated requests from members of Congress, the Administration refuses to provide any sort of timeline for the withdrawal of United States troops, will not account for much of the current funding to Iraq, and resists coming clean about the full cost of future military efforts in Iraq.

At the same time the Administration and the Republican Majority in Congress unabashedly spend billions of dollars in Iraq without question, they make cuts to crucial domestic programs in the name of fiscal responsibility--cuts, which compared to the budget for Iraq, have a negligible impact on our country's deficit. In fact, funding for this misguided war so significantly dwarfs funding for domestic programs that if we were to take just a fraction of this spending package for Iraq, we could fully fund No Child Left Behind, the Small Business Administration loan program, Head Start, Medicaid, and numerous other programs that make a daily difference in the lives of Americans.

I find it truly ironic that Congress will spend a good portion of this week discussing the alleged lack of accountability at the United Nations, but refuses to acknowledge the abrogation of all accountability and responsibility that has been allowed to occur for too long in its own backyard--at 16th and Pennsylvania. It is time that the Administration owns up to the situation it has needlessly thrust our country in--it needs to formulate and disseminate a strategy for an eventual U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and must be upfront with Congress and the American people about the future costs of military operations in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why this debate has to be either/or, either we are going to cure sickle cell anemia or we have the potential to cure Type 1 diabetes. Every single American who suffers from a terrible disease should have the right to a cure.

Now, this bill that we are debating right now, it is a fine bill. I support

this bill. I think cord blood research is important. Like adult stem cells, umbilical cord stem cells have proven to be a source of hematopoietic stem cells. Those are the ones that are the blood-forming stem cells that have been used for about a decade to treat blood diseases like leukemia and lymphoma. That is great.

But it is not either that or H.R. 810, because unlike human embryonic stem cells, stem cells from umbilical cord blood cannot continually reproduce themselves. Instead of proliferating, they quickly evolve into specialized cells. That is why they have not proven to be useful in some of the early studies.

Now, the opponents of H.R. 810 say, well, embryonic stem cells have not been used to cure any disease. That is because we are in the very promising early stages of that research. And the adult stem cells have been used in their narrow milieu to cure diseases and to help with diseases that are blood specific.

Mr. Speaker, I am here to say that there is no, no scientific evidence today that will show that the cord blood or the adult stem cells will cure Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Type 1 diabetes, or the multitude of other diseases that are not blood based.

Now, some of the opponents of H.R. 810 say, well, scientific studies have shown adult stem cells to be pluripotent. Number one, their argument, their argument is that embryonic stem cells have not shown clinical application. Guess what? Neither have adult stem cells been shown clinically to be pluripotent. Furthermore, the studies where there were some indications of that were not peer reviewed and, frankly, are rejected by the scientific community.

Here is a chart. This chart shows exactly what embryonic and adult stem cells are good for and, frankly, they are good for different things. So let us not muddle the science. If people do not want to do embryonic stem cell research, they can look in the eye of our colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Langevin) and others and say to them, we do not want to do the research that could cure your disease, and I challenge them to do that.

In conclusion, Curt Civin, M.D., who is a doctor at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and a researcher, says ``As a physician- scientist who has done research involving umbilical cord stem cells for over 20 years, I am frequently surprised by the thought from nonscientists that core blood stem cells may provide an alternative to embryonic stem cells for research. This is simply wrong.''

And it is wrong to say either/or. That is why we should vote ``yes'' on this bill and H.R. 810.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 35 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), and that he be allowed to yield that time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished and courageous gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), who has been a wonderful help on this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for the purpose of making a unanimous-consent request.

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), I would just yield a minute to myself to respond to a couple of comments.

First of all, there is a misconception here. Under the Castle/DeGette bill, no public funds are used for embryo destruction. Current law precludes that and we keep that under our bill.

Secondly, we are not spending $60 million through the NIH through embryonic stem cell research. Last year it was really $25 million, and the reason is because the President's policy, issued in August of 2001, has not worked. Instead of 80 or 90 stem cell lines, we only had around 19 to 22 stem cell lines. And of those lines, all of them were contaminated with mouse ``feeder'' cells, and many of them were not available to researchers here in country. That is why we have to ethically expand embryonic stem cell research.

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

(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I 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 yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished and patient gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify something. I am actually not sure that those who oppose this bill understand what this bill really does.

