R	mr. chairman , i rise today in support of h.r. 27 , the job training improvement act .  through local and state workforce investment boards , this legislation will strengthen job training programs to meet the needs of local businesses , many of which rely heavily on information technology , it .  in the span of just two decades , information technology has become a commonplace part of our lives and has also created nearly 10 million jobs in the united states .  information technology is a factor in the productivity and success of many different sectors of our economy .  whether one is an auto mechanic , a dentist , or a farmer , it skills are essential -- and will be increasingly essential -- to one 's job performance and productivity .  simply put , the it industry and its workforce are significant contributors to productivity , innovation and global competitiveness .  it is for this reason , mr. chairman , that the committee report encourages states to examine whether providers of training offer the opportunity to obtain an industry-developed and maintained certification or credential .  this is important , in as much as it recognizes that the industries themselves are the most qualified to determine what skills their workforce will need to succeed and excel .  this is especially true with respect to the constantly changing and ever-evolving it industry .  through certification , individuals receive validation of a level of expertise .  this , in turn , can increase an individual 's ability to find and retain a good job that utilizes that training .  employers also benefit when certification assures a level of skill that an individual could bring to a job .  the success of wia in expanding the computer skills of americans -- through training and certification -- will improve the productivity of every sector of our economy .  this in turn will make america more competitive globally and is an effective step toward creating good jobs right here in the united states .  
R	mr. speaker , by direction of the committee on rules , i call up house resolution 126 and ask for its immediate consideration .  
R	mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  may i respond simply to the arguments about our veterans because they are so important to us .  let me reiterate that h.r. 27 does not harm worker-retaining programs for veterans .  not one dollar from this account comes that is meant to help veterans with their training .  the programs that we already have in place , specifically the disabled veterans ' outreach program , the local veterans employment representative program , the vocational rehabilitation program , already are required to contribute to the infrastructure of these one-stop career center programs .  any money that would come to the one-stop center would be coming out of their administrative funds , not from the money going directly to the training of veterans .  that is an area that was specifically covered in this bill .  mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield back the balance of my time , and i move the previous question on the resolution .  the previous question was ordered .  
R	mr. speaker , we are going to talk about economic competitiveness in the economy tonight , but before we start on that topic , i just want to draw attention to a couple of things that have appeared in the newspaper and talk about iraq and the middle east .  there is an article that i pulled from the wires today , 2 , 000 demonstrate at an iraqi bombing site , and this is really quite an amazing story , mr. speaker .  this is from baghdad : more than 2 , 000 people demonstrated tuesday at the site of a car bombing south of baghdad that killed 125 people chanting no to terrorism .  mr. speaker , our hearts go out to those individuals and their families , those that have lost their lives , and certainly our hearts continue to go out to the families of each and every man and woman in our military service .  i think we join with every one of them , all of our military families and with all of these iraqis who love freedom and are loving having the opportunity to grasp on to freedom , and we join them in saying no to terrorism and standing strong for freedom .  another article that i saw today from newsday , mr. speaker , some arabs see beginning of a new era , and i think this is very important that we pay attention to this .  one of my colleagues was talking about the headlines that we do not see on some of the national media , some of the leftist media , and i think this one is worthy of a mention .  it was a scene the arab world 's autocratic regimes have dreaded , and through the power of satellite tv , it could catch on as fast as the latest music video .  peaceful , enormous crowds carrying flags and flowers , bringing down a government .  what happened in lebanon this week , analysts say , is the beginning of a new era in the middle east , one in which popular demand pushes the momentum for democracy and people 's will can no longer be disregarded .  mr. speaker , our president has said that would happen .  repeatedly , he talks about how in the heart of every man and woman is the desire to be free and to seek that freedom and to have hope and to have opportunity .  we have all heard our president say freedom is not our gift to the world ; freedom is god 's gift to all people .  it is so appropriate that we acknowledge that freedom , that we appreciate the sacrifice that is there for that freedom because it is through the expansion of that freedom that we enjoy the fruits and the benefits of a free society .  one of those is the opportunity to dream big dreams and have great adventure , have great successes and to see that lived out in our lives .  for many americans , that is the opportunity to reach economic goals ; to build businesses , to have a better life for their family .  and tonight we are going to spend an hour discussing the republican policies about encouraging entrepreneurship and economic growth in this great nation .  we are going to highlight the republican agenda for creating jobs in america .  and it is clear that after battling the recession of 2001 , weathering a terrorist attack cost us billions .  there are even estimates that the cost to the american economy of september 11 and the travesty that took place there was $ 2 trillion , a full quarter of our nation 's productivity for a year .  after fighting an expensive global war on terrorism , being in the middle of that fight , we have faced significant challenges and we have made some very wise decisions .  over the past couple of years , despite very heavy criticism from some of our colleagues and from the tax-and-spend liberals , we , as a congress , have made tax cuts , have reduced the tax burden that the american people are paying .  mr. speaker , it is certainly something that i know , as millions of americans tonight are sitting down at their kitchen tables with pencil and paper and beginning to look at those forms , filling out their federal income tax filings , that they are noticing the difference that the tax cuts we have passed are making in their lives .  certainly in tennessee , i know there are tennesseeans noticing for the first time in 20 years that they have the opportunity to deduct the sales tax they are paying from their federal income tax filing .  it is amazing to me , and should be troubling to many americans , that many across the aisle had the audacity to oppose this tax relief we have passed .  they have opposed making some of these cuts and reductions .  we are trying to be certain that the american public has more money in their pocketbook ; that they have the opportunity to decide how to spend that money ; and that they have the opportunity to grow those businesses .  we have known that small businesses and working families need tax relief , and we have fought hard to make that happen so that we see the opportunity right there for our economy , for the growth in our economy , for the opportunity for competitiveness not on just a local scale , not just on a local scale , but on a global scale .  mr. speaker , our support for tax relief has been vindicated , and we see that in the economic figures that are out there .  this past week we found the economy grew faster than expected in the last few months of 2004 .  they revised the growth estimate up from 3.1 to 3.8 .  and for a lot of folks who are economic news junkies , they know that 3.8 is a pretty good rate .  for those that are casual listeners , that is something we can be proud of , and we can talk about that .  a 3.8 percent growth is very substantial .  in february , we had the twenty-first consecutive month , that is twenty-first consecutive months , of increased economic activity in the manufacturing sector .  i want to be certain everybody hears and understands that : twenty-first months of consecutive increases in economic activity in the manufacturing sector .  that is nearly 2 years of growth .  i think that is absolutely outstanding .  for some of the tool and die manufacturers that are in my district , from some of the manufacturers that we see of various component parts , of items that are being created , how exciting that they are seeing growth ; that they are seeing growth in their jobs that they have right there in these local communities .  and that is not all of it .  the overall economy grew for the fortieth , that is 4-0 , the fortieth consecutive month in february .  that is more than 3 years of solid economic expansion .  mr. speaker , these are figures that are hard to argue with .  that 3.8 percent was our economic growth .  that got revised up for the last quarter of 2004 .  we have had twenty-first consecutive months of increases in productivity in the manufacturing sector .  we have had 40 consecutive months of overall economic growth .  that means something is working right .  something is working right .  tax relief was needed , and we see that that tax relief is beginning to pay off .  i have another article here .  i had the opportunity to do a little reading over the break , mr. speaker .  this one is from the financial times .  look at this headline : `` u.s. chiefs ' confidence highest in 3 years. '' well , that is a pretty good thing .  the people that are running the companies , the people that are deciding whether to expand , whether to make capital investments , whether to create new jobs , they have a great deal of confidence .  it says here : `` confidence in the economy at the u.s. biggest companies has soared to the highest level in 3 years as increasing numbers plan to spend more on capital investment. '' well , who would have thunk ?  you never would have thought that was happening if you were listening to some of our friends across the aisle .  because they do not want to talk about the good news .  they do not want to talk about 21 straight months of manufacturing gains , 4-0 , 40 consecutive months of overall economic growth .  here is one that describes the results as `` extremely positive '' ; another one , talking about capital investments by business , `` are the best indicators of growth at this stage of recovery , '' and that this bodes well for the economy .  now , mind you , these are not small businesses .  these are big companies .  so we are seeing it with our small businesses , and we are seeing it with some of our new companies .  republicans believe that government must remove the obstacles to growth .  and it does not matter if you are a big or small company , it does not matter if you are an entrepreneur , it does not matter if you are new or some of our wonderful companies that have been there for 100 years .  we have to get rid of some of the obstacles .  and though some of our folks do not like to talk about rolling back taxes , rolling back those taxes is removing an obstacle .  another obstacle is the high cost of compliance with those taxes .  another obstacle is onerous regulation that comes from some of our federal agencies .  well , what do you know .  when you start rolling that back , making the system easier to comply with , american entrepreneurs expand and they create jobs .  that is something , is it not ?  get the government out of the way , and you are going to see free enterprise go do what they are geared up to do , do what they are best at doing , do what they dream about doing , what they spend their lives trying to figure out how to do : how to create jobs , how to build a better mousetrap , how to get out there and sell that better mousetrap to people that are ready to buy improved products .  it is a great system .  the way this economy works is something to get excited about , and i am thrilled that we have had the opportunity to see this kind of economic growth .  mr. speaker , i am joined here on the floor tonight by one of my colleagues , a gentleman from the freshman class i served in in the 108th congress , the gentleman from iowa ( mr. king )  .  he knows a lot about how the economy works .  he is a small businessman , a farmer , and he does a lot of thinking when he gets out there on that tractor , and he brings a lot of wisdom to this chamber .  
