Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, in the last 48 hours we have witnessed the sad collapse of a cover-up. On September 29, 2003, Press Secretary Scott McClellan said that he had spoken with the deputy chief of staff of the White House and it was simply not true that he had anything to do with the disclosure of the identity of a CIA agent. He characterized it as ``totally ridiculous.'' And again on October 10, 2003, he said the White House had nothing to do with this terrible disclosure.

The President was then asked on June 10, 2004, whether he would stand by the promise to the American people to fire someone responsible for this disclosure, and he answered with a simple ``yes.''

The American people do not want sensitivity training after this sad disclosure of a CIA agent. They need full accountability. The jig is up. The deputy chief of staff needs to come in front of Congress and answer questions about this. And this is not just a matter of a simple violation of Federal law. It is a sad violation of democracy to try to punish a truth-teller, Joe Wilson, who blew the whistle on the ``yellow cake'' false statement made by the President. We know that that is wrong because Mr. McClellan said this is not the way the White House operates. We beg to differ.

Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to an outstanding representative from the 1st District of the great State of Washington, Frank Maziarski, CRNA, MS, CLNC. Mr. Maziarski will soon complete his year as national president of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists (AANA). I am very pleased that this son of Washington was tapped as the 2004-2005 president of this prestigious national organization, and I am honored to count him as one of my constituents.

The AANA is the professional organization that represents more than 33,000 practicing Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs). Founded in 1931, the AANA is the professional association representing CRNAs nationwide. As you may know, CRNAs are anesthesia professionals who administer approximately 65 percent of all anesthetics given to patients each year in the United States. They work in every setting in which anesthesia is delivered including hospital surgical suites and obstetrical delivery rooms, ambulatory surgical centers, and the offices of dentists, podiatrists, and plastic surgeons.

CRNAs provide anesthesia for all types of surgical cases and, in some states, are the sole anesthesia providers in approximately 70 percent of all rural hospitals, affording these medical facilities obstetrical, surgical and trauma stabilization services.

Mr. Maziarski earned his Master of Science (MS) degree and his Bachelors of Science degree in nursing (BSN) from the University of Nebraska at Omaha. He was educated in the art and science of Nurse Anesthesia at the Albany Medical Center, School of Nurse Anesthesia, Albany, NY. He spent 21 years as an officer in the U.S. Army Nurse Corps, first as an anesthesia provider and then as an educator in the Academy of Health Sciences Schools of Nurse Anesthesia and was a Director of the Phase I (clinical) and also a Director of Phase II (academic) portions of the Nurse Anesthesia programs. He retired as a Lieutenant Colonel at Beaumont Army Medical Center, El Paso, Texas. He also spent one year as Chief Nurse Anesthetist of the 93rd Evac. Hospital, in Long Binh, Viet Nam during July, 1968-July, 1969. He is currently a practicing nurse anesthetist and owner of Allied Anesthesia Associates, which provides anesthesia services in and around the Shoreline, Washington area, in my congressional district.

Mr. Maziarski has held various leadership positions in the AANA as President-Elect, Vice-President, and Regional Director before becoming the National President of the AANA in 2004. In addition, Frank has served terms as President, President-Elect, Vice-President, Treasurer, and as a Member of the Board of Directors for the Washington Association of Nurse Anesthetists (WANA). He was also appointed by Governor Gary Locke to the Washington State Nursing Care Quality Assurance Commission from 1997-2004 and was elected as its chair twice during his tenure.

Adding to his professional accomplishments, Mr. Maziarski has been recognized for both publishing and speaking on anesthesia-related topics over the years. He has taken his experience and knowledge from the workplace and AANA leadership roles to lecture on political and academic anesthesia related topics before different professional groups. During his AANA Presidency, Mr. Maziarski has played important roles in advocating for the practice of nurse anesthesia and its patients before Medicare and other Federal agencies, promoted anesthesia patient safety through vigorous participation in the interdisciplinary National Quality Forum (NQF), and advanced principles of wellness among practitioners in this high-stress profession. In addition, Mr. Maziarski directed that the AANA be represented before three key subcommittees of this Congress, in which members of this organization testified about the importance of nurse anesthesia education, the roles and contributions of CRNAs in the Veterans' Affairs health system, and the dedication with which CRNAs have provided safe anesthesia care to members of the U.S. Armed Forces at home and abroad.

It is my understanding that under Mr. Maziarski's leadership, the AANA continued to foster an important line of communication with the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA). While these organizations of anesthesia professionals have not always seen eye-to-eye, both the AANA and ASA are working to ensure the safe administration of powerful anesthesia drugs, and have shared interest in patients' safe access to anesthesia care with respect to Medicare regulations governing locked anesthesia carts. These two societies' professional working relationship may not have been possible without the continued initiative of AANA President Maziarski and his ASA counterpart.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing Mr. Frank Maziarski, CRNA, MS, CLNC, for his notable career and outstanding achievements.

Mr. Speaker, today I voice my opposition to the Supreme Court's recent decision granting local governments the power to seize private property for economic development. The Constitution protects an individual's right to own a home free of government intervention, and ensures just compensation for any property taken in the name of the greater public good, such as vitally necessary roads or water projects. The Court erred in its determination that private development interests constitute a legitimate public good. Private interests should not justify the bull-dozing of homes in a working-class neighborhood. This divided decision, Kelo v. New London, may represent an open invitation for abuse by local governments and private developers at the expense of hardworking Americans who have a right to their property. While I oppose the Supreme Court's decision, I also believe in the separation of powers and do not believe it is appropriate for Congress to seek to punish the Court for its decision. It is my hope that the Supreme Court has another opportunity to correct this bad decision, and provide greater protections for homeowners.

Mr. Speaker, our proud troops in Iraq last night deserved an address that showed a President committed to effectiveness and truth. The sad fact is that these administration policies are based on failure and falsehood.

The failure is that, a full 2 years after the Iraq war started, we still have less than 15 percent, less than three battalions, that this administration has effectively trained that are ready for combat operations to replace American military personnel and bring them home.

This is a spectacular record of failure. After 2 years of us here in this Chamber demanding that the President train these troops so that they can replace the American GIs and Marines, we have three battalions, and that is it; after 2 years?

