Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) for not only his extraordinary and courageous service to our Nation in uniform, but for his ongoing service to our country in bringing this important legislation to the floor of the Congress. I also want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary on which I have the privilege of serving. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) continues to provide leadership that reflects the values

of the overwhelming majority of the American people to this Congress. By entertaining this legislation and bringing this debate again to the floor, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) demonstrates the quality of that leadership again.

After surviving the bloodiest battle since Gettysburg, a platoon of Marines trudged up Mount Suribachi on Sulfur Island with a simple task: to raise an American flag above the devastation below. When the flag was raised by Sergeant Mike Strank and his makeshift squad, history records that a thunderous cheer arose from our troops on land and sea, in foxholes and on stretchers, across Iwo Jima and its surrounding waters. Hope was returned to that battlefield when the American flag began flapping in the wind.

Mr. Speaker, it was written long ago: ``Without a vision, the people perish.'' That day, on Mount Suribachi, the flag was the vision that inspired and rallied our troops; and that flag, Mr. Speaker, is still that vision for every American who cherishes those who stood ready, and this day stand ready, to make the sacrifices necessary to defend freedom.

By adopting the flag protection amendment, I humbly offer that we will raise Old Glory one more time. We will raise her above the decisions of a judiciary that was wrong on our law and our history and our traditions. We will raise the flag above the cynicism of our times. We will say to my generation of Americans, those most unwelcome of words: there are limits. Out of respect for those who serve beneath it and those who died within the sight of it, we must say that there are boundaries necessary to the survival of freedom.

C.S. Lewis said: ``We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.'' Mr. Speaker, let us this day cease to laugh at honor. Let us elevate out of dishonor our unique national symbol to its rightful place. Let us pass this amendment to restore to Old Glory the modest protections of the law she so richly deserves.

Madam Speaker, human cloning is coming. Despite ominous developments in South Korea and in laboratories across the land, last week, the House Committee on Appropriations rejected, by a narrow margin, a thoughtful amendment authored by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon). The Weldon cloning amendment would essentially prohibit any entity, institution, private or public, from receiving NIH funds if that entity engages in human cloning for research or reproductive purposes.

While that amendment failed, human cloning continues to advance, and the breakthrough in this unethical and morally questionable science is around the corner.

Now is the time for Congress to act. On two separate occasions, Congress has enacted the Weldon-Stupak cloning ban by a 60 percent-plus bipartisan majority. And the time is now, after last week's disappointing vote in the Committee on Appropriations, with the Labor- HHS bill headed to the floor, now is the time, this summer, to once again bring a human cloning ban to the floor and enacted into law.

Mr. Speaker, 1 week ago the House Committee on the Judiciary convened a memorable hearing on the PATRIOT Act. Members of the Democratic minority called the hearing. All of the witnesses at the hearing opposed the PATRIOT Act, and, in fact, broadly opposed administration action. Since I was there, I can say with authority, throughout a contentious hearing the Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), was tough, fair and respectful to Members and witnesses regardless of their point of view.

Now, some have called the hearing undemocratic. Well, there were hard issues, strong disagreements, but they were debated under the rules fairly administered. Undemocratic? Hardly. This was democracy at work.

I commend the chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for his leadership of the Committee on the Judiciary and am proud to serve on it.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today with an amendment that I believe brings fairness and common sense to the United Nations and specifically to the administration of the Security Council.

The Security Council is tasked with some of the most difficult decisions in the United Nations. Of the 15 member states that serve on the council, only five have veto power. These nations are China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Mr. Chairman, let me say at the outset, I realize the United States has the largest economy in the world. We pay more in assessed dues to the United Nations than any other member state, but I do not believe that all nations are able to pay equally to the U.N. However, those member states, I would humbly offer today, that serve as permanent members on the Security Council with veto power should be assessed equally balanced dues to the United Nations.

Where I grew up down south of Highway 40 we have an old saying that you have got to pay to play; but that is not the way it really works at the United Nations, at least with regard to the veto power of the Security Council.