R	mr. speaker , as we talk about the economy and talk about the need to have an economic renaissance , to see this continue .  as i said earlier , we have had 40 consecutive months of economic growth .  a lot of times women do not look forward to that 40th birthday , but when we talk about the 40th month of economic growth , that is certainly a date that we want to celebrate .  the gentleman from iowa ( mr. king ) mentioned tax reform and the cost of 22 cents of every dollar of manufactured good in this nation being eaten up by compliance , and the importance of us having a wonderful debate about how we lower that cost so that every sector of our economy is going to see greater productivity and is going to see growth .  we know that working on our tax reform issues , working on tort reform issues to eliminate frivolous lawsuits , are going to be a way that we can begin to benefit , that we can see the products that are manufactured here be more competitive in a global marketplace .  as we look at the opportunities for trade in tennessee , for example , where our exports have increased every year for the past 5 years , and we know that does equal jobs .  over the past 2 years , as the gentleman from iowa ( mr. king ) said , we created about 2.7 million new jobs , and that will soon in a couple of months be 1.5 million new jobs per year .  there are a couple of industries that have seen good growth in the past couple of months : apparel , textiles , transportation and equipment , electronic components and equipment , chemicals , industrial and commercial equipment and computers , instruments , photographic equipment , metals , food , wood and wood products .  virtually every state in the union can claim at least one of these industrial sectors .  in fact , one of the things that we have seen about job creation is that in 48 of our 50 states we have seen jobs growth .  that is impressive .  over the past year , 48 of our 50 states have seen jobs growth .  that is why we are beginning to see this 40 months of overall economic growth , 21 straight months where we are seeing increases in the manufacturing sector , and we know all of this means jobs .  it all means jobs that are being created .  we know that there is a lot of work ahead that we need to do to be certain that this economy keeps growing .  mr. speaker , much of our focus this session is going to be on economic growth , economic competitiveness , doing the things that encourage , that create the right environment .  our government does not create jobs , it is this free enterprise system that creates jobs , and doing things so we help create the right investment , focusing on tax reform and trade issues , on regulatory reform and on energy independence .  these are the areas that are going to have a tremendous impact on our economy as it expands .  we will continue to see growth in those sectors .  mr. speaker , i yield to the gentlewoman from north carolina ( ms. foxx )  who is new to us this congress .  the gentlewoman from north carolina ( ms. foxx )  has come to our congress this year and is serving on the committee on education and the workforce .  and much of her focus , even though her ph.d .  is in education , she understands the importance of an educated workforce and lifelong learning and developing the skills that are so necessary to be productive in your job , to be satisfied in your job .  the gentlewoman from north carolina ( ms. foxx )  has some thoughts she would like to share with us tonight on economic competitiveness .  
R	i thank the gentlewoman for bringing her perspective to the debate and for celebrating , allowing us to celebrate with the good people of forsythe county , north carolina , as they welcome 700 new jobs to their area .  how exciting that is , and how exciting for us that we have a program like the workforce development programs that are very successful , that assist in retraining folks .  i know in my 7th congressional district in tennessee , we have seen tremendous success with the workforce development program .  as a matter of fact , we have a program in montgomery county , tennessee , that is really attuned to the needs of our veterans and to our military spouses and our military retirees .  and they are going to be honored later this week for their excellent work that they are doing for jobs retraining , helping people focus on the importance of developing and having that career .  jobs and education , they go hand in hand .  they are very important components of our economic competitiveness , just as tax reform , just as tort reform and the other things that we have discussed this evening .  mr. speaker , at this time i would like to recognize a member of the freshman class , new to us , but with a tremendous amount of experience in his home state of texas where he has been a part of the business community , has served as a judge , and is a skilled legislator .  the gentleman from texas ( mr. gohmert )  is going to speak with us for a few moments about some of the things that are happening in texas as in the process with our economic competitiveness issues .  
R	mr. speaker , i want to thank the gentleman from texas .  and i would like to commend him for meeting with the students and working with the students from grace high school in tyler , texas , and for their study , their caring about the free enterprise system and seeking greater information on that .  how exciting that they are doing that .  you know , mr. speaker , one of the things we are hearing from business schools all across the country , one of the things we are hearing from high schools , from tech schools is that more and more people are saying , i want to be an entrepreneur .  i want to start my own business .  i want to see if i can grab on to that american dream of owning my own company , starting a company , having an idea , watching that idea come to fruition in the form of a company that creates jobs .  and it is so encouraging to me that the republican leadership and our majority in this house is committed to doing the things that are going to be necessary to continue economic growth , long-term sustained economic growth like we have seen over the past 40 months .  i have got another article from washingtonpost.com that i had pulled today .  this one is really interesting .  construction spending rose a strong seven-tenths of a percent in january , a month when generally they are not going to see that kind of increase .  this pushed total construction activity to a record high of just over $ 1 trillion at a seasonally adjusted annual rate and followed an even larger 1.2 percent rise in december .  what we are seeing is confidence and belief and the fact that people believe in the strength of this economy .  we have a freshman member from kentucky ( mr. davis )  who has joined this congress this year .  he is with us for just a few moments to talk about some of the good things that are happening in his state .  
R	i thank the gentleman from kentucky for talking with us a few moments about what he is seeing happening and his desire to see some changes take place here in the policies that we will make , the things that we will implement in this congress , in the 109th congress .  mr. speaker , one of the things that i do a lot and that i had the opportunity to do over the break is to visit with small business owners .  i heard repeatedly from them that what they do not want and what they do not need is more taxes , more regulation , and more government .  we hear them .  the republicans hear them .  this majority hears them .  we understand what they are saying .  unfortunately , i have a lot of colleagues who are not listening to these small business owners .  i think it is important to note , small businesses in america represent over 90 percent of all employers and employ half of all private sector employees .  they pay 44.3 percent of the total u.s. private payroll .  that is our small businesses and entrepreneurs that we have talked about today , the people that are starting businesses , that are creating so many of these jobs .  small businesses generate 60 to 80 percent of the net new jobs growth annually .  that is why it is so important that we carry forth on this commitment to be certain that we have the right environment for an economic renaissance in this country .  small businesses are the nation 's economic engine , and republicans have worked to reduce their tax burden so that they have the ability to create more jobs .  we have passed legislation that will give them more affordable health care options for their employees , association health plans and health savings accounts .  republicans have passed legislation to stem the tide of frivolous lawsuits , and we are continuing to do more on the tort reform issues .  we are planning and continue to work daily on trade and opening foreign markets for american-made goods so that our employers in our local communities have access to markets around the globe , ways that they can place their products before a world that is ready to buy them .  and we are trying to make certain that manufacturers are not being treated unfairly and that they have the opportunity to be competitive in a global marketplace .  republicans want to pass a comprehensive energy policy so that america 's economic growth is not held hostage to foreign energy production .  we want to harness more of our domestic energy .  we believe excessive government growth in spending crowds businesses out of the marketplace .  we know that when there is a need , if government fills that need , then the private or not-for-profit sector does not move in and fill that need .  we know that the growth of government needs to be curtailed so that less of the taxpayers ' money is being required to pay for the government , so that taxpayers keep that money in their pocket .  reducing the size of government is what we have talked about over the past couple of weeks as we have talked about rooting out waste , fraud , and abuse and reducing the size of the federal government .  mr. speaker , we have a plan that will drive economic growth , that will continue to drive economic growth .  we have had 40 months of overall economic growth .  we would like to see another 40 months of economic growth and job creation for americans .  we have had 2.7 million jobs created in just under the past couple of years .  we have 21 months where we have seen manufacturing increases .  we had our last quarter of 2004 with 3.8 percent economic growth .  the fundamental difference between republicans and democrats is that we have a plan to continue to drive economic growth .  and all of our small business owners , myself included , we know the cost that regulation imposes and the importance of rolling back regulation .  among the top complaints that we receive from small business owners has to do with the federal tax code , the cost of compliance .  the gentleman from iowa ( mr. king )  spoke to that earlier .  twenty-two cents of every single dollar of manufactured goods in this nation is spent in compliance .  that is an obstacle that we need to get rid of , and we are committed to working on that .  we know this tax code is overly complicated , it is time-consuming , and it is incredibly frustrating for millions of small business owners in this nation .  that is why republicans are committed to a code that is flatter , that is fairer , and absolutely is simpler not only for individuals but for our nation 's small businesses .  mr. speaker , all over we have got a plan .  it is the better plan .  and we know the problems that are facing our nation 's economy .  we know the problems that are facing this nation 's employers , whether they be small or whether they be large , whether they are small businesses or whether they are big business .  and , mr. speaker , one thing that we know for sure in this 109th congress , we are committed to moving forward on commonsense reforms that will continue to work toward greater effectiveness and greater competitiveness for our nation 's economy .  
R	mr. chairman , i want to thank the gentleman from texas for raising this issue .  data on young adults participating in adult education programs is important information for our committee as well as for the adult education programs and for school districts to keep in mind as we work to raise our high school completion rates .  and it is my understanding that this is information that the department already collects but has not been a focus in program reporting .  
R	mr. chairman , again i want to thank the gentleman for his work on this issue .  i will continue to work with him and the department to ensure that we have the necessary information to carefully monitor the participation of high school-aged students in adult education programs .  
R	mr. chairman , i want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding .  i pledge to work with her and other interested members of the new york delegation during conference on this legislation to identify and remedy any governance problems which new york may have under this bill .  however , it is not clear that the language that the gentlewoman offered in committee that is included in s. 9 fixes the problem in new york and could have other unintended consequences in new york and other states .  so my goal is to ensure that the mandatory partners contribute to the cost of the one-stop infrastructure without causing constitutional problems for states .  and as i suggested , i will continue to work with the gentlewoman to achieve this .  
R	mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. chairman , i yield myself the balance of my time .  mr. chairman , what we have before us is the reauthorization of the workforce investment act .  it was first passed in 1998 .  these one-stop centers that have been created all over the country to help the people gain skills and to increase their skills are a critical part of what we need to do if we are going to have a successful economy over the next 10 , 20 and even 50 years .  what we have done in this reauthorization is tried to make these one-stop centers work even better .  we believe that by consolidating the three separate funding streams , three different sets of employees , three different sets of books , we can gain more flexibility for the local workforce boards and thereby freeing up more dollars to be used to actually train workers .  we believe strongly that the youth services money here ought to be directed for the most part to out of school youth , a population that is vastly underserved and we do that in this bill .  we also believe that faith-based providers , especially in large urban centers , can provide a very necessary outreach to help those who are really needy have an opportunity to get the kind of training and retraining they need to become productive members of our society .  i think what we have here is a very good bill .  and while my friends on the other side of the aisle have some disagreement , i think all of us understand that by and large , this is a good program , that the bill before us is worth the support of my colleagues and i would ask them to do that .  