In 1995, two Members of Congress, Mr. Dickey and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), inserted language in the appropriations bill, which is there every year and has been there every year I have been in Congress, and it says: ``No Federal funds shall be used to create or destroy embryos.''

Now, those on the other side of this debate say they do not think Federal funds should be used for this research, even though by their own admission the majority of Americans support this research. And so here is what this bill does, and maybe once I explain it, everyone will want to vote for it.

What it says is, People who go to in vitro fertilization clinics, there are leftover embryos as part of the process. They can decide one of two things: Number one, do they want to not discard the embryos and either donate them to other couples, and they can be these snowflake children, or to store them in a freezer? Or the donors can decide if they want to throw them away. Or do they want to donate them to science? It is their decision with informed consent.

Now, if they decide to donate them, then what would happen would be the embryos would go to a clinic where a stem cell line would be developed from the embryo with private funds. No Federal funds. The only Federal funds used under the Castle/DeGette bill are Federal funds to then develop those embryonic stem cell lines.

Just as the President's executive order in August of 2001 allowed stem

cell lines to be researched with Federal funding, but he limited those lines, we are allowing more of those lines.

So no embryos will be destroyed with Federal funds. I hope that clarifies the situation.

Mr. Speaker, I am now delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished minority leader.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).

(Mrs. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. McDermott).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Inslee).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say, if people want to donate their embryos to another couple for adoption, our bill allows that. But our bill also allows people who do not want to give their embryos for adoption to donate them for science, so the children who are alive today can be cured. I assume no one on the other side of this issue would want to force everybody to give up their embryos for adoption, because clearly that would be limiting the choice that people have.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am intending to reserve the rest of my time for closing.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to give my heartfelt thanks to my partner, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), our bipartisan whip team, the 201 cosponsors of this bill, and so many others who spoke today from the bottom of their hearts.

More than 100 years ago, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes recognized that we are living in an increasingly complex world and that ``the chief worth of civilization is just that it makes the means of living more complex.'' This world, he says, ``calls for great and combined intellectual efforts instead of simple, uncoordinated ones.''

The truth of Justice Holmes' words in today's complex world is best seen in the state of scientific research. We are on the verge of breakthroughs that will cure diseases that affect tens of millions of Americans. Yet some want to turn away from this potential, to refuse to even acknowledge its existence, simply because they do not understand the complexity of this issue. This refusal is slowing the process of ethical science and, worse, delaying advancements that could cure diseases that affect patients and families around the world.

Our constituents want more from us. They want their elected officials to thoughtfully examine tough issues like embryonic stem cell research, and create policies that address both practical and ethical challenges. They also expect us to consider these issues not as Democrats or as Republicans, not as pro-life or pro-choice, but as people with family members and friends whose lives could be made better or even saved by our decisions.

Passing H.R. 810 will allow the Federal Government to enable scientists, not politicians, to determine whether embryonic stem cell research will lead to cures for diseases that now plague us, and it will do so while establishing the clear and strict ethical guidelines that are absent today.

In 2001, the President issued his executive order establishing the current embryonic stem cell research policy in an attempt to balance bioethics and science. In the last 4 years, it has become clear that the policy has failed on both counts. Research has been stymied in this country, going into private hands and offshore. Research moves ahead, but not with the resources and coordination of the National Institutes of Health and without clear ethical standards.

I recognize that new science creates new moral dilemmas. That is why our bill sets explicit controls on how stem cell lines can be created. It gives another option for embryos created for in vitro fertilization, embryos created in petri dishes, that would otherwise be destroyed so that they can be used to potentially save or extend lives. It gives the patients for whom the embryos are created the decision on how they will be used: as now, freezing for possible future use; discarding them as medical waste or donating them to other couples for implantation; and if this bill passes, another option, donating them for critical research that could save millions of lives of people who are already born.

Here is why we need to pass this bill. These are two young brothers from Denver, Colorado. Wyatt and Noah Forman. Both of these boys have Type 1 diabetes, and both of them have been diagnosed since they were 2. A couple of months ago, little Noah had convulsions in the middle of the night from low blood sugar. His parents thought they would lose him, and now they cannot sleep at night. Without a cure, Wyatt and Noah face possible complications ranging from a heart attack to kidney failure or even blindness as they grow up.