The United States, for instance, was assessed dues in the last year of approximately $440 million, 22 percent of the U.N.'s total assessment. China, a country home to over 1 billion people, with a rapidly growing economy, was assessed dues of $36.5 million or 2.1 percent of the U.N. assessment.

Let me say again, the United States' $440 million, 22 percent of the U.N.'s assessment; and China, a voting member with veto power on the Security Council, paid just $36 million, less than 10 percent, and with only 2.1 percent of the U.N.'s assessment.

The Pence amendment today would direct the President of the United States to have the United States' permanent representative to the U.N. use the voice vote and influence of the United States to make every effort to ensure that the difference between the scale of assessments of the five permanent members of the Security Council is not greater than five times that of any other permanent member of the Security Council.

In addition to that, if the Secretary of State determines a permanent member of the Council with veto power is not in compliance with that requirement, the President could direct the U.S. permanent representative of the U.N. to use his voice vote and influence to make every effort to deny such permanent member the use of veto power.

Not only does common sense and fairness argue for the Pence amendment, but there are serious issues that will come before the Security Council

in the immediate future. For instance, China is, in many respects, acting on the global scene contrary to U.S. interests. Recently China state-owned oil companies began massive investments in Iran's energy sector. This is in direct violation of the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. In the event serious decisions have to be made on the Security Council on U.N. sanctions against Iran, China and Russia, who have complicated relationships with Iran, are almost certainly to veto any measure. They can play, but they do not have to pay.

If China and Russia will have an equal right to veto tough action at the Security Council, should they not also, Mr. Chairman, have an equal obligation to support the work of the United Nations in the form of dues?

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Pence amendment to bring justice and fairness and common sense to the assessment of dues at the United Nations.

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

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

Colleagues, there is an old saying south of Highway 40: You have to pay to play. Having an equal veto on the Security Council when the United States pays ten times what China pays is unfair to the American people. It is unjust, and it defies logic. The Pence amendment will amend this inequity.

If China and Russia will have the equal right to veto tough action at the Security Council level, they should also have the equal obligation to support the work of the United Nations in the form of dues.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to pass and accept the Pence amendment, and I thank the gentleman from California for his gracious acceptance, compliments, and leadership.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am a proud original cosponsor of the Henry J. Hyde U.N. Reform Act, and I rise today in support of the rule and with a profound sense of gratitude for the leadership that my mentor and friend, Henry J. Hyde of Illinois, has provided on this bill and throughout an illustrious career in this Congress. I also want to commend for what I know will be a vigorous debate that has already begun the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his thoughtful consideration of this bill.

One of the extraordinary things about this debate as it unfolds before the American people, Mr. Speaker, is the degree of agreement between the two men that I just mentioned. It is a rare piece of legislation indeed where there is so much agreement about the goals. But I believe what will become apparent to any observer of this debate is that we are not so much arguing over the ends as the means, and that is a legitimate argument that will be, I believe, a great service to the country. The United Nations is desperately in need of fundamental reform, and the Henry J. Hyde U.N. Reform Act does just that.

In 1994, staffers at UNICEF's Kenya office defrauded and squandered up to $10 million by some estimates. In the Congo last year, U.N. peacekeepers and civilian personnel stand accused of widespread sexual exploitation. And we all know of the $10 billion Oil-for-Food scandal. Both sides agree it is time for reform in the wake of years of mismanagement and outright scandal. But I submit humbly that it is time for U.N. reform with teeth, and that is precisely what the Hyde U.N. Reform Act provides. It focuses on budgets, streamlining, prioritization of programs, oversight, accountability, peacekeeping, and human rights. But the Hyde bill also uses the leverage of withholding up to 50 percent of U.S. assessed dues if certifications are not made in key areas.