This has happened because of the rose-colored glasses that this administration has worn, thinking we were going to be greeted like liberators in Paris. They were wrong. And it is based on falsehood, falsehood when the President stood right behind me and said that there was WMDs. There was not, and now he is trying to bait and switch.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Our amendment seeks to improve our investment internationally in renewable energy sources and energy efficiency technologies. There is a certain irony that while this amendment comes to the floor of the House now, the President is addressing the Nation about the Iraq War right now, a war in the middle of an oil-producing region that the world is largely dependent upon to sustain its economy. The instability of that region in and of itself ought to point out the need to use the Export- Import Bank to encourage the development not of the fossil fuel energy sources but renewable energy sources and energy efficiency standards. So our amendment would simply say that we have to use at least 5 percent of our energy products in renewable energy projects so we do not have to remain dependent on fossil fuel.

A couple of things that have happened to indicate the wisdom of this: In the last couple of weeks, oil has topped $60 a barrel. And since dinosaurs went to die in the Mid East, that is where the oil is. We have to break our dependence on oil internationally from any source.

Secondly, we have seen the effort by the Chinese government-owned oil company to buy a domestic United States producer as a precursor, a predecessor, of future disputes over this resource that we are now largely dependent on. We need to break our addiction to oil. We need to get serious about renewable energy.

And the third fact that has happened in the last several weeks is that we have learned that the debate about global warming is over. Debating whether or not global warming is occurring in large part or significant part during human activity is like now debating gravity. And just two facts that I hope that some Members who may be listening tonight may consider: A picture here of a glacier in Antarctica over a several-month period, showing a block of ice breaking off the Antarctic, 26 miles by 11 miles in width, breaking off, a phenomenon that is now occurring with, if not regularity, more frequency now as an indication of global warming.

I noticed seeing in the newspaper yesterday tourism is booming in Alaska because tourists say they want to see Alaska before it melts. We are now seeing with our own eyes the symptoms of global warming across our hemisphere. We need to do something about it.

The science behind that, this is not just anecdotal. I would ask anyone when they think about energy sources to consider the fact that carbon dioxide now is at levels that we have never seen before in the history of the planet.

I refer you to a chart which shows the changes in CO2 levels and temperature levels that have occurred on the globe over the last several thousand years. This chart basically shows that while there have been changes in the last several hundred thousand years, we have never seen spikes of carbon dioxide, the major global warming gas, like we have now.

Here is the present. We show that our carbon dioxide levels, over 376,000 parts per million, are the highest ever in global history since we have been able to ascertain, even looking at the trapped air bubbles at historical levels thousands of feet down in the glaciers.

What we see is the prediction, Mr. Chairman, that if this Nation and the world does not become serious about renewable and clean energy, those levels will spike to unprecedented levels, up to 980,000 parts per million by 2100. In the next century, we will have carbon dioxide levels, by 2100, three times higher than they have ever been in the history of the world, at least for several hundred thousand years.

We have to get serious about this issue. Our amendment would be one small step. I would like to pass it tonight. We will not, because a point of order has been raised against it. But I hope this is one small moment when Members can think that the next time we have an opportunity to get serious about global warming or respond to the needs of our grandkids, do not let this happen to this great Earth.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, those who believe in privacy and not being dictated to by the U.S. Congress in their most private, intimate decisions should vote against this amendment.

Two friends of mine my age recently went in for prostate treatment. When you go in for prostate cancer, they tell you you have a choice of various alternatives. Some may give you a higher chance of survival, but also a higher chance of impotency.

A University of Chicago study showed that if you tell men that they have a chance of impotency that cannot be cured because you do not have access to these ED drugs, they will, 68 percent of the time, take surgery that could lessen their chances of survival. This is not recreation. These are helping men make decisions that are going to help prolong their lives. We should reject this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple. It lists the cap that is presently written into the bill to limit the amount of money that we would commit to the training and equipping of the Iraqi securities forces, to limit that to $500 million.

I hope that we are united in the belief that the way to bring our troops home is to fulfill the training and equipping of the Iraqi security forces so that they can become responsible for Iraq's destiny and our troops can coming home in dignity and as quickly as possible.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his interest and leadership.

Mr. Chairman, I will close briefly by saying this is an important amendment. I appreciate the Chair's acceptance of it. We hope that the administration does listen to the voices in Congress that are basically saying if we can train one more trainer one day earlier, we should do so; if we can provide one more piece of equipment for the Iraqi security forces one day earlier, we should do so; if we can employ one more interpreter so that these folks can be trained earlier, we should do so. This amendment will hasten that. I hope the administration will bear heed on that, and that General Patrais is successful.

Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support my colleague Mr. Inslee's amendment to this Defense Appropriation bill, which lifts the $500 million cap on funds within the Iraq Freedom Fund for training the Iraqi National Army. Earlier in this debate I offered and withdrew an amendment that would have increased funding for training the Iraqi National Army by an additional $500 million. This Amendment would have doubled the amount of money appropriated for training the Iraqi National Army within the Iraq Freedom Fund. If Mr. Inslee's amendment is accepted into this Appropriation, I will work with Chairman Young and Ranking Member Murtha to insure that additional funds are appropriated for training the Iraqi National Army.

The Inslee amendment reinforces the point that the best way to get U.S. troops out of Iraq is to train the Iraqi troops to take care of their own nation. Clearly, more money is needed to not only train these inexperienced troops to defeat the insurgency, but also to pay troops to enlist in this new army despite the obvious danger they face. At this time of danger for our troops, this Amendment reiterates the fact that we need to be transferring more responsiblity upon the Iraqis to take care of their nation and develop a plan to remove our U.S. troops.

Just last week a roadside bomb blast killed five U.S. Marines who were riding in a vehicle during a combat operation near Ramadi. On this very same day a suicide bombing at a restaurant on an Iraqi military base killed 23 Iraqi soldiers and wounded 28 other people. Clearly, this war is not getting any easier; clearly our troops are still very much in danger. Our best solution is to train and supply the Iraqi National Army to beat back this insurgency and gain the trust of their people so that one day soon our troops can go home and the Iraqi National Army can bring peace and prosperity to Iraq. I know it sounds too simple, but the truth is we have no other solution, that is unless you believe our U.S. troops should be in Iraq indefinitely. There is an old saying that the best offense is a good defense and the best way to maintain that posture is to have a strong Iraqi National Army supplementing the heroic effort of our troops.