How can we tell these boys, these two boys and millions of others, that we would rather throw the embryonic stem cells that could provide them a cure than to allow them to be donated for science? How can we tell our colleagues, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), our mothers with Alzheimer's, our brothers with Lou Gehrig's disease, the millions of Americans who are praying for a cure and for whom embryonic stem cell research may hold the key, Sorry, the Federal Government is opting out?

Let us not let 1 more year, 1 more month, or 1 more day go by without acting. Let us reclaim the Federal Government's role as the leader in ethical basic research. Let us give those whom we are sworn to represent hope. Let us pass H.R. 810.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation. The bill before us is so ludicrous it would be laughable if it were not so dangerous. The bill is blatantly unconstitutional. It is unrealistic, and it is cruel.

Not since the Fugitive Slave Act has there been a law designed to extend individual State laws beyond their boundaries to intrude into the jurisdiction of other States.

The debate on this bill so far has centered on what young women should do, how families ought to be. And there is not any disagreement among us about how much we all love our kids. We all want the best for our kids, no matter what. And when it comes to making big decisions, I think we would all want our kids to come to us for advice. Certainly I would want my 15-year-old daughter to come to me first, and I think she would.

And, in fact, the majority of young women do involve one or more parents when considering an abortion. But, sadly, this is not the case for all young people in this country. For myriad reasons, many adolescents and young adults cannot turn to their parents with a problem like this. And in many situations, they have a very good reason. For example, what about the victims of incest?

Of course teenagers should seek out their parents' advice, but we also need to face reality. We need to do what will help these desperate kids from making a bad situation worse, even to take their own lives.

The government cannot, my friends, mandate healthy, open family communication when it does not exist. The bill here will not make families stronger, and will put more young women at risk.

Not everybody talks to their parents, because they cannot. And so it is these young people who most need the advice and assistance of a trusted family friend, a minister, or a sympathetic grandmother. When a young woman cannot involve her parents, public policies and medical professionals need to encourage her to involve a trusted adult. And if you look at this bill, it does just the opposite of that. If it is passed into law, these young women will have to face this life-altering decision themselves, alone and without any medical help.

So why do so many major medical associations, including the AMA, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Physicians, and the American Public Health Association, all have longstanding policies against parental notification laws?

Because they are dangerous to these young women and they take away the need for confidential access to physicians. And so I think the harm to adolescents alone, by denying access to appropriate medical care, is cruel, it is against family values, and it makes this legislation so dangerous, it so ill serves our youth. We need to vote against this bill to preserve our families.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the extraordinary life of an eminent citizen, Rodolfo ``Corky'' Gonzales. This remarkable man merits both our recognition and esteem as his impressive record of leadership, activism and invaluable service has moved our community forward and thereby, improved the lives of our people.

Corky Gonzales lived life on the front lines of progress and is known as the father of the Chicano movement in the Southwest. He was born in Denver, Colorado, in 1928 and spent his early life as a professional boxer. He became a national boxing champion and was later inducted into the Colorado Sports Hall of Fame. But for Corky Gonzales, his boxing career proved to be a metaphor for a life of social and political activism. Corky Gonzales was a fighter and he became a true champion in the struggle for human dignity and cultural respect. He became a champion of La Raza.

Corky Gonzales entered the political arena in the late 1950's serving as the first Mexican American district captain in the Denver Democratic Party. He proved to be a skilled organizer and headed up the 1960 Viva Kennedy campaign. He was recognized for his efforts to increase political participation among Latinos and for bringing the social and economic challenges facing the Latino community into mainstream awareness. But the slow pace of social change within the political system set Mr. Gonzales on a new path of activism. He established the La Raza Unida party in Colorado and in 1965, he founded La Crusada Por Justicia--The Crusade for Justice--to further the cause of equality and justice for Chicanos, Latinos and Mexican Americans as well deal with racial injustice and advance the causes of civil liberty and human rights. He led a contingent to the Poor People's March on Washington, DC and in 1969, he convened the First Annual Chicano Youth Conference in Denver. Mr. Gonzales worked with city leaders to establish a health clinic on the North side and served on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. He is credited for launching the Chicano literary movement and his writings and speeches have become an affirmation of pride in the Mexican American cultural heritage.

One of Corky Gonzales' most enduring accomplishments was the founding of Escuela Tlatelolco Centro de Estudios in 1970. It was established to ensure that Latino and Indigenous youth are educated and empowered to continue their human development in higher education. But more importantly, in establishing Escuela Tlatelolco, Corky Gonzales established a tradition of learning that helps students and parents both cherish and preserve the ethnic and cultural diversity that gives individuals dignity and strength and thereby further empowers our communities and our nation.