Under the Hyde bill, the U.N. must achieve 32 of 39 reforms, 14 of which are mandatory, or face the potential loss of 50 percent of U.S. assessed dues. Let us be clear. This is the point of contention, Mr. Speaker, that is, who controls the power of the purse. I submit at the beginning of this debate that the power of the purse is the power of the American people. It is not for the State Department or even the Secretary of State to say when and how the resources of the American people will be spent. That is the function of the Congress of the United States even where the United Nations is concerned. It is time to save the U.N. from its own scandals and mismanagement. It is time for U.N. reform with teeth.

Let us begin the debate. Then let us pass the Henry J. Hyde U.N. Reform Act.

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

I rise for a few brief moments to speak on behalf of title VI of this bill which calls for far-reaching reforms in the areas of planning, management, conduct and accountability of peacekeeping operations within the United Nations. It does, as the gentleman from California said quite accurately, it does involve some tough love and the potential for withholding support for the creation of new or expanded peacekeeping missions if the U.N. does not implement the most basic yet critically important reforms that are called for.

As I have said before, the power of the purse is the power of the American people. While title IV of the peacekeeping reforms of this bill do not cut peacekeeping funds, they do withhold the expansion of any U.S. involvement in peacekeeping operations if these reforms are not enacted.

The need for the reforms are obvious. The Congo in this last calendar year, U.N. peacekeepers and civilian personnel stand accused of widespread sexual exploitation of refugees in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

In Eritrea in 2005, U.N. peacekeeping staff ran up more than $500,000 of unpaid international calls.

In Burundi in 2004, two U.N. peacekeepers were suspended following allegations of sexual misconduct.

In Sierra Leone in 2003, U.N. peacekeepers were accused by Human Rights Watch of systematic rape of women, and the list goes on and on and on.

The need for reform is real. I am pleased to say there is broad agreement about the need for reform. In fact, the United Nations Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations has endorsed specifically all seven of the reforms that are included in this legislation. In fact, those reforms have been endorsed by Prince Zeid of Jordan, the Secretary General's special advisor on sexual exploitation and abuse, and all but one, the signature of an oath, have already been adopted by the U.N. special committee.

According to officials at the U.N., most of these reforms are expected to be in place by the end of July 2005. Five of the peacekeeping reforms under this title are linked to immediate withholding of support for new and expanded missions. They are: the adoption of a uniform code of conduct; the training of peacekeeping personnel on that code of conduct; the signature of an oath to abide by the code of conduct; design of programs to explain prohibited acts to host populations so there would be greater accountability for the behavior of peacekeepers; and the creation of a centralized database to track these areas of misconduct.

Once again I say that officials at the U.N. believe that most of these reforms will be in place in a matter of weeks, so it is difficult to understand how requiring these reforms before any additional U.S. missions are approved under peacekeeping operations is a little hard to understand.

Two additional reforms are equally critical, but may require more time to implement: the adoption of a model memorandum of understanding; and the establishment of an independent investigative audit that functions for peacekeeping missions.

These are all part and parcel of restoring the credibility of the good work that U.N. peacekeepers have done throughout the past 60 years, and it is central to the principle of the Henry J. Hyde U.N. Reform Act that we stand, even with tough love, for the idea that we use the power of the purse, which is the power of the American people, in this case the threat of withholding additional missions to the United Nations under peacekeeping operations to demand that these necessary reforms are implemented.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, in 1994, staffers at UNICEF's Kenya office defrauded or squandered up to $10 million. In the Congo in the last year, U.N. peacekeepers and civilian personnel stand accused of widespread sexual exploitation of refugees of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and a $10 billion oil-for-food scandal. Mr. Speaker, it is time for U.N. reform with teeth. It is time for the Henry J. Hyde U.N. Reform Act.

In the Hyde bill, this Congress will bring about a new prioritization of programs, increased accountability and oversight, and strengthen human rights institutions within the body. Under the Hyde bill, the U.N. must meet 32 of 39 reforms, 14 of which are mandatory, or they face the potential consequences of a 50 percent reduction in U.N. assessed dues in the very near future.