Right now there are 136,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and their mission is not getting any easier. The facts are plain, a total of 1,713 Americans including 159 people from Texas alone have lost their lives since this War in Iraq began and more than 12,000 have been wounded in action. We must move to the obvious solution, that the Iraqi National Army must soon take over their own nation and provide for the protection of their people. Therefore, I reiterate my strong support for the Inslee Amendment and the appropriation of additional funding to train the Iraqi National Army. Our troops should be able to return home with an exit strategy of success.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

This is a small, but I think meaningful, amendment that will stop some of the cuts that have been going on for several years in our Coastal Zone Management account that aids so many communities on the coast and our watersheds across the country. Unfortunately, we have continued to seek cuts

in the NOAA budget, which have also impacted the Coastal Zone Management program over the last several years, this year a $500 million cut in the NOAA budget. Our amendment would restore simply $5 million to the Coastal Zone Management account to be used in numerous places across the country.

This summer our constituents are going to be going to the beaches, but unfortunately there is some bad news at those beaches. We have got algae, red tide, closures of shellfish beds in New England. We have got fish in 22 sites in coastal waterways found contaminated with toxics. One third of the beaches in the Great Lakes have been closed due to septic and sewage problems at one point or another in the last several years. We have got problems in our beaches, and we do not want to allow cuts to continue to occur to this Coastal Zone Management account.

I want to note this account is not just for the West and east coasts. This includes watersheds across the country, for instance, in the Ohio Cuyahoga County project to address some problems at Euclid Creek; in Pennsylvania in Bucks County, an award to help handicap access of Silver Lake Nature Center. This really is a nationwide program, and there are nationwide problems that we want to address.

There has been a strong bipartisan support for this program. I note the President, on our national oceans policy, has suggested we need increased, not decreased, funding with our coastal beaches, which are real jewels in the crown of our national assets.

This money would come out of the Bureau of Industry and Security. That bureau in this year's proposed budget would get a 14 percent plus- up. After our proposal, they would still have a 7 percent increase. So under our proposal, we preserve our beaches. We simply restore this to levels we had in 2002, and we still increase this agency that is responsible for export controls in the Department of Commerce. This is something to really get back to where we were in 2002 to protecting our beaches. We commend this to our Members.

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

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

This is a balancing act, but these accounts are in balance. This Bureau of Industry and Security is going up under the proposed bill by $10 million. It is going up $10 million, and under our amendment it would still go up $5 million. It would still go up 7 percent. This agency is getting bigger. It is having more capability under our amendment than it did last year, and it is going to have an ability to do its mission. But we will also at the same time with my amendment try to keep some of the toxics and sewage off the beaches that our constituents are going to see this summer in numerous places around this country.

And the challenges that we face in the oceans have not been going down. They are becoming greater. It does not make sense for this Congress year after year to cut the attention that we give to the beaches across this country and the lake shores from the Great Lakes to the Mississippi to the Gulf Coast and the Pacific. This is not our prioritization. Without this amendment there is an imbalance. Let us have both these accounts go up. Under my amendment, both of these accounts go up this year, and that is the prioritization.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, in April 2005, the House of Representatives once again passed an antiquated and outdated energy bill that fails to address the grave realities that our country faces today. With record high gasoline prices, we need an energy bill that diversifies our automobile fuels and encourages domestically manufactured fuel efficient vehicles.

With millions of family wage manufacturing jobs lost since 2001, we need an energy bill that takes bold action to tap into American ingenuity in order to lead the world in new clean energy technology, rather than playing catch-up to the Japanese, Danish, and Germans. Just as concerning is that our reliance on Middle Eastern oil, creates a need to establish an energy policy that allows us to end our historically objectionable policies in this area. Additionally, the science is clear that our greenhouse gas emissions are threatening to significantly change the world's climate, yet this energy bill does not even contain the words ``climate change'' or ``global warming''. The House passed Energy bill does little, or nothing, to address these mounting concerns.

That is why I, and several of my colleagues, have joined together to introduce the most innovative and comprehensive energy plan in recent decades, known as the New Apollo Energy Act. New Apollo seeks to solve America's energy crisis through technological innovation much in the same way that President Kennedy channeled the resources of the American people in the 1960's to meet the challenges of the race to the Moon.

The New Apollo Energy Act has the three simple goals of: (1) breaking our addiction to Middle Eastern oil, thereby increasing our Nation's homeland security; (2) creating millions of high paying domestic jobs; and (3) addressing the environmental problem presented by global warming.

Highlights of our New Apollo Energy Act include: Significant tax incentives for the development, manufacturing, and purchasing of domestic clean energy technologies; Investment in energy efficient infrastructure and regulatory oversight; An oil savings provision that requires the President to use existing authority to reduce the daily consumption of oil by 600,000 barrels by 2010 and 3,000,000 barrels by 2020 (approximately what we currently import from the entire Middle East); Increased funding for LIHEAP and weatherization projects; A 10 percent Renewable Portfolio Standard by 2021; Electric grid reliability standards; Appliance efficiency standards; A renewable fuels standards set at 8 billion gallons by 2013.

The New Apollo Energy Act creates jobs. It is often falsely assumed that environmental protection and innovation comes at a cost to the economy, yet study after study concludes that environmental stewardship and technological ingenuity can walk hand in hand. The University of California at Berkley reported that the renewable energy sector generates more jobs per megawatt of power installed, per unit of energy produced, and per dollar of investment, than the fossil fuel- based energy sector. The Apollo Alliance has found that a substantial federal commitment to clean energy could yield up to 3.3 million jobs nationally. The University of Michigan concluded that United States stands to lose 38,000-207,000 jobs if the domestic automotive industry fails to retool their plants to adjust to the growing hybrid vehicle market. Further, the Department of Energy has estimated that standards just on clothes washers, water heaters, and fluorescent lamp ballasts will create 120,000 jobs through 2020.