Corky Gonzales touched our community in many ways that will endure. He gave us courage and dignity in the face of discrimination and economic injustice. He inspired us with his devotion and willingness to fight for the right that should be afforded to all people and the cultural expression that dignifies all people. I am reminded of the wisdom of Cesar Chavez--``What is at stake is human dignity. If (we) are not accorded respect, (we) cannot respect ourselves and if (we) cannot respect (ourselves), (we) cannot demand it of others.'' I would submit that Corky Gonzales understood this simple truth and his life is a testament to the activism that is guided by a deep and abiding respect for the intrinsic value of each and every human being.

Please join me in paying tribute to the life of Rodolfo ``Corky'' Gonzales, a prominent activist and civic leader. His service, accomplishments and leadership command our respect and serve to build a better future for all Americans.

Mr. Chairman, despite many reservations, I am supporting the bill before us today because I believe it is essential that this body unequivocally supports our troops in the field and their families here at home. By providing $2 billion more than the President's request for equipment and munitions, this bill will help to ensure that soldiers in the field finally have the body armor, night vision equipment, and vehicle armor they should have had since military operations began in Iraq. Additionally, by significantly increasing the Military Death Gratuity and the Subsidized Life Insurance benefit, this bill will help to guarantee that the families of deceased soldiers will have adequate financial resources in their time of need.

While it is critical that this bill provides soldiers and their families with the protection and benefits they so rightfully deserve, I remain deeply concerned that it continues to leave the Administration and the Department of Defense unaccountable for the expenditures in Iraq. I am distressed by the alleged reports of waste, corruption and mismanagement of previous funds earmarked for the military operations and reconstruction in Iraq. Further, I am troubled to learn that, according to several studies, only a portion of every dollar spent on rebuilding Iraq has gone to improving the lives of Iraqis. Unfortunately, the efforts made by me and other members of Congress to insert accountability and transparency into the funding process, including the most recent bipartisan effort to establish a commission to investigate the costs of the reconstruction in Iraq, have been repeatedly rejected by the Majority in Congress.

I am similarly disappointed that this Administration insists on funding the war in Iraq using the emergency appropriations process--a process that should be reserved for true emergencies, like tsunami relief. While the Bush Administration claims that it excludes these costs from the annual budget process because it cannot anticipate future war costs, the true reason for this exclusion is to make the already massive deficit look slightly, albeit artificially, lower. This Administration is therefore abusing the emergency appropriations process in order to help obscure and hide the extent of its fiscal recklessness from the American people. This is the same sort of fuzzy accounting that was employed by the likes of Enron and WorldCom, and yet, while those corporations were ultimately held accountable, this Administration continues not to be.

While I have significant ideological problems with this bill, I cannot in good faith turn my back on the courageous men and women who have so valiantly served to preserve the peace in Iraq. They deserve to enter the battlefield with adequate armor and equipment and are similarly entitled to an increase in benefits for them and for their families. However, I vote in favor of this bill with the sincere hope that this is the last time the Administration abuses the emergency appropriations process and comes to this body with such a request.

Mr. Speaker, the American electoral system is the paragon of democracy for the world. Therefore, we must hold ourselves to the highest standards when we conduct elections. There can be no doubt about the outcomes, no questions about fairness or fraud. Where there is even a whiff of impropriety, we have an obligation to act, and in a bipartisan manner.

The fundamental underpinning of our democracy is our guarantee that every citizen has the right to vote. Over the last 225 years we have worked slowly, but steadily, to expand this right. We have corrected grievous injustices that once prevented too many of our fellow citizens from having a voice in our democracy. Despite these efforts, sadly, we have had serious evidence of improprieties in both of the last Presidential elections. In 2000, the disenfranchisement of Florida voters took that election all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The 2004 Washington State gubernatorial election took over 6 weeks to resolve, and the Ohio voting process gives rises to grave concerns.

In Ohio, and other states, voters in far too many precincts faced significant obstacles when they tried to vote. Ten-hour lines to vote, a lack of sufficient ballots, wrongly purged or inaccurate voter registration roles and miscalibrated voting machines are unacceptable. These actions not only call into question the integrity of our election results, they deprive individuals of the right to vote that too many people have fought and died to protect.