It is time to save the U.N. from scandals and mismanagement. It is time for U.N. reform with teeth. Let us pass tomorrow the Henry J. Hyde U.N. Reform Act.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in strong agreement with the sentiment expressed by the gentleman from New Jersey and our colleagues who have spoken in this Special Order, and I especially want to commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) for being one of the singular and most effective voices about the truth about the United Nations in the 21st century on Capitol Hill, and I appreciate his leadership in organizing this Special Order today.

As a member of the newly organized Subcommittee on Oversight for the United Nations, I am especially grateful to have an opportunity to speak and to do so specifically, as the gentleman has requested, about legislation that we on the Committee on International Relations reported, literally just hours ago, when, by a very close vote, and what was I think an extraordinary and civil and thoughtful debate, the Committee on International Relations produced U.N. reform with teeth.

The Henry Hyde U.N. Reform Act of 2005, we believe, will come to the floor of this Congress next week, and it will represent, in sum total, the most significant effort by the people of the United States of America to reform and amend this half-century-old institution. And that is the intention and the purpose of what, when it was introduced with the authorship of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and my singular cosponsorship, the Hyde/Pence bill purposes to do.

The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that if the United Nations did not exist as a forum for international deliberation, we would very likely have to invent it. The United Nations, not as a world government, but as a world deliberative forum, serves an important role. But because of years of mismanagement, mindless bureaucracy, and, as the gentleman has spoken with force and authority today, profound corruption, this institution's vitality and survival in the 21st century is at risk without fundamental reform. And that is precisely what the Henry Hyde U.N. Reform Act brings.

But I say very carefully and directly, this is not a bill that provides an outline for reform of the United Nations with, if I can speak plainly, the United States providing virtually a third of the funding for this institution and then saying, we think these are good ideas for reform; we sure hope you do too. This is U.N. reform with teeth.

In fact, we use a variety of methods of leverage in the United Nations Reform Act of 2005, but that which has caught the most notice is the potential withholding of 50 percent of U.S. assessed dues if certifications are not made in the critical areas of reform that are described. Those areas include budgeting. The Hyde legislation urges the shifting of 18 programs from regular assessed budget authority to voluntary funded programs that will be a great deal more accountable in the process.

On the subject of accountability, the Hyde legislation mandates the creation of an independent oversight board with broad investigative authority through the Office of Internal Oversight Services, what will come to be known as

the OIOS, will have the authority to initiate investigations into mismanagement and wrongdoing and establish procedures to protect U.N. employees or contractors who serve in a whistleblowing capacity.

In the area of human rights, the U.N. Reform Act also has a get-tough policy mandating that the United Nations adopt criteria for membership on any human rights policy within the institution. Under these criteria, countries that fail to uphold the universal declaration of human rights would be ineligible for membership. Now, this may come as a shock to any that are looking in today, Mr. Speaker, but that is not required today. There are countries who participate in human rights forums in the United Nations that do not uphold the universal declaration of human rights. We say that should not be the case.

And in the area of peacekeeping, where there have been such extraordinary scandals of late, children, little girls, 10, 11 and 12 years of age being sexually molested by blue-helmeted U.N. peacekeepers, which photographs record being made of the molestation and then the trafficking of those records, there are fundamental reforms in the Hyde legislation that would mandate a single and enforceable uniform code of conduct for all personnel serving in peacekeeping missions.

And there is a strict mandate that the criteria of the commission on peacekeeping reform that was adopted by the United Nations, that the five criteria and objectives be implemented in the immediate before any additional peacekeeping operations can be authorized by the President of the United States.

I want to yield back to the gentleman from New Jersey because there will be ample time on the floor next week, I believe, when the U.N. Reform Act comes to this floor, to unpack it for the American people. But it is, in a very real sense, an opportunity to take that information that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) is leading on to the floor today and who has been such a champion of, taking the truth about the U.N. and saying, here is the proper response of the American people.

As I close, let me say that one response could simply be the American people, through their elected representatives, could profoundly reduce our participation financially in the United Nations. And it is important to say that the U.N. Reform Act keeps funding level. There is no reduction in funding by the people of the United States of America to the United Nations in the U.N. Reform Act. There is a potential for as much as a 50 percent reduction in assessed dues if the United Nations, through its membership and internal organs, does not fundamentally adopt and implement reform in the next 2 to 3 years.