The New Apollo Energy Act reduces our dependence on foreign oil. We no longer have to accept an energy bill that fails to encourage the usage of renewable energy or one that fails to reduce our consumption of foreign oil. The Department of Energy's own independent research body--the Energy Information Agency (EIA)--concluded that under the Administration's proposed energy plan over the next 20 years, our oil imports will increase to 80 percent, and gas prices are likely to rise 3-8 cents, which would be the equivalent projections of enacting no energy bill at all. The EIA has also reported that despite the electric utilities' repeated claims that a renewable energy standard would hurt consumers and the economy as a whole, a 10 percent renewable energy standard by 2020 would cost consumers almost nothing--about the difference of 1 percent spread out over the next 15 years.

The New Apollo Energy Act reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Among other things, the New Apollo Energy Act provides tax credits and loan guarantees to develop more cellulosic biomass and biodiesel while providing incentives to produce and purchase energy efficient projects and developing new efficiency standards for the home.

Most importantly, this bill includes a tradable greenhouse gas permit scheme that closely resembles McCain-Lieberman's Climate Stewardship Act. In 2010, our bill would cap carbon dioxide emissions at 2000 levels. This would also include an auction for 5-10 percent of the permits for new entrants. As Members of Congress we are continually amazed that many of our colleagues have yet to accept global warming as fact. Many of us have seen the effects of global warming with our own eyes--the disappearing glaciers in Glacier National Park, the melting permafrost in the Arctic, the disintegration of ice shelves, the rapidly rising temperatures, and the sudden appearance of birds and other animals in places where they have never before existed. Global warming is about as much a theory as gravity, yet some in Congress continue to ignore nature's warning signs. Congress needs to embrace a policy that directly confronts the problem of climate change with the kind of innovative technology that has made science aware of these issues.

The New Apollo Energy Act is revenue neutral. This bill is funded by closing corporate tax shelter loop-holes, and from funds generated by the carbon emissions cap and trade program set up in this bill.

Madam Speaker, we have known for some time that the Bush administration refuses to exercise any leadership in dealing with climate change. We now find out not only are they failing to act, they are cooking the books and the science involving this issue.

We read in the New York Times this morning a White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.

Philip Cooney, White House counsel and environmental quality chief of staff have been cooking the books that we pay for with our tax money on the science of climate change; and because the administration has turned the government of the United States over to the oil industry lobbyists, they are not sharing the real science with the American people.

It is one thing to debate. I suppose if you want to debate gravity, you can do it, but at least let Americans know what the science is in this regard. We are paying for this science, and the President is cooking the books and not sharing it with us. As a result, we find tundra melting in the Arctic, the glaciers disappearing in Glacier National Park and major changes that our kids are going to have to deal with.

Madam Speaker, the Bush administration should stop cooking the books when it comes to climate change.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor tonight both to talk about a serious challenge of our country and some very optimistic news in that challenge. The challenge is to adopt an energy policy that will really be up to the problems we today face; and the optimistic news is that tomorrow with 15 of my colleagues, I will introduce the New Apollo Energy Project. The New Apollo Energy Project is a project that will really create a vision for this country's energy future that is up to the technological prowess of this country, that recognizes our can-do spirit, that recognizes the three challenges that I will talk about tonight, and will step up to the plate and solve those challenges. And it is about time for the New Apollo Energy Project because, indeed, we have challenges.

The New Apollo Energy Project of the bill we will introduce tomorrow will face three distinct challenges that we have in this country. It will face them head-on, and it will solve them. The first challenge that we face is somewhat related to the problems in the Mideast, the oil-producing region of the world that my colleagues were just talking about for the last hour. We know on a bipartisan basis that it is unhealthy for our personal national security; it is unhealthy for our ability to advance the cause of democracy, to be addicted to oil from the Mideast. It is unhealthy for any party who is in control of the White House. It is unhealthy for us across this country to have to make judgments about our foreign policy based on the politics, for instance, of the Saudi royal house.

Our addiction to Middle Eastern oil has cost this country dearly, and we must break that addiction. As I will talk about later, there is one way to do it and that is to adopt new technological fixes to wean ourselves off of oil so that this country can experience a new burst of democracy and spread it around the world, not afflicted and shackled to this pernicious addiction to Middle Eastern oil. The New Apollo Energy Project, I am happy to say, we will introduce it tomorrow, and it will take, I believe, the strongest, boldest, most ambitious step that this Congress has seen to try to deal with that problem.

The second problem: we are losing manufacturing jobs in this country by the thousands. We had a 14 percent reduction in manufacturing just in the last several years, since this last President took office. That is unconscionable. We need to adopt a new high-tech, new energy vision in this country that will make sure that the jobs associated with the efficient use of energy and the new production of energy are grown here in the United States. It is a sad commentary that the most fuel- efficient cars now are being built in Japan. The jobs of the future, building fuel-efficient cars, need to be in the United States of America. Those jobs need to be here.

Why are the jobs associated with the production of wind turbine technology which is actually the fastest-growing energy source in the United States, why are those jobs going to Denmark? Those jobs ought to be here. Why are the jobs associated with the solar cell industry going to Germany? Those jobs need to be in the United States.

The New Apollo Energy Project will seize on the basic can-do spirit of America to grow our homegrown technologies to bring those high-tech jobs and manufacturing jobs and construction jobs. We need to lay a lot of steel and copper to wire this country for the new sources of technologies that we need. Those jobs need to be in the United States of America. As I will talk about in a little more detail, the New Apollo Energy project will address that problem by growing over 3 million jobs in the next 6 years in this country associated with these new energy resources and efficiency systems.

So, first, we have a security concern. Second, we have a jobs concern. And the third concern is a global one, and that is the challenge of global warming. As we know from the National Academy of Sciences today, which came out with another report, another nail in the coffin of those who urged to take no action based on global warming, it is a fact. Arguing it would be like arguing gravity at this point. There are uncertainties of how significant it will be, but we need to step up to the plate and address global warming, and the New Apollo Energy Project is the most ambitious bill that has ever been introduced in this House to deal with that issue in ways that we will address.

So this New Apollo Energy Project will address three problems: A security problem associated with our addiction to Middle Eastern oil; a jobs problem associated with the loss of jobs going overseas due to other countries being advanced and getting ahead of us in this game; and, third, the need for our Nation to stop global warming. Rarely do we have a trifecta in one bill that will address three separate issues. But this needs to be done.