We should have learned our lesson after the 2000 election. I supported and co-sponsored strong voting reform legislation, including the Help America Vote Act. This was the most

comprehensive package of voting reforms passed by Congress since the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It marked a first step, but only a first step in modernizing our electoral process nationwide.

While Congress did pass legislation, the 2004 election shows that we have not gone far enough to restore integrity to the process. We cannot continue to ignore this problem. We cannot allow Americans to be unjustly deprived of our fundamental right to vote or of anyone to doubt the outcome of our elections. Congress must develop a comprehensive and bipartisan solution to the problems that still plague our system.

I commend the gentlewoman from Ohio for raising this issue, and commit to work with her and the rest of my colleagues in our continuing quest to assure that all Americans' votes are counted.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time.

A lot of mischief can come from a bill that is a $388.4 billion bill, 14.75 inches thick, I measured it, which was filed sometime after midnight. I will guarantee my colleagues not one Member, including the gentleman from Florida, read this bill, even on the Internet.

One of the worst pieces of mischief that is included in this bill that we know of so far, there is probably a lot more, is the so-called Weldon gag rule. This rule, far from constituting a simple conscience clause as proponents claim, will amount to a broad noncompliance permit for companies that want to refuse to abide by the law. The bill could restrict States' autonomy and their right to self-governance, undermine States' abilities to enforce their own constitutional protections, block States' abilities to set the parameters of their own Medicaid programs, override Federal title X guidelines that ensure women receive full medical information, interfere with State and local governments' responsibility to oversee hospital mergers, set health care licensing and certification standards, interfere with, and even possibly override, current Federal laws like the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which ensure that women in life-threatening circumstances receive the medical care they need and, just as importantly, deny low-income women key information about and referrals to abortion services.

This is wrong. It is the wrong way to do it. It is the wrong way to debate it; and as far as I know, given this massive spending bill that no one has read, as far as I am concerned, it is just the tip of the iceberg. Vote ``no'' on the rule, vote ``no'' on the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, today this body can greatly improve the lives of more than 1 million Americans who are affected by juvenile diabetes. The Pancreatic Islet Cell Transplantation Act addresses a significant problem by reducing the nonscientific barriers standing in the way of this promising treatment.

Pancreatic islet cell transplantation is a procedure that infuses new insulin-producing cells into an individual with juvenile diabetes. This procedure has now been performed in over 300 people in this country. The results are nothing short of miraculous. A majority of those islet cell transplantation recipients no longer need to inject themselves with insulin.

For a person with juvenile diabetes this change is life altering. It means no more needles and no more worry. It means the question of what to eat no longer requires calculation or cause for alarm. For those patients islet cell transplantation means freedom, and ultimately islet cell transplantation will be a cure for type 1 diabetes.

As we know too well, Mr. Speaker, living with diabetes is challenging. Insulin is not a cure. It is only a means of managing the disease, and it is more complicated by the difficulties of monitoring glucose levels. Very serious complications like blindness and kidney disease are not uncommon. In fact, a staggering number of patients with juvenile, or type 1, diabetes suffer from some type of complication. Every year 82,000 individuals lose their foot or leg to diabetes. Heart disease is the leading cause of diabetes-related deaths. And diabetes is the leading cause of new blindness in people 20 to 74 years old.

This bill, which I was proud to introduce with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt), who, unfortunately, cannot be here with us today, takes us one step closer to preventing these devastating complications. H.R. 3858 will help increase the supply of pancreata for islet cell transplantation and better coordinate Federal Government efforts and information. These

are narrow, yet essential, improvements to our health care system that may not only change the lives of people with juvenile diabetes but also will reduce costs in our health care system.

The total annual cost of diabetes in 2002 was estimated to be $132 billion. Of that, $23 billion was due to the cost care for complications of diabetes. This is exactly why we need to use new procedures like islet cell transplantation to improve lives and reduce the cost of health care in the United States.

We are at a time of extraordinary opportunity in the field of juvenile diabetes research, and pancreatic islet cell transplantation is just one of the new procedures that gives us great hope. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) and I have been the co- chairs of the Congressional Diabetes Caucus for many years now, and we are pleased to say it is still the largest caucus in Congress. We have seen the technologies improve, and we have worked to improve the coordination and Federal support for diabetes programs. The Pancreatic Islet Cell Transplantation Act continues that work.