R	mr. chairman , i yield myself such time as i may consume just to correct the record .  the gentlewoman who just spoke says that we eliminated a preference for veterans in this bill .  the fact is that there is a preference for veterans written into the law .  that has not changed at all .  secondly , the gentlewoman said there are block grants in the underlying bill .  there are no block grants .  as a matter of fact , the targeting of funds to the local workforce boards in this bill is more structured than it is today under current law , so that at least 75 percent of the funds available back to the states must go to the local workforce investment boards .  lastly , the gentlewoman said that we have discrimination in this bill .  i would just remind the gentlewoman that when our predecessors wrote the 1964 civil rights act , they recognized in title vii that religious organizations ought to be protected in their hiring so that they would not be required to hire anybody that shows up , but could , if they wanted to , only hire those people within their faith .  now , if people want to disagree with title vii of the 1964 civil rights act , they certainly have that right .  they may go to the committee on the judiciary and change that law , but let us not try to do it in this bill .  
R	mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. chairman , i yield myself 30 seconds .  title vii of the 1964 civil rights act explicitly says that religious organizations in their hiring can hire people of their own faith .  period .  that is what it says .  it does not say whether you take federal money or you do not take federal money .  it says that a religious organization can take religion into account in terms of their hiring .  period .  
R	mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit .  
R	mr. chairman , i rise in support of h.r. 27 , the job training improvement act , which will reauthorize the workforce investment act ( wia ) -- programs which provide job training for youths , veterans , and seasonal and migrant workers .  for the past six years wia has offered a `` one-stop delivery system '' through which job-seekers have access to labor market information , job counseling , and job training .  in addition , they have access to numerous other federal programs that provide services for job seekers .  with facilities in wilmington , newark , dover and georgetown , the `` one-stop delivery system '' in delaware has proved to be an efficient tool in training individuals for the workforce .  for example , in delaware all of our centers are fully equipped with : internet ready computers , interactive cd-rom tutorials , fax machine to send resume and cover letters to perspective employers , copy machine , telephone resource center with career manuals including reference books .  delaware also runs an internet site where applicants can post resumes , as well as to search a comprehensive database of job openings .  applicants can also allow job scout to search the system for you automatically track wages and trends , training locations and funding available .  it also offers bus schedules , links to newspaper classified ads , child care and related information through the family and workplace connection .  the purpose of highlighting the program in delaware is to provide a real life example of useful it is to have services in one central place .  the bill before us today builds on the efficiency of the `` one-stop delivery '' model by streamlining unnecessary bureaucracy , eliminating duplication , strengthening resource allocation , and improving accountability .  i am pleased that we are able to make reforms that build upon successes , and that will ultimately enhance the ability of adults to access services that lead to employment .  i would also like to briefly touch upon the services that are provided for youth under this bill .  under this legislation youth between the ages of 16 and 24 are eligible for a variety of services geared toward graduating high school or gaining the skills necessary for employment .  the importance of these services can not be overstated to these young adults .  with that , i thank the gentleman from ohio ( mr. boehner ) and the gentleman from california ( mr. mckeon ) , and urge my colleagues to support h.r. 27 .  
D	mr. speaker , the outsourcing of good-paying american jobs to other countries is a crisis that touches every community in the united states .  up to half a million jobs have been outsourced over the past 3 years to countries like china , india , and mexico .  this at a time when there are 8 million americans out of work .  americans now understand that outsourcing negatively impacts every segment of our economy .  not only have 2.7 million jobs been lost in our once-vibrant manufacturing sector since the beginning of this administration but white collar jobs are being offshored as well .  according to one report , 181 , 000 computer jobs will be moved offshore by the end of 2005 .  last year , state and local governments outsourced $ 10 billion of public projects .  what we are witnessing today is a full-scale erosion of the american workforce , with millions seeking skills to improve their current employment situation .  this bill undermines our job training system and our economy alike .  this motion seeks to provide assistance to veterans , provide workers who lost their jobs to outsourcing with job training assistance , allowances to relocate to where they can find work and other forms of income support .  this bill destroys the functioning elements of our job training system .  it does not , quote , improve our delivery of these vital services for unemployed americans .  i urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit .  
D	mr. chairman , i rise today to voice my opposition to this job training improvement act because it does nothing to improve job training in our country .  congress has an opportunity to take the reauthorization of the workforce investment act and address the needs of millions of unemployed americans .  instead , we are presented with a proposal that reduces the impact of job training programs by cutting funding to traditional job training providers such as the veteran 's employment programs and perkins vocational education programs .  this bill also consolidates the adult , dislocated worker and employment service programs and their funding while repealing the wagner peyser act .  wager peyser established the federal performance and accountability standards that ensure our job training programs are quality programs that place able workers in appropriate positions in the workforce .  furthermore , this bill would allow federally funded job training organizations to question a candidate about their religious beliefs .  i 've been a christian all my life .  however , i do not feel it is the place of the federal government or anyone receiving federal funds to question a job candidate about their religious beliefs .  at this time , congress needs to place more resources into workforce training , not reduce job training programs that are successful .  the houston area continues to have an unemployment rate higher than the national average , as does the state of texas .  this bill will slow down the ability of those who need workforce training from getting it , and right now this economy needs all the help it can get .  h.r. 27 is bad public policy and will further slow our efforts to strengthen our economy .  
D	mr. speaker , i yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from illinois ( mr. evans )  .  mr .  evans .  mr. speaker , h.r. 27 , the administration 's job training reauthorization bill , would , among other misguided actions , harm veterans ' employment programs and critical vocational rehabilitation services .  specifically , this bill would permit states to siphon off federal resources from already underfunded veterans ' employment programs that operate under state `` one-stop '' centers .  veterans and disabled job seekers do not deserve this .  mr. speaker , in the 107th congress , we passed in a bipartisan manner the jobs for veterans act , legislation to reorganize , update , and improve these very same veterans ' employment and training programs .  now is not the time for this bipartisan effort to be unraveled .  while our troops are actively engaged in iraq and afghanistan and many others suffering from severe injuries and permanent disabilities , now is not the time to reduce the resources for these critical job training programs .  indeed , we need to give these programs the chance to be effective .  mr. speaker , i understand that states are facing tremendous fiscal challenges due to the harsh economic times , but clearly taking resources from one chronologically underfunded program is not the answer .  the responsible thing for the administration to do , the right thing , would be to adequately support job seekers , especially disabled veterans , as well as to assist the states with infrastructure costs .  mr. speaker , this legislation is not responsible and permits already modest resources intended for the nation 's disabled veterans , all who have served our country , to be further diminished .  i oppose this legislation and urge a `` no '' vote on the underlying legislation .  and as a former marine , i have benefitted from many programs that help veterans with education and training .  as a continuation of those efforts , we must not let these people fall through the cracks that we have in our employment laws .  
D	mr. speaker , on that i demand the yeas and nays .  
D	mr. chairman , reclaiming my time , the chairman is correct .  the department already collects this data and would be able to highlight this information in its annual report to congress with very little additional work .  it is simply a matter of clearly communicating to the department that we would like to see focused information on high school-aged students in adult education reported by race , ethnicity , language proficiency , and program enrollment .  i thank the chairman for continuing to work with me and the department to bring this critical information to the forefront .  
D	mr. chairman , reclaiming my time , i thank the gentleman from ohio ( chairman boehner ) for his comments .  
D	mr. chairman , i rise in opposition to h.r. 27 , the reauthorization of the workforce investment act .  the workforce investment act was one of these pieces of legislation that actually helps people .  it was passed back in 1998 .  unfortunately , this is a step backward as it comes before us today .  the bill now here would create block grants to fund the adult dislocated worker and employment service programs .  and as we know , funding through nearly every past block grant program has led to decreases in funding in just about every education or labor program that was block granted .  in addition , the proposal here would reduce and restrict services for in-school youths .  it would fund one-stop infrastructure by siphoning off funds used to serve veterans and individuals with disabilities ; and importantly , the legislation before us here would allow discrimination in hiring based on individuals 's religious beliefs .  under current religious law , organizations are free to make employment decisions using religious criteria with their own money .  why should we allow organizations to discriminate with taxpayer dollars ?  it really would roll back 40 years of civil rights laws and decades of job training laws as we have heard here today .  the workforce investment act was intended to be about helping hard working americans find jobs and help those who have a job receive training to improve their employment prospects .  this is , i repeat , the kind of legislation that could actually help people .  these one-stop centers have been a success .  but this legislation does not provide adequate authorized funding for them and it changes many of the good features that have been part of the workforce investment act .  we could be closing the skills gap , but unfortunately , the bill does not do that .  it is a step backward from the legislation that was passed in 1998 .  