The reason we define our bill as the New Apollo Energy Project is it draws some inspiration from John Kennedy, who stood behind me here May 9, 1961, and said that America was going to put a man on the Moon in 10 years and bring him back safely. When he challenged America to do that, it was a very audacious, bold challenge. We had not even invented Tang yet. Rockets were blowing up on the launch pad. Many thought Kennedy had really engaged in a hallucinatory plan. But Kennedy recognized something that we should now recognize, which is that Americans, when they are challenged to invent new responses to problems we have, Americans come through.

In my district, we understand the power of innovation. Boeing Company, I represent the area north of Seattle,

where we are going to build the most fuel-efficient jet in the world, the Boeing 787. It is going to have 20 percent more fuel efficiency. It is going to be one of the most comfortable jets ever. I am looking forward to riding in it. That is the power of innovation.

My district includes the Microsoft campus. We understand the power of innovation. America has the greatest innovators the world has ever seen, and now it is time to harken back to the Kennedy spirit of putting a man on the Moon, to say we need to adopt a new energy policy that is equally ambitious and equally optimistic, and this is a very optimistic plan.

If I can, I would like to say that we have good news, too. We are developing a more bipartisan, I think, and across the ideological spectrum viewpoint that we have to deal with these issues: security, jobs, and global climate change.

I want to address the security issue. I happen to be a Democrat, but this is not just a Democratic issue. I am very interested in a letter sent to President George Bush on May 24, 2005, signed by a whole host of past Cabinet officers in Republican administrations and Democratic administrations, people who have been involved in the security challenges of the United States: Robert McFarland; James Woolsey, former official in the Bush and Clinton administrations, former chief of the CIA; C. Boyden Gray, former chief of the Agency in the Bush administration; Admiral William Crowe, U.S. Navy retired; Honorable David Oliver, former Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense. A whole score of folks involved in the defense of the security of this Nation.

Basically, their message to President Bush was simple, that we have to develop alternatives to oil and that our addiction to oil presents a security risk to the United States. They said very pointedly, I thought, that with only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves but 25 percent of the current world consumption, the United States cannot, cannot, eliminate its need for its imports through increased domestic production alone. They understand that the dinosaurs went to die somewhere else, mostly in the Mid East, and we need to develop alternatives to oil.

They went on to urge the President to adopt improved efficiencies and rapid deployment and development of advanced biomass, alcohol, and other available petroleum alternatives. They said that action to prepare for the day that when we need to wean ourselves from oil will pay dividends for our national security, our international competitiveness, and our future prosperity.

They made some really specific proposals, these security experts. They said that we should make it a national top security priority to significantly reduce our consumption of foreign oil through improved efficiency and the rapid substitution of advanced biomass, alcohol, and other available alternative fuels; and this effort should be funded at a level proportionate with other priorities for the defense our Nation. They look at this as a defense issue, as does our New Apollo Energy Project. They said the Federal Government should consider mandating substantial incorporation of hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and flexible fuel vehicles into Federal, State, municipal, and other government fleets.

The New Apollo Energy Project that we will introduce tomorrow does these things and much more because it recognizes the security threat to the United States that these security officials recognize and it takes action today.

Now I would like to, if I can, talk about the threat of global warming. That is one of the reasons we need to take action associated with the New Apollo Energy Project. There are some very interesting things that happened this week on the front of new energy. The National Academy of Sciences essentially yesterday came out with a report which concluded, as have the International Panel of Sciences previously studying this effort, that the earth is warming. A substantial portion of that is caused by human activity, that warming will occur even if we stop today because the carbon dioxide that causes global warming stays in the atmosphere for decades, and called for action now, not 10 years from now, to deal with this threat. This is the National Academy of Sciences, one of the most nonpartisan, prestigious groups in America. It joined other academies across the world actually yesterday in issuing this manifesto.

The reason they are saying that is quite clear. Global warming is a well-understood principle. Energy light, an ultraviolet spectrum can come through the atmosphere. When it bounces back, it is in the infrared spectrum. Unfortunately, in part, carbon dioxide traps infrared energy and does not allow it to radiate back to space.

Actually, it is a wonderful thing. If it was not for this aspect, we would have a frozen planet on our hands. But the fact of the matter is too much carbon dioxide causes global warming. We know that is happening. As the Academy of Sciences said today, we know it is happening through melting glaciers, changes in biological standards up and down the coastline, melting tundra in the Arctic, the disappearance. Glacier National Park will not have glaciers in 75 years at this rate due to global warming.

So how do we know this is occurring? If I can refer to a couple of charts here, we see with our own eyes some changes, and I will get to the theory of why this is happening. But we have seen with our own eyes some very substantial changes in our world as a result of global warming already.

This is a picture of the ice sheet in the Antarctic. And if I can refer to the glacier, it is the Pine Island Glacier as it comes down into the sea. It shows pictures on September 16, 2000; November 4, 2001; November 12, 2001. It shows a breakup of the ice coming down into the Antarctic. This piece of ice here is roughly 26 miles long and 11 miles wide. That is a substantial piece of the Antarctic breaking off, and this phenomenon we have now seen in substantial places across the Antarctic.

Now, obviously, one piece of ice does not the puzzle make, but what we are seeing now is these things with our own eyes. This is not a hypothetical issue.

If one travels to the Glacier National Park, they may say, where did the glaciers go? They melted. If they travel to Alaska and they see some buckled housing, it is because the tundra is melting. If one goes to Denali National Park and ask why trees have moved up, it is because the weather is getting warmer. We see this with our own eyes. The reason this has happened is because of carbon dioxide.

I actually stumbled across a pretty amazing chart today, disturbing and amazing. What this chart shows is the carbon dioxide and temperature levels going back from today, which starts here at zero, going backwards 400,000 years. So, basically, this chart shows carbon dioxide and temperature levels over the last 400,000 years.

Scientists know this because they find trapped particles of air, air bubbles essentially in glacier ice going back during that period; and they can analyze the air to determine both the carbon dioxide in these bubbles when they were trapped 400,000 years ago and the temperature by looking at the isotopes of oxygen and the concentration of trace materials. So we have a very good unarguable, all the scientists agree on this, record of what the earth has done.

There are three salient things from this record.