It is U.N. reform with teeth, and for all of the reasons that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) effectively brings to the floor today, the Henry Hyde U.N. Reform Act of 2005 is an idea whose time has come.

I yield back with gratitude to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Madam Speaker, as the largest financial contributor to the United Nations, the American people have every right to demand accountability and transparency at the U.N. and the U.N. Reform Act introduced by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and humbly coauthored by myself will be marked up today in the Committee on International Relations and does just that.

To restore the credibility of this world forum, we have to have real reform: in budgeting, oversight, peacekeeping, and human rights. The Hyde/Pence bill authorizes a variety of methods of leverage to enact reforms, including the withholding of 50 percent of U.S.-assessed dues if certifications are not made in key areas.

The U.N. plays a vital role in the world, but it cannot do so if it is bogged down in bureaucracy and scandal. Hyde/Pence provides a vision for U.N. reform and the tough incentives to accomplish it. Hyde/Pence is U.N. reform with teeth, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, with Memorial Day 2005 just around the corner, men and women in Congress are hurrying home for festivities like those that we will enjoy in Indiana. This Sunday, the Indianapolis 500 Mile Race will draw half a million people. But it will not be the most important occasion of this long family weekend, because Hoosiers will gather in places like New Castle and Muncie and Elwood, Indiana, to commemorate this Memorial Day.

I could not help but think about the obligations of this day as I toured the battlefield of Antietam, near Sharpsburg, Maryland, just last weekend. There, Mr. Speaker, I walked on the ground that saw 6,000 Americans fall in battle in a single day, the bloodiest day in American history. Six thousand Americans at Antietam would turn into 600,000 Americans on both sides of the battle that fell in the Civil War.

Just 3 years after the end of that conflict, Americans set aside the 30th day of May each year to remember their sacrifice, and for 130 years, Decoration Day became Memorial Day, and it is something that we take seriously in the Hoosier State, as it will be taken seriously in every State in this Union.

The Bible says, If you owe debts, pay debts; if honor, then honor; if respect, then respect. I rise humbly as the Congressman from the Sixth District of Indiana to pay a debt of respect and honor to those men who have fallen most recently in the service of this Nation in my congressional district.

These are men like Sergeant Jeremy Wright, who died January 3, 2005, when an improvised explosive device struck his military vehicle. He was 31 and a part of the Special Forces group from Fort Lewis.

Master Sergeant Mike Hiester died March 26, 2005, when his military vehicle also struck a land mine 30 miles west of Kabul, Afghanistan. He was 33, from Bluffton, Indiana, survived by his brave wife, Dawn, and two small children. He was with the 76th Infantry Brigade, Army National Guard, Indianapolis. Both men fell in Operation Enduring Freedom.

In Operation Iraqi Freedom we remember Lance Corporal Matthew Smith, who died May 10, 2003, in a vehicle accident in Kuwait, age 20, from Anderson, Indiana. He was a Reservist assigned to Detachment 1, Communications Company, 4th Force Service Support Group, Peru, Indiana.

Private Shawn Pahnke was killed June 16, 2003, by a sniper while on patrol. He was 25, of Shelbyville, Indiana. He was with the 1st Battalion, 37th Armored Regiment, 1st Armored Division, Friedberg, Germany.

Specialist Chad Keith who was killed July 7, 2003, in Iraq, when a roadside bomb exploded as his unit patrolled the streets of Baghdad. He was 21, from Batesville, Indiana. He was with Company D, Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

Staff Sergeant Frederick Miller, Jr. Fred was killed September 20, 2003, when an IED hit his vehicle. He was 27, from Hagerstown, Indiana, and was with the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Carson, Colorado.

Sergeant Robert Colvill, Jr., was among five soldiers killed 8 July 2004 in Baghdad. All were in the Iraqi National Guard headquarters when it came under mortar attack. He was 31 and from Anderson, Indiana, part of the 1st Infantry Division in Schweinfurt, Germany.