D	mr. chairman , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. chairman , i rise in strong opposition to this bill .  this bill is nearly identical to the wia bill that passed this house last congress on a near party-line vote .  it was a bad bill then , and it remains a bad bill now .  h.r. 27 represents a missed opportunity to ensure that more , not less , job training happens for the millions who are unemployed or looking to upgrade their skills .  this legislation fails to increase the amount of actual training services that will be provided to unemployed , dislocated , and underemployed workers .  instead , this legislation focuses on moving around and changing the bureaucratic elements of wia without focusing on getting more resources to the consumers of these programs .  h.r. 27 is largely the same proposal backed by the administration for the past 2 years .  just a few weeks ago , president bush spoke to individuals in omaha , nebraska .  there he met a woman in her late 50s who is a mother of three children .  she told him that presently she was working three jobs to ensure she could provide for her family .  the president 's response was the following , and i quote exactly : `` uniquely american , is n't it ?  i mean , that is fantastic that you 're doing that. '' what insensitivity .  is this the attitude of this administration when it comes to the challenges of working adults and families ?  i think this quote from the president speaks for itself .  it will go down in history with marie antoinette 's famous quote : `` let them eat cake. '' mr. chairman , this bill is not going to help this mother of three or the millions of americans seeking job training .  this bill is objectionable for four primary reasons .  first , the bill block-grants the adult worker , dislocated worker , and employment service program .  this effectively repeals the wagner-peyser act and the employment service , the national program used to match job seekers with employment opportunities .  termination of the employment service will translate into higher unemployment and less jobs .  the elimination of the employment service and wagner-peyser marks another example of the republican majority terminating a new deal program .  wagner-peyser was first enacted in june of 1933 in the first term of president franklin delano roosevelt .  it is shameful that we are eliminating a 70-year-old program that has helped so many achieve and maintain work .  in my hometown of flint , michigan , we had two parts of the unemployment office , one where you applied for the unemployment benefits and the other where you went in and were seeking a job and they would put the unemployed and an employer together .  that would be decimated by this bill .  second , h.r. 27 allows governors to siphon off resources currently providing veterans , adult learners , and individuals with disabilities with critical services .  instead of helping vulnerable and needy individuals , these resources would fund infrastructure costs of the one-stop centers .  many of these individuals have nowhere else to turn to receive help , and this bill would exacerbate this problem .  h.r. 27 requires programs which provide these critical services to give up resources , but it also takes away any say over how they are allocated or used .  they no longer will have a voice on the local boards .  we should not be taking funds from these programs .  these lost resources will translate into disruptions and lost opportunities to people who presently rely on these services .  we should provide a separate source of funding for these one-stop centers .  third , the bill allows discrimination in hiring based on religion with wia funds .  the bill turns back the clock on decades of civil rights protections in our job training programs .  this is simply wrong .  focus hope in detroit , michigan , is one of the best , if not the best , job training program in the state of michigan .  focus hope was run until his death by father william cunningham , a classmate of mine in the seminary .  he trained thousands of people in inner-city detroit as a catholic priest assigned by his bishop there , and he did not care whether those who were training people to run a lathe , to do engineering or whatever it was , he did not care whether they were catholic , whether they were protestant , whether they were morman , muslim or had no faith at all .  all he cared was they knew how finally , mr. chairman , h.r. 27 creates personal reemployment accounts which voucherize the job training system and cuts individuals off from other training services .  the money they do not spend to get a job , they can keep and use for any purpose .  workers do not need a bribe to get back to work .  research on similar schemes have proven that pras are not an effective means of providing job training .  mr. chairman , this bill does not respond to the needs of underemployed and unemployed individuals .  it misses an opportunity to improve our job training system .  i urge members to join me in opposing passage of this legislation .  mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	mr. chairman , i yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from washington , d.c .  ( ms. norton )  .  
D	mr. chairman , how much time do i have remaining ?  
D	mr. chairman , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  in summary , i urge a no vote on this bill .  in 1998 , the gentleman from california ( mr. mckeon )  who is a very good friend of mine , we will always remain friends , we have great respect for one another , we wrote a very good bill in 1998 , wia , and i hope we would do likewise this time ; but i find myself unable to support this bill .  the bill , among other things , i do not mean to be harsh , but among other things , encapsulates president bush 's response to the woman in omaha who told him that she was presently working three jobs to ensure that she could provide for her family .  and the president responded , `` uniquely american , is n't it ?  i mean , that is fantastic that you 're doing that. '' mr. chairman , we can do better than that .  
D	yes , i am , mr. speaker , in its current form .  
D	mr. speaker , i urge support for this motion which will address a very urgent problem .  
D	mr. speaker , i demand a recorded vote .  
D	mr. speaker , i demand a recorded vote .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me and leading us in this important subject matter .  i appreciate the opportunity to say a few words .  before getting to the economy , i want to add some remarks to those of the gentlewoman from tennessee 's discussion with regard to the middle east .  i would like to paint this image in the mind of the people in the country .  and that is that as we see people demonstrating in the streets of lebanon , when they have made the pledge that they are not leaving the public arena until they are a government governed by themselves and that they are a free people , that magnificent display that is going on in lebanon today , as i watched that , i looked back through my mind 's eye and i asked myself where i have experienced anything like that before ; where i have seen anything like that in history .  it takes me back to the square in prague , back in the early 1990s , after the berlin wall came down .  that was about november 9 when the wall came down , and it echoed into about 1990 , right before the czechs went to the square and stood there with their keys and rattled their keys in the air .  they stood for freedom , until today they are a free people .  that miracle of freedom that echoed across eastern europe in that time was not something anyone predicted .  yet our president stood just outside this capitol building on january 20 and gave his second inaugural address , and even the liberal news media understood there was a bush doctrine , and that was the doctrine of freedom .  he said in that address : `` if you stand for freedom , we stand with you. '' today , we stand with the lebanese people , we stand with the syrians , we stand with the iranians , and we stand with the saudis .  we stand with all people on this planet that yearn for freedom .  another thing that has happened there is that the fear factor has disappeared in lebanon .  when the fear factor disappeared , the people could freely stand in the streets .  when that fear factor can disappear in iran , in syria , in saudi arabia , and around the middle east , they can also come to the streets .  maybe before then .  when that day comes , we will no longer see the habitat that breeds terror , and we will be able to actually stand here today and define a victory in the war on terror , and that is the absence of the habitat that breeds terrorists .  and that is freedom .  but to our economy , which is the discussion tonight .  i characterize it a couple of ways and add to the gentlewoman 's discussion , and that is that our jobs growth in this country has been going on at such a torrid pace that we will soon , within the next 3 months , reach the level of over the last 2 years having had job growth of 1.5 million jobs a year .  that is 1 1/2 million jobs a year .  that is an amazingly fast growth , 3.8 percent growth as the gentlewoman said , but that in the face of the trial lawyers skimming 3 percent off the top .  and that study tells us that they take the first money .  they are standing there taking the first money off our economy .  if we want to grow at 3 1/2 percent , just to sustain the growth we need in our infrastructure and to meet the needs of a growing population , then we have to make up for that 3 percent that goes off the top because of the litigation in this country that is rampant .  we took steps in this congress to rein some of that in .  we sent it over to the senate , where this year they heard us and sent it to the president , and he signed the litigation reform legislation , which will make a difference and make it easier to sustain that kind of growth .  homeownership is at an all-time high .  i think it would compete with anywhere in the world , at 69.2 percent .  that is 69.2 percent .  seven out of ten people you meet on the street live in a home they own or are making payments on .  not a rented home , but an owned home .  what pride in ownership .  and what that does for sending the roots down into our economy and society and keeping our children at home , all of those things are a plus that show up in the bottom line .  inflation is in check .  personal income is up 8.6 percent .  that is so much in the last year that it scares me a little bit , being a 28-year employer ; thinking that if personal income is up 8.6 percent , then i would have to be giving my employees a raise of 8.6 percent every year , which is a pretty torrid pace as well to keep up with employment .  earlier we heard on the floor some remarks that we have a lot of problems with the trade imbalance , and i will not deny we have a trade imbalance .  in fact , a year ago it was minus $ 503 billion a year .  the last announcement came out , the annual report came out february 10 , and that was a minus $ 617.7 billion in imbalance in trade .  so that is about a 20 percent increase in the negative balance of trade that we have .  some of those things work out good for our consumers .  you can afford to buy a winter coat for your little girl cheaper than you could before .  but we can not go on forever letting foreign interests own u.s. assets and holding them for collateral .  so we need to work this thing back to correct the balance of trade , but it is not something that will be done with a policy that says , well , we are concerned about sweat shop labor in el salvador or those kinds of issues that are essentially out of control .  what is in our control in this congress are our tax policy , regulatory policy , and that is what we need to focus on .  that is why i , years ago , in fact 25 years ago , came to the position and the conclusion that we needed to do some real tax reform .  now , we have done good things with the jobs and growth act , and they were the right decisions to bring us back from the bursting of the dot-com bubble that happened about 7 or 8 months before the president was inaugurated the first time ; and then , of course , the september 11 attacks .  i will argue that those two blows to our economy , coupled together , were the greatest blows , the most severe blows ever to the economy of this country ; yet we have recovered .  the stock market is back and all these statistics are up .  but we can do more , and we can do better .  mr. speaker , we can do better because there is another level , another destiny for the united states of america .  we are reaching for that destiny to inspire all people in the world to reach for freedom and liberty and being able to make their own investments and control their own destiny economically , but we can also set a tax policy that ceases to punish the productivity in america .  today , today every day when people go to work and punch the time clock or make the sales calls or throw that bale of hay , uncle sam stands there with his hand out with the first lien on everyone 's labor , on the productivity of america , on your investment interest and on your labor .  ronald reagan once said what you tax you get less of .  so us , in our wisdom , we tax productivity in america instead of consumption .  i suggest we eliminate the irs , the tax code that goes with it , and transfer all of this over to a national sales tax , a consumption tax , a fair tax , h.r. 5 and tax consumption , take all tax off of production and get uncle sam out of the way , standing there at the time clock getting his first and the worker getting his later , and change this whole attitude .  productivity will go up in america .  the irs right now is a trillion dollar drag on an $ 11 trillion economy when we add the cost of funding them , enforcing them , and the disincentives that are in place that people decide i am not going to make that sales call , i am not going to do that extra overtime , i am not going to make that investment in that farm or industrial factory because the tax burden is too high .  if we take the tax off all productivity , everybody gets the money they earned in their paycheck .  take-home pay goes up 56 percent under a national sales tax , and items on the shelf , their price goes down by an average of 22 percent because there is an imputed cost in everything that is sold .  businesses that provide goods for sales have to impute the cost of the federal tax in that item .  that is an average of 22 percent .  so , for example , if there is a japanese-made mazda that is imported from japan sitting on the dealer 's lot at $ 30 , 000 , and pick your american brand sitting on the other side of the street with a $ 30 , 000 sticker price , we remove the federal tax that is imputed into the american made because it is imputed in the japanese made overseas .  we will see that $ 30 , 000 american-made car go down to $ 23 , 600 , and the japanese car is still at $ 30 , 000 .  by the time we add the sales tax back in , the american car is at $ 30 , 400 or so , but the japanese car is around $ 39 , 000 .  we have approximately a $ 9 , 000 advantage on those two vehicles of equivalent value that were selling competitively at $ 30 , 000 each .  we change the tax policy , and competition drives the price out of the american made and now we have an advantage to market american goods .  mr. speaker , that is one of the ways that we can address this imbalance of trade because we will build more products here .  if we sell more of our products here , that means the jobs that produce them are here .  if we import less from foreign countries , that means the jobs that produce those imports are going to have to be producing exports to go to other countries .  we can repair this balance of trade with a national sales tax , a fair tax .  we can change this $ 617.7 billion of red ink to a plus number , and while we are doing that , we remove the penalty for savings and investment .  so the capital investment the gentlewoman talked about that really is a great indicator of where our economy is going , capital investment will not be punished .  form the capital , and we will see capital go into technology , research and development , higher ed , all of the things that improve the productivity of the american worker .  by the way , we must improve the productivity of the american worker .  we are seeing industrial equipment go overseas as well .  and as we see that punch press or lathe going to a developing country and they train their workers how to use that equipment , we will never get those jobs back again .  we do not want to compete for the wages that are being paid there either , but we can move our people to the top side with education , research and development and technology capital investment .  they have got to produce more .  we can do that with technology and a national sales tax , and fix this balance of trade .  we are on the right track , but we can do more .  if we go to a national sales tax , we will take america to another destiny yet with our economy .  mr. speaker , i urge the president 's commission and this congress to take a good look at real tax reform , not tweak it around the edges .  we have done that .  we have positioned ourselves well to take america to its next level of destiny , and i am looking forward to the 109th congress for being a part of that .  