Number one, we see that there is a very close correlation between deviations in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and global temperatures. The CO2 levels as shown in the red line, we will see deviations over the last 400,000 years up and down. These are parts per million from about 180 at the bottom to 380 at the top of this yellow section.

So what we see is carbon dioxide levels have gone up and down, in some cycles, over the last 400,000 years. But it is pretty interesting because the temperatures, if the Members notice the blue line, pretty much follow in a regular path the red line. And what we see is that temperatures have followed changes in carbon dioxide levels. It is a very close correlation, as we are seeing now. Because what we are seeing now is an explosion of carbon dioxide. It is sort of human- caused volcanic of carbon dioxide which is sending CO2 levels through the roof.

The second thing that was interesting in this chart is that when we come to today, which is this spot right here on this graph, this red line shows CO2 levels, and it shows the CO2 levels

that are expected by the scientists as a result of our burning fossil fuels, putting CO2 into the atmosphere. And what it shows is today we are at about 375 parts per million. For every million molecules, there are about 375 molecules of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That is higher today than at any time in the last 400,000 years on earth. Anytime in the last 400,000 years, we have more CO2 in the atmosphere than we have ever had in the last 400,000 years, and it is getting hotter rapidly. Ten of the last hottest years we have had in the last decade. Temperatures are rising.

But what is disturbing is that the scientists are projecting CO2 levels to continue to go up essentially on a vertical line looked at geological time. By 2050, we are expected to have 550 parts per million. Our CO2 will be up here, almost twice the highest level ever in the last 400,000 years of unrecorded history. That is under a business as usual if things go well.

Now, there is uncertainty in this. We do not know exactly what is going to happen. If things go well, the optimistic assumption, if we do business as usual, is by 2050, my children's lifetime, we will have 550 parts per million, almost double the carbon dioxide we had then. By 2100, my grandkids' lifetime, we will have 980 parts per million, almost three times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than has ever been in global history as far as we can tell. It is disturbing when we see what has happened already in our world to think of this curve exploding in this nature.

That is why the National Academy of Sciences is calling for action today.

That is the good news. We have some scientists who want us to act. The bad news is the Bush administration refuses to do so. In fact, we read in today's New York Times that the chief of staff of the Department of Environmental Quality for the administration actually cooked the books and edited reports to change them to make it look like this is not such a big deal. That is very disturbing when you look at the real science that the National Academy of Sciences has projected.

Well, those are the challenges we have. The fact of the matter is, we can take action on this. We can take action now, starting tomorrow with the New Apollo Energy Project.

Basically, the New Apollo Energy Project is going to take a multiple approach to this. It recognizes that there is no silver bullet to this issue. There are many things that we all need to do and industry needs to help in to solve these multiple energy policies.

But one thing it does not do, it does not do like the energy bill did that passed this House, that gave 94 percent of all the taxpayer dollars to the oil and gas industry, one of the largest obscene subsidies, using taxpayer money to subsidize one of the wealthiest industries in American history already. It does not do that. It does not take the money out of taxpayer dollars and give it to the likes of Exxon, who last quarter had $7.5 billion profits. Why do they need subsidies when fuel is at $55 a barrel already? It does not do that. It uses a host of approaches to deal with this issue.

Now, one of the first things it does is it does what you would do if you want to reduce your energy consumption. The first thing is we stop wasting energy. The best way to create energy is not to waste it, not to throw it away. Unfortunately, because of some industrial policies that have not used efficiency, we are not using our heads when it comes to being efficient in use of energy. Let me show you one of the most discouraging things when you look at our national policy of some years.

This is a chart of the fuel economy, fleet fuel economy, both truck and car, from 1975 to 2005. I think it is one of the most troublesome graphs I have seen, because it shows a real failure by this U.S. Congress and, frankly, by some folks in deciding what cars and trucks to make for us.

What it shows is in 1975, this middle line basically is the average fuel mileage that a combination of our cars and trucks got. In 1975 we were getting a combination of about 14 miles per gallon, back in 1975. In 1975 we made a conscious decision to demand that our auto industry produce more fuel efficient vehicles, and they did. They were supremely successful in responding to that congressional mandate.

They almost, well, not doubled, but went up at least 65 percent, up to about 1984, when our fuel economy got up to about 22 miles per gallon combined. So we went from about 14 miles a gallon to 22 miles a gallon in less than a decade. A pretty good achievement, because we put our minds to it. We used our design capability, we advanced safer, roomier, more comfortable, more fuel efficient cars, and we did it because we used our brains. People designed and built cars that did that because we demanded through the U.S. Congress that that happen through something we called the corporate average fuel economy standards.

Then in 1985 the government basically fell off the wagon. They stopped making any more requests for further fuel efficiency, and our fuel efficiency since that time has actually gone down since 1985. So today the industry as a group provides us vehicles that get less gas mileage than our vehicles did in 1985.

Now, think about that. Since 1985 we have invented the entire Internet, we have perfected space travel, we have mapped the human genome, we have got cell phones for our kids coming out our ears, but the cars we drive get less fuel mileage than they did in 1985. That is a failure, and we need to do something about that.

We need to put our heads together, and the New Apollo Energy Project in part takes a small step. It does not specifically increase the standards, but it suggests we do research, we do research in finding how to have more fuel efficient cars in a whole host of ways, just like these national security experts suggested that we do.

It was pointed out to me by the architect of this plan, if we had simply continued this rate of improvement to 2005, if we had not stopped in 1985, we would be free of imported oil today from Saudi Arabia. Think how that would be a better situation.

So the first thing we do is we do not waste fuel. We do not waste energy in our buildings, and our new Apollo Energy Project has new building research and standards to try to encourage industry to provide us more fuel efficient buildings, one of which is to have the U.S. Government adopt more advanced standards for building Federal buildings. That is just a start.

States are doing this around the country. My State, the State of Washington, just adopted the most progressive efficiency standard for public buildings, and we ought to do the same. And we do this in the New Apollo Energy Project so we do not waste.

We do this in a variety of ways. We give consumers incentives. We give advanced tax breaks. If you buy a fuel efficient car, we give a tax break, unlike the House bill that passed here a few weeks ago. It gives producers incentives.