And Specialist Raymond White. Ray died 12 November 2004, in Baghdad, when his patrol was attacked with small arms fire. Ray was 22 and from Elwood, Indiana.

It is an honor to serve such men, Mr. Speaker, and it is an honor to rise and to pay some debt of honor and recognition to these brave men and their families.

As we approach this Memorial Day, we do it with humility and no small amount of emotion, knowing that as we read these names, they are more than names. They are sons, they are husbands, they are brothers, they are uncles, they are friends and they are neighbors; and they are gone. Gone perhaps to this world, but I am confident not to the next. Their duty was to serve. Our duty is to remember.

So I rise with a deep spirit of humility simply before this Memorial Day arrives to remember these men; to assure them and all of the tens of thousands who went before them that this Nation will never fail to feel the gratitude for their sacrifice, and on this Memorial Day never fail to pray for them, for the salvation of their immortal souls, and for the comfort of those they left behind.

Happy Memorial Day.

Mr. Speaker, the State of Indiana lost a pillar of the community last week.

On Thursday, May 19, 2005, Cal Brand passed away in the City of Columbus, Indiana, an intimate community in my Congressional District and also my hometown. Hundreds of Hoosiers mourned his passing yesterday at the First Presbyterian Church where Cal was an elder, deacon, trustee and Sunday school teacher.

Cal Brand founded, owned and operated Brand Inc. Lumber, a successful venture that led to appointments on the Indiana Lumber & Builders Supply Association, the Indiana Building Congress and the National Lumber and Building Materials Dealers Association.

In his role as a member of the Columbus Area Chamber of Commerce, Cal received both the Community Service award and the Small Businessman of the Year award. He was also a member of various service organizations including the Kiwanis Club and the Columbus Foundation for Youth.

In his respected political life, Cal Brand carried himself in a gentle manner, all while advising Hoosier Governors, U.S. Senators and President Ronald Reagan. He even served as an elected official on the Columbus City Council in 1955 and in the Indiana House of Representatives from 1966-1970.

Cal Brand's confidence and wisdom was outshone only by his gentle nature and humble attitude. He is the perfect example of a good businessman and citizen. The kind of person every community needs.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the City of Columbus, I extend heartfelt sympathies to the family of Cal Brand, specifically his wife Betty, his daughter Joan of New Jersey; his sons the Rev. D. Calvert Brand of Martinsville and John S. Brand and Jesse R. Brand, both of Columbus; and his seven grandchildren and eight great-grandchildren.

Living in Columbus, Indiana, means making a commitment to getting involved and improving the community in which you live. Cal Brand embodied that allegiance to his Columbus. He will be deeply missed, and his generosity will never be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I have enormous respect for the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and for the sincerity of his purpose in bringing forward legislation today that would fund the destruction of human embryos for the purpose of scientific research with Federal tax dollars.

Mr. Speaker, I am not a scientist. I do know that there have been more than 60 successful treatments using adult stem cells; there have been zero treatments developed using embryonic stem cells.

But let us be clear today about this debate. Embryonic stem cell research today, despite my objection and the objection of tens of millions of pro-life Americans, embryonic stem cell research is legal in America today. It goes on using private dollars every day. The debate on the floor today that the gentleman from Delaware just referred to, his legislation has to do with using Federal tax dollars to fund research that involves the destruction of human embryos. I believe it is morally wrong to destroy human embryos for the purposes of research, but I believe it is

doubly morally wrong to force millions of pro-life Americans to see their tax dollars used to support research that they find morally offensive.

Let the debate begin.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for his visionary legislation, the Stem Cell Research Act.

There is such enormous promise, Mr. Speaker, in adult stem cell research, the ethical research that has been under way for decades and has produced to date treatments to nearly 67 diseases including sickle cell, leukemia, osteoporosis, just to name a few.