D	mr. chairman , i want to thank the chairman for agreeing to work with us on this issue of importance to new york .  
D	mr. chairman , the question is when is the congress going to stop letting american businesses and workers down ?  it is time to roll up our sleeves and chart a path to economic freedom .  it is time to govern .  today the republicans again ask us to consider a bill with provisions that will make its mark by missing the mark .  it inflates government bureaucracy and deflates workers ' opportunity .  american business needs the best , most qualified workers on earth , but this bill does nothing to reach that goal .  workers , especially the working poor , need a credible realistic road to economic freedom .  this bill is a dead end .  our workforce is in trouble .  the `` l.a .  times , '' which i will enter into the record an article from the `` l.a .  times , '' recently reported that the volatility of income for the working poor has doubled in recent years .  income among the working poor now fluctuates by as much as 50 percent annually .  one can not buy a home with a wild fluctuation like that .  one can not plan for their children 's college education with income swings like that , and they are lucky to put food on the table .  mr. chairman , we need to rethink the systems we have in place to help workers and employers maximize productivity and profitability .  we continue to pursue open trade to open our domestic market to foreign competition , but we are not employing the same vigor toward pursuing the means to ensure that our workforce can compete and be the best trained and equipped in the world .  this issue , investing in our workforce , transcends social and economic status .  i represent the 7th district of washington , seattle , where the economy is driven by manufacturing as well as by innovation and the service industry .  everyone in these industries is competing for their jobs against someone overseas .  making the proper investments and systems to helping the working poor obtain access to job training and education is even more important .  the so-called personal reemployment accounts compel , compel , unemployed workers to take the first job they can get and forego current job training opportunities .  instead of economic independence , this bill produces economic surrender .  we can do better .  we ought to significantly invest in continuing education training programs for people in industries that are challenged by global competition .  furthermore , we ought to seriously consider wage insurance .  this would enable the working poor to move into jobs that may begin by paying a little less but have greater opportunities for wage growth and economic stability down the road .  this bill , even without the bad provisions such as personal reemployment accounts and the provisions that allow workplace discrimination based on religion , does nothing to meet the new challenges that workers and businesses that rely on them face in the new global economy .  the question again , mr. chairman , is when will you tell your chairman to start taking these responsibilities seriously rather than playing politics , as we are here today , putting the same bill before us that we have put here before , we know it is not going anywhere , it is a waste of time , and it does nothing for the workers ?  this is not even an election year .  the poor have more things today -- including wild income swings `` the poor are not like everyone else , '' social critic michael harrington wrote in the 1962 bestseller `` the other america , '' which helped shape president johnson 's war on poverty .  `` they are a different kind of people , '' he declared .  `` they think and feel differently ; they look upon a different america than the middle class. '' how then to account for elvira rojas ?  the 36-year-old salvadoran-born dishwasher and her partner , warehouse worker jose maldanado , make barely enough to stay above the official poverty line -- $ 18 , 810 last year for a family of four .  but by working two , sometimes three , jobs between them , they are grabbing at middle-class dreams .  rojas and maldanado live in a two-room apartment in hawthorne but have china settings for 16 tucked in a wooden hutch .  their two young daughters receive health coverage through medi-cal but get many of their clothes at robinsons-may .  the family struggles to meet its monthly bills but has taken on a mountain of credit card debt .  they have used plastic to buy a large-screen tv and other luxuries but have also relied on it to cover bare necessities such as rent and emergency-room visits .  `` that 's why i 'm really poor even though i work so hard , '' rojas said with a rueful laugh .  some see circumstances like rojas ' as testament to the economic strides that america has made over the last generation , rather than a reflection of its failures .  `` we 've won the war on poverty , '' asserted robert rector , an influential analyst with the heritage foundation , a conservative washington think tank .  `` we 've basically eliminated widespread material deprivation. '' but if deprivation is no longer as big a problem , that hardly means all is well .  in many ways , rojas is the new face of the working poor , suffering not so much from a dearth of possessions as from a cavalcade of chaos -- pay cuts and eviction notices , car troubles and medical crises -- that rattles her finances and nudges her family toward the economic brink .  in this way , rojas and millions like her are not -- as harrington described them -- fundamentally different from most other americans ; they are remarkably similar .  indeed , today 's working poor are experiencing an extreme version of the economic turbulence that is rocking families across the income spectrum .  and the cause , no matter people 's means , is the same : a quarter- century-long shift of economic risk by business and government onto working families .  protections that americans , especially poor ones , once relied on to buffer them from economic setbacks -- affordable housing , stable jobs with good benefits , union membership and the backstop of cash welfare -- have shriveled or been eliminated .  these losses have been only partially offset by an expansion of programs such as the earned-income tax credit for the working poor and publicly provided healthcare .  for the most part , the poor have been left to cope on their own , scrambling from one fragile employment arrangement to the next , doubling up on housing and borrowing heavily .  `` families up and down the income distribution are bearing more economic risk than they did 25 or 30 years ago , '' said johns hopkins university economist robert a. moffitt .  `` but the increase has been especially dramatic among the working poor. '' as a result , their earnings are jumping around like never before .  during the early 1970s , the inflation-adjusted incomes of most families in the bottom fifth of the economy bounced up and down no more than 25 % a year .  by the beginning of this decade , those annual fluctuations had doubled to as much as 50 % , according to statistics generated by the los angeles times in conjunction with moffitt and researchers at several other major universities .  for a family with an income at the 20th percentile -- or roughly $ 23 , 000 a year in inflation-adjusted terms -- that has meant recent annual swings of as much as $ 12 , 000 .  twenty-five years ago , those swings tended to be no more than $ 4 , 300 .  the times ' figures are based on the panel study of income dynamics , a database funded by the national science foundation and run by the university of michigan .  in contrast to most economic indicators , which involve taking random samples of different americans at different times and comparing the results , the panel study has followed the same 5 , 000 nationally representative families and their offshoots for nearly 40 years .  in supplementing conventional statistics with the panel-study data , the newspaper has sought to explain why americans in rising numbers report being less financially secure , even as the nation has grown richer overall .  in a nutshell , the times has found that behind the upward march of most economic averages are increasingly frequent instances of financial setback and hardship for a large swath of the population .  even those in the top-10 percent bracket -- making well over $ 100 , 000 a year -- have seen their incomes grow more volatile and therefore prone to steep dives .  but for the country 's 20 million working-poor families , the findings are particularly sobering : they now run the risk of seeing their incomes slashed by half in any given year .  that 's almost double the volatility experienced by families in the middle of the economic spectrum , the newspaper 's findings show .  `` the only way to improve your life if you 're poor is to be very prudent and make very , very few mistakes like getting fired or splurging and ending up with a lot of debt , '' said christopher jencks , a harvard university authority on poverty .  `` most people are n't that prudent. '' elvira rojas headed for the u.s. at age 21 in search of two things that were in short supply in her native ei salvador : peace and prosperity .  combatants in that country 's bloody civil war engaged in firefights outside her family 's home in acajutla , and maldanado had received death threats because of his role as a former military man .  in addition , rojas discovered that the only job she could get with her high school diploma from el instituto nacional was at the local fish-packing plant .  the pair arrived in l.a .  in may 1989 .  she quickly found work cleaning houses with two of maldanado 's aunts .  he landed a job at a hawthorne dry-cleaning plant .  between them , they made about $ 200 a week .  but with the average rent on a one-bedroom apartment in the city then running about $ 600 , they could not afford a first foothold in their new country -- a place of their own to live .  `` i felt bad in the beginning because i had nothing , '' rojas said .  `` i wanted to go home. '' with nowhere else to turn , they moved in with one of maldanado 's aunts , her five children and four cousins in a two-bedroom house on firmona avenue in hawthorne .  they slept on the kitchen floor .  as the couple began to make more money , they moved into a succession of other apartments .  each was a little larger than the last but still crammed with relatives .  rojas and maldanado had few alternatives .  during their first years , they were effectively excluded from federal rent subsidies or state help because they were illegal immigrants .  in 1991 , the two gained legal status under a program that allowed people fleeing war in their homelands to be counted as refugees .  but their new standing was thrown into question in 1994 , when california voters approved proposition 187 .  the initiative was designed to cut off state assistance to undocumented immigrants , but many legal ones interpreted the measure as a blanket ban aimed at them too .  rojas , for one , took no chances ; she never applied for housing assistance -- or almost any other kind of aid -- although it appears from her social security records and tax returns that she would have qualified .  `` i did n't want to be a burden on the government , '' she explained .  it 's probably just as well .  by the mid-1990s , the state and federal governments were winding down most of a six-decade-long drive to help poor families meet their housing needs .  that effort had begun under president franklin d. roosevelt , who decried the conditions gripping america .  `` i see one-third of a nation ill-housed , ill-clad , ill-nourished , '' he said in 1937 .  in the years that followed , a booming private sector largely solved the food and clothing problems .  and a combination of financial market innovations and federal power applied through a battery of agencies -- the veterans administration , the federal housing administration , fannie mae and freddie mac -- greatly expanded home ownership , especially among the middle class .  but that still left what to do for poor families , most of whom could afford only to rent .  washington 's first answer was to have the government build and run housing projects .  some worked .  but many degenerated into vertical ghettos , victimized by disastrous design , racial and economic segregation , drugs and crime .  in 1974 , president nixon and congress turned to another solution : the section 8 program .  instead of putting up buildings itself , the government would subsidize private developers to construct housing and give poor families vouchers to rent apartments in the open market .  but developer subsidies produced cost overruns and political scandals in the 1980s and were largely phased out .  that left only the vouchers , which recently have been cut back .  in all , the amount of money that congress and the president have authorized to be spent on housing assistance has plunged by nearly two-thirds in the last 25 years , from an inflation-adjusted $ 82 billion in 1978 to $ 29 billion last year .  washington 's latest answer has been more laissez-faire : offer tax breaks for the creation of low-income housing but otherwise leave it to the marketplace to decide how much gets built .  in hot housing markets such as southern california 's , little has .  `` we 've produced tens of thousands of units recently , but the well 's been dry for so long we should have been producing hundreds of thousands , '' said jan breidenbach , executive director of the southern california assn .  of non-profit housing , which represents many of the region 's developers of low-income housing .  in the absence of substantial government help -- and with housing prices soaring beyond the reach of even the middle class -- most working-poor families have been left to fend for themselves .  by 1997 , rojas and maldanado thought they had succeeded in doing that .  he was making $ 5 , 800 a year at the dry-cleaning plant .  she was making more than $ 12 , 000 dashing between a part-time job at an airline linen service on prairie avenue in hawthorne and a temporary position with kelly services , packing magazines , perfume and shampoo in samplers for direct-market mailings .  in the fall of that year , the couple , with another of maldanado 's aunts and her children , moved into a white stucco bungalow on burin avenue in inglewood , not far from los angeles international airport .  although the house sagged in the middle and had drainage problems , it featured two kitchens and two living rooms , plenty of space for each family .  the place cost rojas and maldanado $ 550 a month .  that was more than 30 % of their earnings , a level the government considers the outer limit of affordable , but it was still something they could bear .  the bungalow `` felt good because there were not so many of us , '' rojas said .  `` it was the most room i 've ever had. '' the following year , the two families celebrated christmas by stringing sparkling lights along the structure 's faded blue eaves and inviting neighbors for a party .  albert grimes arrived in los angeles a few years before elvira rojas did , similarly hungry to start over .  he came from cleveland , where his family was a pillar of the african american community .  his father , `` big joe '' grimes , had returned home from world war ii and used the gi bill to buy a house .  he opened a barbershop , founded a youth marching band called b.j. 's raiders and became a kingmaker of sorts in cleveland politics .  albert 's uncle , walter dicks , ran the municipal workers union and helped the younger grimes find a job right out of high school on a city sanitation truck .  it paid about $ 15 , 000 , equal to about $ 30 , 000 in today 's dollars .  but albert was laid off during one of cleveland 's periodic fiscal crises .  in 1985 , at the age of 29 , he left home and headed west .  he had no trouble finding work with one of los angeles ' big employers .  for most of the postwar era , working americans could count on big business even more than big government to provide safeguards against economic risk .  in a reverse of the current passion for temps , outsourcing and lean workforces , corporate america felt it had a civic duty to offer full-time jobs with good wages and solid benefits , even to those like grimes with no college education .  `` steady , year-round employment is so right from the standpoint of the employer , so right from the standpoint of the workers and so right for the country as a whole ... ..  that it is hard to see why we manufacturers have not made more progress in its application , '' procter & amp ; gamble co .  president richard deupree told a 1948 audience .  as the decades passed , los angeles became the hub of the nation 's aerospace industry ; a second home to u.s. automakers , after detroit ; and a major financial center .  among the region 's largest employers : lockheed corp. , mcdonnell douglas corp. , general motors corp. , goodyear tire & amp ; rubber co. , first interstate bank and security pacific bank .  by the late 1970s , the typical l.a .  county workplace had nearly 30 % more employees than the u.s. average , according to government statistics -- a situation that translated into a high level of economic security .  `` there is a close correlation between firm size , employment stability and generous compensation , '' said ucla economist sanford jacoby , who has written extensively about the new risks that working people face .  `` big firms underwrote the creation of america 's -- and southern california 's -- blue-collar middle class. '' as for grimes , he found his way to sears , roebuck & amp ; co. 's massive warehouse at olympic boulevard and soto street , where he was hired as a merchandise handler represented by the teamsters .  he did well for himself there .  his social security records show that his income rose steadily -- from $ 12 , 000 in 1987 to $ 20 , 000 in 1990 ( or nearly $ 28 , 000 in today 's terms ) .  on top of that , his health care was covered .  but in 1992 , sears stumbled , the result of a failed strategy to sell everything from socks to stocks .  grimes , then on leave with a bad back , soon found himself out of a job .  it was a particularly bad time to be without work .  the combination of recession and steep cuts in defense spending , brought on by the end of the cold war , walloped southern california .  unremitting pressure from low-cost foreign producers and wage competition from new immigrants such as rojas took a severe toll on unskilled workers like grimes .  any chance that he would be rehired by sears soon evaporated when the company 's warehouse and adjacent store were damaged in the l.a .  riots .  the warehouse was eventually shuttered .  by the time the region bounced back , the nature of employment had changed .  gone were many of the corporate giants that had delivered a generation of blue-collar security .  in their place were tens of thousands of relatively small employers whose job-generating capacity is now regularly praised by the nation 's leaders but whose instability , often-low wages and meager benefits are less remarked upon .  government figures show that the average size of a workplace shrank by 18 % nationally between its late-1970s peak and last year .  the slide was even steeper in l.a .  county , with the average size of a workplace plunging 50 % to 10 workers .  this trend , according to jacoby , `` is one of the most important and least appreciated reasons why so many people are having a tough time making a go of it today. '' for several years , grimes all but vanished from the regular economy .  he , his chronically ill girlfriend and the couple 's young son lived off a mix of workers ' compensation , disability payments and her welfare checks .  in 1995 , he resurfaced , this time as a security guard and -- befitting the u.s. economy 's free-market transformation -- a self-employed entrepreneur .  `` i set myself up as a corporation , '' he said proudly .  with the help of a friend , grimes persuaded a string of businesses in a run-down neighborhood along bixel street near downtown to hire him .  for three years , he watched over a dental office , a parking garage , a liquor store and a methadone clinic .  his earnings climbed from $ 5 , 600 when he launched his venture to more than $ 27 , 000 two years later .  he bought himself a used pontiac grand am , a washer and dryer and a rent-a-center living room set .  then in 1998 , he found out how risky the life of an entrepreneur can be : the city bought up the properties along bixel street to make way for the staples center .  the businesses that employed grimes closed .  demolition crews flattened the buildings and , along with them , grimes ' income .  his earnings that year went clear to zero .  as grimes ' world caved in on him once more , rojas ' prospects were looking up .  she was still shuttling between her jobs at the airline laundry service and as a packer of sundries when one of maldanado 's cousins told her that the dishwashing department at the wyndham hotel on century boulevard near lax was hiring for the 4-to-midnight shift .  the full-time position paid more than $ 7 an hour and , because the workers were represented by hotel employees and restaurant employees local 814 , it came with holidays and family health insurance .  the latter would prove particularly important when rojas suffered a miscarriage in 2001 , and her health plan picked up the tab for more than $ 5 , 000 .  rojas saw the job as a turning point .  until then , virtually everything she had in her life had belonged to her in-laws .  `` if we used dishes , '' she remembered , `` they were theirs .  if we watched tv , it was theirs. '' but all that would change when she went to the wyndham .  `` i knew at that point i would have my own things , '' she said .  by 1998 , as rojas and maldanado 's income more than doubled to $ 26 , 000 ( $ 30 , 500 in today 's dollars ) , the couple began assembling the pieces of a middle-class life .  rojas bought china by royal prestige .  she purchased a hutch from levitz furniture in which to display the dishes .  she and maldanado acquired a couch , a bed and a dining table .  they shelled out for two large-screen tvs and signed up for satellite-dish service .  they bought a 1987 plymouth sundance to go with their aging blue toyota camry .  and they traveled .  `` we would go to las vegas and disneyland , '' maldanado recalled .  `` we had more money to spend. '' when the first of the couple 's two daughters was born the following year , rojas was so eager for her to be part of the fabric of america that she resisted entreaties to name her maria after five of maldanado 's aunts , and instead gave her the name katherine .  she would make a similar choice when their second child was born last may , rejecting maldanado 's suggestion of elvira in favor of melane .  the new job let rojas dream about owning a house where , she said , `` my daughters can have their own rooms '' and `` maybe one day i can take care of my grandchildren if i have some. '' meanwhile , any thought of returning to central america faded away .  `` here , '' said rojas , `` my family will go a lot farther than in el salvador. '' in the summer of 2000 , the wyndham 's owners announced that they were closing the hotel for renovations .  rojas remembers hearing ominous rumblings that more would change than the color of the lobby -- something about the parking attendants ' jobs being contracted out .  but she was not worried .  to tide her over during the shutdown , local 814 had steered her to a job at a unionized burger king at lax .  the fast-food outlet offered a wage-and-benefit package almost as good as what she was making at the wyndham .  about a year after it had closed , the hotel on century boulevard reopened .  only now , the sign outside read `` radisson. '' the wyndham name was n't the only thing that was gone either .  so too was the union -- part of a broader trend sweeping corporate america for more than two decades .  unions , which represented 17 percent of the nation 's private-sector workforce in the early 1980s , counted only 8 percent as members by last year .  rojas could have her dishwashing job back .  but instead of $ 8.89 an hour , her top wage at the wyndham , she said , she 'd be pulling down only $ 7.50 at the radisson , with no employer-paid family health insurance .  she signed on anyway and , to make ends meet , kept her job at burger king as well .  it was hard running between two jobs again , but the family 's income finally seemed to be stabilizing .  as it turned out , their financial roller-coaster ride had only just begun .  for the poor , the most dramatic of all the safety-net cuts that the government has engineered in the last 25 years came in 1996 .  that 's when a republican-controlled congress passed and president clinton signed the personal responsibility and work opportunity reconciliation act , overhauling the nation 's cash welfare system .  the law sought to push people off the dole and into work .  in doing so , it essentially reversed the poverty-fighting strategy that washington had pursued since the 1960s in which poor americans were promised a certain minimal standard of living .  by last year , the law had reduced the nation 's welfare rolls by 3 million families , or one-half , and had sliced inflation -- adjusted welfare spending by about $ 10 billion , or one-third .  these numbers , though , are about all the experts can agree on .  advocates have hailed the measure as a spectacular success , saying it has increased the incomes of many poor people while triggering a steep drop in poverty among black children .  critics have denounced it as a failure , saying that many people are poorer today than they were before the law was changed .  for its part , grimes ' household has remained largely unaffected by the law 's `` work first '' requirements .  that 's because california has maintained relatively generous benefits and because grimes ' domestic partner , jacqueline harvey , has a chronic intestinal disease and is exempt from work requirements .  she has thus continued to collect benefits off and on from the state 's cash welfare program , calworks .  she now receives $ 583 a month .  but grimes , in the meantime , has been staggered by another , lesser-known element of the 1996 act -- a significant toughening of child-support enforcement rules .  this part of the law built on other efforts undertaken since the 1970s to go after absentee parents and compel them to help finance their kids ' upbringings .  grimes and harvey 's son , albert jr. , was born in 1988 .  