We want to save the domestic auto industry in the United States. It is in deep, deep trouble and we want to save it. There are two ways. Number one, we give it substantial assistance to get back on its feet through use of in some of its retooling expenditures and its tax treatment, and in a way I hope we will also assume some of the health care costs ultimately, the legacy costs of our domestic auto industry.

But that is not all we have to do to save the domestic auto industry. We also have to grab back the market share we are losing to the Japanese and soon the Chinese in fuel efficient cars. We take steps in that direction.

Third, we take some regulatory approaches. We realize there are certain things we simply have to do to get this genie back in the bottle. One of the things we have to do is limit the amount of carbon dioxide we are putting into the atmosphere. We do that by incorporating the standards over in the Senate. Senators McCain and Lieberman are leading an effort to establish a cap on the amount of carbon dioxide that goes into the air. We do this now for nitrogen and for sulfur. It is time to do it for carbon dioxide. We have learned that that gas, that toxic material, that pollutant, could cause us more problems than all of these put together.

We have been very effective. This is one of the real success stories in what we have done to clean up our air. We have cleaned it up of nitrogen, for sulfur to a significant degree. If the administration does not roll back our

mercury standards we hope to increase our safety for our kids from mercury. But we have not done it for carbon dioxide. That is the granddaddy of it all when it comes to changing our entire climatic system. So we need to add that pollutant to the list we control.

We know this works. We do a cap and trade system and we force polluting industries to bid, if you will, so we have the most efficient way to bring efficiencies to our production and manufacturing systems. Then we use the money generated from that auction to pay for the research and application of these fuel efficiency standards.

By the way, this is one of the great virtues of the New Apollo Energy Project. It is paid for. We have a $600 billion in real terms deficit, and we need to pay for things, and this is paid for.

We have provided a mechanism for paying for every penny of expenditures in the New Apollo Energy Project through two means: Number one, this auction of permits to put carbon dioxide in the air, which will generate billions of dollars; and, secondly, by closing a couple of corporate tax loopholes that allow corporations to move jobs offshore and then get tax breaks for doing that. On a bipartisan basis we ought to close some of those. So we pay for this bill, it is fiscally responsible, and I think that is important to do.

Now, why do we have optimism this is going to work? Well, for one reason, it is working. Let me tell you about some successes we are having in that regard.

First off, it should be noted this is not pie-in-the-sky by any means. I will just show you a picture and note a couple successes. This is a picture of the Hathaways' home in Loudoun County, Virginia. They built this home for about $365,000, which is in the realm of building costs here, not too different from houses of this nature.

When they built this home, they wanted to incorporate state-of-the- art technologies to try to reduce their energy usage. They built a home that did just that. They built a home that incorporates solar cell technology in the roof, some passive solar heating in the way they designed the home and oriented it, an in-ground heat pump, which is extremely efficient. This in-ground heat pump is just amazingly efficient. They used additional insulation and a few other whiz-bang items to try to reduce their energy consumption.

What they did is they produced, and I cannot recall the exact square footage, but you can see it is a pretty good-sized home, it looks nice, they produced a home that is attractive, comfortable and uses zero net energy off the grid, because they produce energy.

First off, they use it efficiently, and they produce energy through their solar roof system and their net consumption is zero. The way they can make it zero is while they are producing more energy than they are using, which happens frequently, they are feeding energy back into the grid, so their meter on the side of the home runs backwards a good part of the time when they sell back to the energy utility the energy they are generating. When you net the two out, they have a zero consumption. This is today, within about 60 miles of where I am standing, and it is working today.

But it is not just solar and those techniques. The good news is that our investments in these technologies over the last several decades are paying off big time, as they say. If you look at all of these new technologies, you find a very consistent dynamic, and that dynamic is that the more we build, the cheaper it becomes.

Right now in wind power we are building the largest wind turbine farm in North America in the southeast corner of Washington State. Some farmers are going to do pretty well in the leases associated with these wind farms.

These wind farms 20 years ago would have been very expensive. They started about 20 years ago and the electricity produced from them was much more expensive than gas or coal. As we developed the technology and produced more turbines, the cost has come down. Now in Washington State the cost of wind power is just about market-based with the cost of alternative fuel of gas turbines that you would have to produce to provide an alternative. In fact, I just saw some plans, one of our utilities is going to have 5 percent in the next decade of their energy produced through wind.

This is a real functioning system. If you look at what has happened at the cost, in 1980, the cost was about 35 cents per kilowatt hour. That has come down to by 2000 to about 3, 4, 5 cents, depending where you are, this incredible reduction just in the last two decades. That a combination of new technology and the scales of production as you ramp up.

What we find as we start to implement these things is they become much less costly. That is why a lot of people who sort have been naysayers of new technology say it will cost too much. Of course it will. The first time you build something it usually costs quite a bit. Look at our defense array. Guess how much the first laser beam we built cost for the Defense Department?

The same thing in solar cell. PV is photovoltaic. We see it cost about 100 cents per kilowatt hour in 1980. That has come down to 21-23 cents in the year 2000, and that curve is going to continue.

The same for biomass, which we are very excited about. We have a plant going in we hope in Monroe, Washington, shortly for biomass.

I met about a month ago with farmers in Eastern Washington who want to start an industry around mustard and grape seed to develop oils to fuel our cars and heat our homes. You look at biomass, 1980 again about 12 cents per kilowatt hour. That is down to about 7 cents now, and that line is projected to continue down. The same with geothermal and the same with solar thermal, basically just heating water on top of our roofs, which is very efficient as well.

So the good news is that as we focus on these energy systems they become much more efficient and thereby less expensive. So this is one reason that we have a sense of optimism in that regard.

Now I want to come back to, if I can just for a moment, to the certainty both of the reasons for optimism and the certainty for the need for action here. We know that we are the best innovators in the world, and we know we are people of science. And the science has shown that science works, and that is why these costs are coming down. The science has also shown the necessity for action.

I do want to refer to this report that was just issued by the National Academies of Science yesterday. It says that there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems.

Here is a pivotal statement. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. This warming has already led to changes in the earth's climate. The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. Even if greenhouse gas emissions were stabilized instantly at today's levels, the climate would still continue to change and adapt to the increased emission of recent decades.