Even last October, a Korean woman who had been paralyzed for 19 years took a few steps for reporters in Seoul with the aid of a walker and ethical adult cord blood stem cells injected into her spine.

I just spoke today to a young man in my congressional district who was injured last Saturday night and now faces a lifetime in a wheelchair. I can tell you, having spoken to his parents, I would do anything to help that brave young man out of that chair. I would do anything except fund the destruction of human embryos for research.

President Kennedy said: ``To lead is to choose'' and today Congress will choose and should choose to promote ethical healing by adopting the Stem Cell Research Act, to prevent the erosion of the principle that all human life, even embryonic human life, is sacred.

Say ``yes'' to ethical adult stem cell research and ``no'' to funding the destruction of human embryos for scientific advancement.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in respectful opposition to this sincerely conceived, but ill-founded, legislation known as Castle-DeGette, a bill that authorizes the use of Federal tax dollars to fund the destruction of human embryos for scientific research.

As we begin this debate, I am confident we will hear the supporters of this bill argue in the name of President Ronald Reagan, that somehow this research is consistent with his long-held views on the sanctity of life. But it was Ronald Reagan who wrote: ``We cannot diminish the value of one category of human, the unborn, without diminishing the value of all human life.''

The supporters will also argue that this is a debate between science and ideology, that destroying human embryos for research is necessary to cure a whole host of maladies, from spinal cord injuries to Parkinson's. But the facts suggest otherwise.

As Members will hear to date, embryonic stem cell research has not produced a single medical treatment, where ethical adult cell research has produced some 67 medical miracles. Physicians on our side of the aisle will make the case for the ethical alternative of adult stem cell research, and Congress today has already voted to greatly expand funding in this area.

But the debate over the legitimacy or the potential of embryonic stem cell research is actually not the point of this debate. We are here simply to decide whether Congress should take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use them to fund the destruction of human embryos for research. This debate is really not about whether embryonic stem cell research should be legal. Sadly, embryonic stem cell research is completely legal in this country and has been going on at universities and research facilities for years.

The proponents of this legislation do not just want to be able to do embryonic stem cell research. They want me to pay for it. And like 43 percent of the American people in a survey just out today, I have a problem with that.

You see, I believe that life begins at conception and that a human embryo is human life. I believe it is morally wrong to create human life to destroy it for research, and I further believe it is morally wrong to take the tax dollars of millions of pro-life Americans who believe, as I do, that human life is sacred, and use it to fund the destruction of human embryos for research.

This debate then is not really about what an embryo is. This debate is about who we are as a Nation, not will we respect the sanctity of life, but will we respect the deeply held moral beliefs of nearly half of the people of this Nation who find the destruction of human embryos for scientific research to be morally wrong.

Despite what is uttered in this debate today, I say again, this debate is not about whether we should allow research. This debate is not about whether we should allow research that involves the destruction of human embryos. This debate is about who pays for it, and it is my fervent hope and prayer as we stand at this crossroads between science and the sanctity of life that we will choose life.

This morning on Capitol Hill I was surrounded by dozens of ``snowflake babies,'' some 81 children who were born from frozen embryos, the throw-away material we will hear about today. As I spoke over the cries and cooing of those little fragile lives, I could not help but think of the ancient text: ``I have set before you life and Earth, blessings and curses, now choose life so that you and your children may live.''

Let this Congress choose life and reject Federal funding for the destruction of human embryos for research.

Mr. Speaker, in the coming days Congress will consider legislation to make taxpayer dollars available for what is known as embryonic stem cell research, setting the case for an imminent Presidential veto.

In 2001, President Bush made the moral dimensions of scientific testing on human embryos clear. These are the principles.

It is morally wrong to create human life to destroy it for research. Also, it is morally wrong to take the tax dollars of millions of pro- life Americans

and use them to finance research that they find morally objectionable.

The choice of our time was described millennia ago: See I set before you blessings and curses, life and death. Now choose life that you and your children may live.

I urge my colleagues to stand for the sanctity of life at every level. Stand with President George W. Bush. Reject taxpayer funding of human embryo research.