nine years later , when the elder grimes applied for custody of a nephew , the los angeles county district attorney 's office sued him for child support for albert jr .  the d.a .  took action even though grimes , harvey and their son had always lived together and , they and several relatives say , grimes always helped raise the boy .  nonetheless , grimes declined to challenge the county , which won a court judgment against him .  grimes said he thought that he had to go along with the support order to obtain custody of his nephew and to ensure that harvey would continue receiving publicly funded healthcare .  it 's also unclear whether counting grimes as a parent in the house would have jeopardized the size of harvey 's welfare checks .  whether a mix-up or not , the effect on grimes ' finances has been devastating .  california courts not only have imposed high monthly support payments -- often unrelated to a parent 's ability to comply -- but also have added interest at a 10 percent annual clip to past-due amounts .  a recent study commissioned by the state found that past-due child-support payments in california have soared to almost $ 17 billion from $ 2.5 billion in the last decade .  most of that money , moreover , is earmarked for state coffers -- not for the children who need support .  `` the system was largely about welfare-cost recovery , not helping families , '' said curtis l. child , who stepped down recently as head of the state department of child support services , which was created in 2000 to remove enforcement power from county district attorneys and restructure the system .  `` in imposing these huge judgments on fathers , we 're confronting these men with an awful choice : go underground , which is just what child-support enforcement was intended to stop , or let themselves be financially ruined. '' in august 1997 , grimes was ordered to start sending the county $ 173 a month in current payments , plus an additional amount for past-due support totaling $ 4 , 900 .  when he fell behind after his bixel street business collapsed in 1998 , the past-due total began to swell .  it now tops $ 8 , 000 .  in one great clap , the 9/11 terrorists brought down the twin towers in new york , shattered americans ' sense of security and shoved elvira rojas down the economic ladder .  it took her five days to reach burger king after the police and military sealed off the airport in the wake of the september 2001 attacks .  when she finally was allowed in , rojas found that her manager had cut her shift to just four hours .  within a couple of weeks , she was laid off .  things were little better at the nearly deserted radisson .  rojas ' hours there were reduced to practically nothing .  over the next 15 months , rojas grabbed whatever hours she could get at the hotel and worked a second job ironing clothes at hermosa cleaners in hermosa beach .  it was a tough schedule even before she got pregnant in 2002 .  and still it was not enough to keep her family 's income from sliding almost 20 % from its 1998 high to less than $ 22 , 000 .  so she and maldanado turned to what has become one of the few reliable safety nets left for many poor americans : their credit cards .  in may 2002 , rojas was rushed to the emergency room at robert f. kennedy medical center in hawthorne , where she suffered a second miscarriage .  this time , with only minimal health insurance from the hotel , she said she had to put $ 2 , 000 of her $ 4 , 000 medical bill onto her mastercard .  `` i did n't have the money otherwise , '' she said .  as the credit card industry emerged in the late 1950s and '60s , some expressed concern that even well-provisioned middle-class families would be unable to resist the lure of instant credit .  betty furness , president johnson 's consumer affairs advisor , warned that credit cards were `` modern traps '' that would turn americans into `` hopeless addicts. '' but over the last 25 years , card issuers have not let up in pushing their products .  instead , they have reached out for ever more low-income households .  federal reserve figures show that among families in the bottom fifth of the economy , the percentage of households with credit cards has soared from 11 % in the late 1970s to almost 40 % .  their average balance on those cards has climbed , in inflation-adjusted terms , from about $ 825 to more than $ 2 , 000 .  some analysts applaud the greater availability of credit .  gregory elliehausen , of the credit research center at georgetown university , said the spread of cards and other kinds of lending was part of a sweeping `` democratization of finance '' that has allowed poor families to operate more efficiently by , for example , buying decent cars to get to work .  economists dirk krueger of the university of pennsylvania and fabrizio perri , a new york university professor now on sabbatical at the federal reserve bank of minneapolis , say families of all incomes increasingly rely on loans , rather than on business and government safety nets , in times of trouble .  they borrow their way through the bad patches and pay off their debts in flush periods .  the problem comes when there are no flush periods .  some of the items purchased on rojas ' and maldanado 's credit cards can seem frivolous or extravagant -- the tvs , for example , or a $ 150 set of sepia-toned studio photographs of katherine and her mom dressed in feather boas and gowns .  but most of the charges appear to fit the definition of safety-net spending .  beyond the emergency room charge , there was $ 130 for a new fuel pump for rojas ' toyota and $ 170 to repair the power steering .  there was $ 300 at the start of september to cover rent and a $ 1 , 000 cash advance that rojas said went to help a brother bring his wife to the u.s. from el salvador .  chipping away at what 's due on their cards is virtually impossible .  that 's in large part because the interest the two are charged is about double what a typical middle-class borrower faces .  by the time they cover that , there is little left to reduce the balance .  although the stated interest on the couple 's most heavily used cards , a pair of direct merchants bank mastercards , ranges from 20.49 % to 31.99 % , a review of recent bills indicates that they are consistently charged close to the higher amount .  ( the minnetonka , minn. , bank recently was ordered by federal regulators to pay $ 3.2 million in penalties for `` downselling '' -- offering low pre-approved rates and then moving customers to higher-rate accounts without fully disclosing the switch .  it is not clear that this happened to rojas and maldanado. ) rojas and maldanado now owe $ 14 , 592 on their four credit cards -- a burden that financial experts say is appropriate for a household making about $ 100 , 000 , but not one like theirs .  in the spring of 2000 , two years after grimes ' bixel street business failed , he found a job as a security guard five blocks away at ernst & amp ; young plaza .  for a while after the september 2001 terrorist attacks , the building 's owners and tenants treated grimes and his co-workers with newfound respect .  managers listened to his suggestions about how to improve safety at the 41-story structure .  he was promoted to `` lobby ambassador , '' a sort of informal emissary to the building , and then to lobby supervisor .  his annual earnings climbed back above $ 20 , 000 , and he began to imagine himself becoming a director of security .  `` my goal was to have a facility of my own , '' grimes said .  `` i thought i should have a situation where i 'm in control. '' but for most of the last year , grimes has been anything but in control .  in february , after a dispute with their landlord , he and his family were evicted from their apartment on fedora street , where they had lived for several years .  all that he was able to save from the place were three mattresses , two chairs and a sony playstation .  by april , he had run through several thousand dollars paying for a $ 90-a-night motel room while he looked for a new apartment .  he and harvey eventually rented a two-room hollywood walk-up for $ 875 a month , or more than 40 % of their combined income .  before long , he fell behind again on his court-ordered child-support payments .  in july , things took another turn for the worse .  after a series of clashes with his boss , grimes was ordered out of the ernst & amp ; young tower and told he would be reassigned .  instead , he quit .  for the time being , he is working for the service employees international union on a campaign to organize security guards in the city 's high-rise offices .  grimes is determined to recover from the latest round of reverses .  he dreams about what his father had -- a house , a secure job -- and is convinced he 'll fare as well someday .  `` i 'm trying , '' grimes said , `` to get back to what he had. '' a month after grimes was forced out of the ernst & amp ; young tower , rojas and her family were evicted from the burin avenue bungalow where they had lived for seven years .  a developer is preparing to raze the place and put in half-million-dollar townhouses .  it 's not clear how long they could have afforded to stay there anyway .  a week before they moved , maldanado was laid off from the dry-cleaning plant to make way , he said , for new immigrants who were willing to work for less .  he has since gotten a new job , packing items at a warehouse , for minimum wage .  the family 's new apartment is so small that the bedroom is a single mass of mattresses and cribs .  the hutch and couches fill the living room to overflowing .  and the cabinets in the kitchenette are so stuffed that rojas must store her supply of infant formula in her car trunk .  but the couple has plans -- to turn around the slide in their income , to look for a house , to make sure that the girls continue all the way through school .  `` i do n't want them to be struggling like us , '' maldanado said .  rojas is making other plans as well .  soon after arriving in the u.s. , she took out a loan to finance her future at the inglewood park cemetery .  she now owns two plots at the cemetery 's mausoleum of the golden west , and recently signed papers to pay $ 82.79 a month for the next five years to buy two more .  by the time rojas is finished , she will have spent more than $ 12 , 000 in total .  but she 's convinced it 's worth it .  `` now if i die , i wo n't have to worry about my funeral , '' she said .  `` i wo n't leave my family with a financial burden. '' the source of the statistics and how they were analyzed the times used the panel study of income dynamics for its analysis of family income volatility .  the panel study has followed a nationally representative sample of about 5 , 000 families and their offshoots for nearly 40 years and is the most comprehensive publicly available income and earnings database in the world .  it is run by the university of michigan and principally underwritten by the national science foundation .  the families ' identities are kept confidential .  the times employed techniques for gauging income volatility that were developed by economists robert a. moffitt of johns hopkins university and peter gottschalk of boston college .  the times also consulted with yale university political scientist jacob s. hacker , who has conducted his own analysis of income volatility among households in the panel study and has published results linking it to economic risk .  the times employed two johns hopkins graduate students , xiaoguo hu and anubha dhasmana , to help generate the data .  moffitt guided them and advised the newspaper .  the times ' analysis looked at five-year increments from 1970 to 2000 and examined the annual fluctuations in each family 's income .  for example , for a family whose income rose by $ 5 , 000 over a five-year span , the paper examined the journey from the lower number to the higher : did the change occur in steady $ 1 , 000 annual increases ?  or did the family 's income take a big jump in one year and plunge in another ?  the times ' basic finding is that the fluctuations in annual income that individual families have experienced have grown larger over the last three decades .  based on the panel-study sample , the times estimated the annual income swings , up or down , for 68 % of all u.s. families -- those who did not have the most extreme fluctuations .  as a result , the newspaper 's conclusions do n't rest on cases outside the mainstream : the movie star whose career dries up overnight , say , or the hourly worker who wins the lottery .  to zero in on working families , the times focused on men and women 25 to 64 years old whose households had some income .  to analyze the working poor , the paper ranked families by their average income during each five-year period .  it then concentrated on those in the bottom one-fifth of income earners and especially those right at the 20th percentile .  the average annual income of panel-study families at the 20th percentile is close to the government 's official poverty line for a family of four most years .  the analysis looked at pretax income of all family members from all sources , including workplace earnings ; investments ; public transfers such as jobless benefits , food stamps and cash welfare ; and private transfers such as inheritances .  all amounts were adjusted for inflation , expressed in 2003 dollars .  