It went on to talk about the negative ramifications of climate change, increases in the frequency and severity of weather events such as heat waves and heavy rainfall. Increasing temperatures could lead to large-scale effects such as melting of large ice sheets, a major impact on low-lying regions in the world. At the level that the sea is predicted to rise, which is .1 to .9 meters, in Bangladesh alone 6 million people would be at risk for flooding.

Science tells us that we need to act, and there is no excuse, no excuse whatsoever for this administration to dig in its heels and refuse to act.

The President, it is interesting, because I have heard him say both publicly and to me personally that he realizes that this is an issue that he has to address. Yet he has refused to lift a finger to limit carbon dioxide emissions. He has refused to lift a finger to address the rest of the world, to try to engage the rest of the world in dealing with this issue. He has refused to lift a

finger to stop this Chamber from adopting an oil-soaked policy that might make former friends in the oil and gas industry rich but will impoverish the taxpayer directly through their taxes and our grandchildren through its climate.

This is inexcusable. Anyone with any respect, any decent shred of respect for the whole nature of scientific inquiry who willfully blinds themselves to this great threat, to this beautiful little blue globe we live on, cannot be said to be acting as a steward of the Creator's Earth. We are stewards of this Earth for future generations. It is our primary reason for living, and this administration is woefully inadequate in its discharge of that responsibility.

That is why I am pleased that myself and others tomorrow will introduce a bill that will get this great Nation engaged in using its talents to solve this problem. Because a country that did put a man on the Moon, who responded to John F. Kennedy's challenge in the 1960s, is equally able to respond to the challenge of energies in this century and much more so. Because we have seen, we have witnessed firsthand the incredible powers of this country when we challenge ourselves to use our technological prowess to invent our way out of the pickle which we are in now.

So I am happy that we are going to use not just one technology here, and it is not just solar and it is not just wind. We should do research, and my bill will call for research, in clean coal technology. If we can find a way to burn coal and not put carbon dioxide in the air, we should do so.

There are significant challenges in that: Where we will store the carbon dioxide if we cannot separate it from the gas stream? Those are big challenges, but we need to do the research, and we should not be blinded from those potential solutions as well.

It has to do with simple things like using management of our transportation systems to try to reduce our costs. It is by maximizing some of our public transportation systems. It is like some of even our zoning requirements to try to reduce the number of miles we have to drive to get to work. And, fortunately, with the Internet explosion, we are finding ways to reduce some of those, some of those expenses as well.

The point is that we have to let a thousand flowers bloom when it comes to energy, and our bill will do so by encouraging a whole raft of new research projects from soup to nuts on dealing with this issue.

I am very pleased to say that this bill will be introduced tomorrow, and I would encourage my colleagues to take a good look at this. Because we are all, all in this together, and this should not be a partisan bill. We see good leadership from John McCain on this over in the Senate and others. We see leaders in renewable technology on the Republican side of the aisle here in the House. And we are hoping as time goes on we will adopt a bipartisan vision along the way of the new Apollo Energy Project. America deserves it. We are up to it.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 7 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, June 9, 2005, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I come to speak for life, life for people with diabetes, life for people with Parkinson's, life for people with damaged hearts.

What possible benefit is it for life to discard these cells without allowing them to be used to bring life, to save life, to preserve life? If these cells have any future, it is through curing disease. If Members wish to give them life, then let them give life to others. This is their only hope, and it is our best hope.

Dr. Connie Davis, the medical director of University of Washington's Kidney and Kidney-Pancreas Transplant Program, put this discussion in perspective when I was talking to her yesterday. She reminded me that the donation of a kidney used to be a controversial issue in this country. It is no longer so.

Our bill allows donors of these stem cells to make a donation decision, a donation to research. A narrow segment of our Nation did not stop lifesaving kidney donations, and a narrow segment should not stop embryonic stem cell research. Healing is a moral thing to do.

I met a man at the Transplant Association the other day. He and his wife had, in fact, had an in vitro fertilization. He had other additional embryos that were available. He wanted to make those available to cure people with diabetes and Parkinson's disease, and he had one thing he asked me. He said to me, Let me and my wife make that moral judgment, not the 435 strangers who know nothing about my moral interior values or my life.

That is an American right to donation. We should preserve it and pass this bill.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) has addressed the serious ramifications of abandoning this bipartisan policy regarding reprocessing; but there is another evil that this amendment will fix, and that is an evil that, again, trying to go back to America's commitment not to do interim storage, that we made on a bipartisan basis back in 1990. We made a very conscious, bipartisan decision not to try to stick these communities with the misnomer of interim storage.

Interim storage of radioactive waste in America is sort of like the interim pyramids of Egypt: they tend to stay around a long time. There is nothing interim about this effort to put this in the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, a place where we had 450 million gallons of radioactive waste already leaking with a plume potentially heading to the Columbia River. It is now the largest cleanup site, one of, if not the, in America, and yet we intend to put more radioactive waste if this amendment is not adopted potentially at Hanford.

Why would we do this? This is sort of like coal is to New Castle when you send radioactive material to Hanford, which is the very place we are trying to clean up. This is the last place we ought to be sticking these repositories, not the first place.

I have to object to this being done in report language with no hearings, with no chance for the public to have input into this major decision of our nuclear policy. This is a distortion of how we have tried to make bipartisan policy about these very sensitive issues, and this is why we need to pass this amendment. By the way, this is not just Hanford. It is going to be driving by your neighborhoods on its way to these three interim sites.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I met with a group of folks who are urging the House to allow commonsense, reasonable stem cell, embryonic stem cell research to continue. I talked to Dr. Charles Murray of the University of Washington Cardiovascular Regenerative Biology Center, who told us that this research some day could repair damaged hearts.

I talked to Dr. Tony Blau, a hematologist at the University of Washington, who said that they had to put some research on the shelf because of these restrictive rules that President

Bush's administration has placed on this research.

I talked to Dr. Connie Davis, who works with kidney and liver transplantees, who told us about the potential that this research could bring for the health of citizens, who said, why can people not make their own decisions? When you donate a kidney or you donate embryonic cells, she said, it should be the same thing.

We should pass, tomorrow, a commonsense measure that removes these restrictions that put handcuffs on our researchers right now where we are falling behind the rest of the country. Folks who have diabetes and Parkinson's know what is at stake tomorrow. Let us pass the bill.