Like so many of my colleagues, I support improved scientifically based efforts that will improve patients' lives and even eradicate this disease. Since the science in this area is developing at a rapid pace, additional efforts are needed to ensure that Federal policies and regulatory actions support the momentum.

I want to add my thanks to the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) and for the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) as well as the Committee on Energy and Commerce staff on both sides of the aisle for their hard work and diligence on this and all of the health bills being considered today.

Their leadership provides exactly the kind of bipartisan cooperation that we need to address significant issues like improving our health care system, that Congress faces today.

I also want to thank the volunteers of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation and the American Diabetes Association. These two organizations have been tireless, and they are to be commended.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for all of your hard work in this area over the years.

Pancreatic islet cell transplantation is an incredible innovation in medicine. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the extraordinary life and notable accomplishments of Panagiotis Takis Dadiotis. This remarkable gentleman merits both our recognition and esteem as his community leadership and invaluable service have unproved the lives of our people.

Taki Dadiotis was born in Greece in the town of Aegion where, in his early years, he worked with his father, a fruit vendor. His story is not unlike those of other Greek Americans who came to this country with little more than their optimism and a desire to build a better life. Taki arrived in the United States in 1966 and first lived in Pensacola, Florida, where he sold toothbrushes door-to-door to raise the fare to travel to Denver. When he arrived, he worked three jobs at the same time--at Samsonite making suitcases, at King Soopers bagging groceries and tending bar at the Picadilly Restaurant--to build the nest egg needed to open his first restaurant with his brothers Sam and Pete. He became a proud family man, and he and his wife Vasiliki, raised two wonderful children, Jim and Theoni.

More restaurants followed including the well-known Greek Town Cafe on East Colfax. But Taki had a passion for politics and always found time to be involved in public life. His restaurant became a gathering place for elected officials and influential politicos as well as the site for countless State, local and national fundraising events. Taki had an irrepressible zest for life and no one was a stranger. He was open and genuine and possessed a refreshing lack of artifice. When people would try to put one over on him, he would simply mention that although he lacked a formal higher education, he did, in fact, graduate from the ``University of Colfax'' and they all got the drift.

Taki was immensely proud of his Greek heritage and preserving the ideals and traditions of Hellenism had great meaning for him. He understood that his native Hellas and his adopted homeland shared common values and that the greatness of America flowed from our fidelity to the Hellenic precept that government derives its authority from the people. Becoming a citizen of the United States was one of the greatest honors of Taki's life. His son Jim recalled how he instilled in his children a sense of civic responsibility and the fundamental importance of voting. Taki once remarked that America stands for the fair treatment of all people, and that providing the opportunity to be successful makes our country better and stronger. Taki loved this country and he wanted to participate in the American experience. He wanted to help make our country better because it gave him the opportunity to live the American Dream.

But Taki never forgot who he was or where he came from. And although he achieved financial success, he always wanted to help, not only Greek immigrants, but all those who were disadvantaged. He didn't want people that were somehow limited or didn't have access to civic leaders and community resources to be forgotten, left out or lost in the shuffle. Taki not only had a big heart, but he was well-grounded and possessed a clear sense of what mattered.

Taki Dadiotis loved his family, his friends his country, his faith and lived a life that is rich in consequence. Truly, we are all diminished by the passing of this remarkable person. There is an old Greek saying that ``the passion for freedom never dies.'' And while Taki has left our ranks, his passion for the American ideal endures in us. Please join me in paying tribute to the life of Panagiotis Takis Dadiotis, a distinguished citizen. It is the values, leadership and commitment he exhibited during his life that serves to build a better future for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most glaringly absurd aspects of this debate is that marriage has never been and should not be now a Federal issue. Marriage is quintessentially a State issue. States have always had the ability to determine what constitutes marriage and the protections that it affords the will of the citizens.

Not only does this proposed amendment turn the notion of Federalism on its head, though. It is antithetical to the spirit of our Constitution. This amendment would enshrine discrimination in our Constitution and be the only amendment that actually takes away a group's rights. It would not only take away the right to marriage, but also the right to provide basic fundamental rights, such as the right to visit a partner or child in the hospital.

And to those who say it will help children, I have this question: Why should we not instead ban divorce? Approximately 1 million children, the product of heterosexual marriages, are living in single-parent homes in this country. Fifty percent of heterosexual marriages will end in divorce. If a State allowed same-sex marriage, I do not think it would affect my own heterosexual marriage. We are proud of the fact that this body represents America.

So I would ask those who are divorced or those who have committed adultery, search in your soul and ask yourself, are you really ready to stand here today, today in this body, and cast the first stone?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the notable accomplishments and extraordinary service of Denver District Attorney William (Bill) Ritter, Jr. This eminent public servant merits both our recognition and esteem as his impressive record of leadership and invaluable service has done much to improve the lives of our residents.

Bill Ritter's standing within our community is unrivaled. His tenure has been defined by not only the skills and faculties that distinguish district attorneys, but by a deep and abiding commitment to justice, high ethical standards and professionalism.

Bill Ritter was born on a farm in Colorado and is one of twelve children. He worked construction and used work-study programs to put himself through Colorado State University where he graduated with honors. He subsequently earned his Juris Doctor from the University of Colorado School of Law and served as a former Assistant United States Attorney and Chief Deputy District Attorney. Bill married Jeannie Lewis Ritter and they have raised a family of four: August (William), Abraham, Samuel and Natalie. In 1987, Bill interrupted his legal career to manage a food distribution and nutrition center in Zambia for three years.

Former Governor Roy Romer appointed Bill Ritter to serve as District Attorney for the Second Judicial District of Colorado in 1993 and he has since been reelected District Attorney three times by the people of Denver. Bill understands that he has a public trust of considerable magnitude and he has been resolute in his commitment to protect the safety and welfare of our citizens. He and his staff are responsible for the prosecution of more than 5,000 felony and 15,000 misdemeanor cases every year. But for Bill Ritter, protecting the integrity of the legal process matters and he has done much to bring greater transparency and innovation to the District Attorneys Office. Whether helping our senior citizens fight scams, cracking down on identity theft and check-fraud, advocating for reasonable gun laws, fighting for needed funding to place juvenile offenders in effective programs, or advocating for responsible domestic violence laws, Bill Ritter has provided serious and thoughtful leadership on issues of public consequence. He has created a number of forward-thinking programs including the Denver Drug Court, Victims Services, Community Prosecution, Juvenile Diversion and the Courtrooms to Classrooms program. Many of these programs serve as models for other judicial districts in the nation.

Bill Ritter is nationally recognized on issues ranging from community justice, juvenile diversion and white-collar crime. He has served as faculty for the National Institute of Trial Advocacy, The National District Attorneys Advocacy Center and the National Conference on Juvenile Justice. He is past president of the Colorado District Attorneys Association, Chairman of the Board of Project P.A.V.E. (Promoting Alternatives to Violence Through Education), President of the American Prosecutors Research Institute and is a board member of the National District Attorneys Association, the National Association of Drug Court Professionals and the Mile High United Way.

Bill Ritter has burnished a reputation as a powerful advocate for victims' rights and new approaches to both prevent and deter crime. But more importantly, he is a decent human being and his career has been defined by the courage to adopt new ideas and take the necessary risks to implement them. His efforts have made a real difference and under Bill Ritter's leadership, the Denver District Attorney's Office has made a positive impact on our justice system and improved the quality of life in our community.

Bill Ritter's tenure as Denver District Attorney is quickly drawing to a close. His leadership has been exemplary and he has labored diligently to preserve and improve the administration of justice. His contributions are rich in consequence and on behalf of the citizens of the 1st Congressional District, I wish to express our gratitude and look forward to his continued involvement in our civic life.

Please join me in commending William Ritter, Jr., a distinguished citizen and public servant. His character, leadership and accomplishments command our respect and serve to build a better future for all Americans.

Mr. Chairman, I voted in strong support of the Motion to Recommit sponsored by Representative David Obey and in reluctant support for final passage of H.R. 5025, the Transportation and Treasury Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005.

Politics and a deplorable abuse of the legislative process are holding critical transportation projects across this country hostage. This includes the T-REX project in my district--which has introduced light rail to metro Denver and expanded a vital corridor along I-25. Every federal highway and transit project in this country must be authorized to receive federal funds before the appropriators can release them. Unfortunately, the wheels have fallen off the authorization train this time around.

We in Congress are facing an incredible situation where a Republican- controlled House, a Republican-controlled Senate and a Republican- controlled White House cannot reach an agreement on funding levels for our nation's transportation system. This showdown occurs against a background of ever increasing traffic congestion, as our transportation needs continue to outstrip our will to address them.

As if there weren't enough to raise concern about the authorization process alone, the folly extended to the House's consideration of the transportation funding bill as well. My Republican colleagues from Colorado subjected the appropriations bill itself to numerous points of order that stripped the legislation of funding for transit projects, Amtrak, and even T-REX.

My hometown paper, the Rocky Mountain News, recently described the situation we face today, ``Imagine a major transportation bill that pays for very few roads or transit programs.'' Well, that's what we're stuck with. Do you know why my colleagues decided to strip this much- needed money out of the bill? Because the authorization bill hasn't passed. Well, whose fault is that?

So I support Mr. Obey's efforts to restore the transit funding to the transportation bill before us here today. I'll vote for final passage, because I hope that all of this absurdity will be remedied in the conference report because, frankly, my constituents don't care about this political wrangling. They care about the transportation crunch across our country, they care about congestion in Denver and they care about real solutions. I will continue to fight against this political posturing and for the real solutions that will get traffic flowing again in my district and across this nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the exceptional accomplishments and extraordinary life of the Reverend Jesse Langston Boyd. This remarkable gentleman merits both our recognition and esteem as his impressive record of leadership and his invaluable service has done much to improve the lives of our people.

Reverend Boyd's standing within our community is rivaled by few others. He was a dynamic preacher whose counsel was infused with a spiritual fire that moved all of us to do what was right. He lived his life on the front lines of progress and proved to be a powerful champion of economic and social justice. His indomitable spirit carried him through many of life's challenges and molded a life of genuine accomplishment.

Jesse Boyd began his life in St. Louis, Missouri and settled in Los Angeles during the height of the civil rights movement. He joined the Reverend Jesse Jackson's Operation Breadbasket and organized the city's Operation PUSH. In the early 1970's, he spent two years as a missionary in Zambia building schools and houses. He later studied at the Center for the Study of Religions in Jerusalem and earned a degree in divinity from Harvard University.

Reverend Boyd came to our community in 1978 and was pastor of Shorter African Methodist Episcopal Church for over twenty-six years. As a spiritual leader, he advanced the social and educational development of our youth and burnished a reputation as a powerful advocate for civil liberties, inclusion and expanding opportunities for all people. Under Reverend Boyd's leadership, Shorter A.M.E. became a beacon of hope and remains a positive force in the spiritual and civic life of our community.

He served as President of the Black Ministerial Alliance and in the mid-1980's, he helped create People Against Racism at Coors after William Coors, board chairman, was quoted in the Rocky Mountain News as saying that blacks lacked ``intellectual capacity.'' The newspaper later retracted the story and a suit filed by Coors against the newspaper was also retracted. His civic accomplishments included building a fifty-unit housing development and establishing a park near Shorter A.M.E. Church.

Reverend Boyd was no stranger to political and community activism. He served as director of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and chaired the boards of directors of Denver Metro PUSH and the Rainbow Coalition. Former Governor Roy Romer appointed him to the Colorado Wildlife Commission and he co-chaired the state campaigns for the Reverend Jesse Jackson, Gary Hart and Michael Dukakis.

It comes as no surprise that the Muscular Dystrophy Association honored Reverend Boyd with the 2004 Personal Achievement Award for his extensive religious, social and political contributions. Recently, Mayor John Hickenlooper proclaimed June 24th, 2004, as ``The Reverend Jesse Langston Boyd Day.''

We are indeed grateful for the life of Reverend Boyd and for his inestimable contribution to the spiritual life of our community and to the causes that elevate the human condition. He was a fervent defender of the civil liberties which have deep roots in our republic and we are all diminished by the passing of the remarkable gentleman. His contemporaries, including the Reverend James Peters, the Reverend Paul Martin and the Reverend Gil Caldwell recently noted that Reverend Boyd ``was a spiritual giant in our community'' who ``helped us blaze the trail'' and ``dared challenge America to become a land `with liberty and justice for all'.'' I would simply add that I believe Reverend Boyd's message to us would be that we must be ever vigilant and continue to affirm the values of equality, inclusion and tolerance--the values which define us as Americans. Please join me in paying tribute to the life of Reverend Jesse Langston Boyd, a distinguished spiritual and civic leader. His service, accomplishments and leadership command our respect and serve to build a better future for all Americans.