D	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  i would just say to the gentleman who just spoke that we believe that there are many religious organizations , many faith-based organizations that do incredible work , and they will still be able to do incredible work .  what we object to , quite frankly , is the use of taxpayers ' money to basically subsidize discrimination .  
R	mr. chairman , i rise in strong support of h.r. 27 and thank the gentleman from ohio for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor , the job training improvement act of 2005 , which i introduced to strengthen and reauthorize the nation 's job training system as well as adult education and vocational rehabilitation programs .  job training programs must be responsive to the needs of the workforce and improving them is critical .  in today 's knowledge-based economy , we need to equip americans with the skills they need to find a new or better job and quickly return to the workforce .  one of the hallmarks of wia is that in order to encourage the development of comprehensive systems that improve services to both employers and job seekers , local services are provided through a one-stop delivery system .  the one-stop centers serve as the front line in helping job seekers return to the workforce .  at the one-stop centers , assistance ranges from core services such as job search and placement assistance , access to job listings and an initial assessment of skills and needs , to intensive services such as comprehensive assessments and case management and , if needed , occupational skills training .  over the last 3 years , i have met with local workforce development leaders , businesses , the administration , researchers , and others to examine how we can improve our federal job training system .  while the workforce investment act of 1998 made dramatic reforms to the nation 's workforce system , i learned that further refinements were necessary to ensure state and local officials have the flexibility they need to effectively target resources toward the unique needs of their communities .  the job training improvement act builds upon wia to make it more demand-driven and flexible while reducing unnecessary duplication and inefficiency .  h.r. 27 will help strengthen and improve the nation 's locally driven , business-led workforce investment system to help states and localities ensure workers get the training they need to find good jobs .  for example , the bill streamlines the current wia funding in order to provide more efficient and results-oriented services and programs by combining the adult , dislocated , and employment service funding streams into one funding stream .  this will eliminate duplication in service delivery and administrative functions that remain in the system , improving services for individuals .  the bill also ensures the financial contribution of the mandatory partners in the one-stop centers while at the same time it increases the service integration among the partner programs .  this will improve access to services through the one-stop delivery system for special populations , such as individuals with disabilities .  in order to ensure greater responsiveness to local area needs and strengthen the private sector 's role , the bill simplifies the local and state governance processes .  one-stop partner programs will no longer be required to have a seat on the local boards .  this will provide for greater representation and influence by local business representatives .  currently , they are frequently frustrated that they are not able to connect with or access resources from the local boards .  mr. chairman , i had a couple of my good friends , constituents in my district , that lost their jobs in the defense industry .  they came up and thanked me for the help they received from wia .  they were able to get vouchers .  one of them went on to become a school teacher , one a worker in the computer industry .  this bill works .  the new bill that we are passing today will make it better , more efficient and help the people to really get the services they need so we can continue to have the job growth that we have been enjoying the last few months here in the country .  i support this strongly .  
R	mr. chairman , i ask unanimous consent to reclaim the balance of my time .  
R	mr. chairman , i would like to particularly thank the gentleman from ohio ( chairman boehner ) and the gentleman from california ( mr. mckeon )  , subcommittee chairman , for this bill .  from my perspective this is a good bill .  and i think there are several points i would like to make .  first of all , it consolidates programs and creates efficiencies .  it gives state and local officials more flexibility , which is always important .  and the $ 3 , 000 reemployment accounts to purchase needed services to ensure reemployment seem to me to be a good idea because ofttimes when a person is trying to get back on their feet , they need to have money to pay for child care .  they need transportation .  it allows them to get reestablished , and we think this is certainly very helpful .  and then it also allows faith-based organizations to offer job training service .  we think this is important .  i would like to amplify on that just a little bit .  number one , faith-based organizations often provide services more efficiently than state or federal agencies .  the salvation army , catholic charities , jewish federation are all extremely efficient and they are very cost effective .  secondly , faith-based organizations often go where others will not go or do not go .  in inner cities , and sometimes our rural areas , we find that they are very effective .  faith-based organizations are by law allowed to hire employees to provide services which conform to the mission of the faith-based organization .  this right was affirmed by the 1964 civil rights act and the 1987 supreme court decision , corporation of the presiding bishop versus amos .  so we think there is ample legal justification for this .  number four , faith-based organization employees must often wear many hats .  for instance , a music director at a church may also work at the job training center in the afternoon .  a sunday school superintendent may also run a head start program at the faith-based organization .  so it is unreasonable and contrary to establish law to force faith-based organizations to hire employees who do not share the faith-based organization 's mission .  we think this makes perfect sense .  this is a good bill and i urge support for it .  
R	mr. chairman , i rise today in strong support of h.r. 27 , the job training improvement act of 2005 , and i certainly applaud the gentleman from california ( chairman mckeon ) and the gentleman from ohio ( chairman boehner ) for their tireless efforts in bringing this important legislation to the floor today .  as an original cosponsor of this legislation , there are many provisions that will increase the ability of our nation 's workers to achieve greater stability in our ever-changing workforce .  i would like to mention one aspect of the bill which i am particularly proud of , the inclusion of personal reemployment accounts as an allowable usage of funds under the pilot and demonstration projects of the greater workforce investment act .  pras will provide american workers who are seeking employment added flexibility to seek the customized training and support services that they need and deserve to expand their career opportunities .  as my community of southern nevada experienced in the wake of september 11 , our economy proved to be very vulnerable .  as my community rebounded from this blow , nevadans sought help in adjusting to the realities of the workforce .  those nevadans who suffered the woes of unemployment sought additional training and support as they sought to increase their career opportunities .  mr. chairman , i know that pras would have provided my constituents with a valuable option in seeking these services .  in fact , many constituents have told me they are excited to have this opportunity in case there is another emergency at some point in time .  in fact , one young girl , lucy , wanted to make sure that there was ample education dollars available ; and i assured her there would be .  besides providing for an individualized approach to reemployment , the pras provide an added bonus .  individuals are able to retain the remainder of their account after they return to the workforce .  these funds can be used for continued training and support .  as americans return to work , they continue to face hardships until the benefits of employment become manifest .  pras can help ease this transition .  mr. chairman , i will include for the record a letter from deputy secretary of labor steven law demonstrating the administration 's continued support of the pra program .  mr. chairman , i urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation .  as our workforce continues to engage the ever-changing economy which we are part of , this reauthorization will provide american workers with the tools they need and deserve to improve their career opportunities .  i recommend final passage of the job training improvement act of 2005 .  mr. chairman , i include for the record the letter referred to earlier from steven j. law , deputy secretary of labor .  department of labor , deputy secretary of labor , washington , dc , march 2 , 2005 .  dear congressman porter : i would like to thank you for your invaluable and effective advocacy of personal reemployment accounts ( pras ) .  like you we believe that pras will provide thousands of americans seeking reemployment with a new and more flexible means to seek customized training that leads quickly to expanded career opportunities .  we are enthusiastic about the launch of pra demonstration projects in seven states .  we are confident that this important pilot program will prove the value of pras and , with enactment of your legislation , even more americans will have access to pras .  we look forward to working with you , chairman boehner , and chairman mckeon on this innovative plan to help workers in transition .  thank you again for your leadership on this initiative .  sincerely , 
R	mr. chairman , i rise in strong support of h.r. 27 , the job training improvement act of 2005 .  i would like to recognize the gentleman from ohio ( mr. boehner )  and the gentleman from california ( mr. mckeon )  for their leadership and tireless efforts in bringing this bill to the house floor .  hard-working families in my district who have been laid off rely on programs like the one-stop workforce development system , which helps states and communities ensure workers to get the training they need to find good jobs .  i like to call the one-stops `` hope centers '' because they provide hope to people seeking gainful employment .  for example , my constituent , jeff ring , who after 24 years of employment as a steelworker , was laid off .  he is a father of three children , eight and younger .  he came to the one-stop and enrolled in training to become a registered nurse .  just last week he received his certification and will begin working at aultman hospital and will be making nearly 20 percent more than his previous salary .  in another case , my constituent , tiffany birtalan , a single mother raising a teenager , she currently works as a waitress making $ 2.13 an hour plus tips .  she came to the local one-stop seeking to change careers .  tiffany is now enrolled at a community college and is training to be a dental hygienist .  based on current labor market information and the high demand for this occupation , she will easily make $ 25 to $ 30 per hour .  every day , every day , hard-working people like jeff and tiffany walk through the doors of one-stop across the country seeking assistance .  we must do all we can to streamline unnecessary bureaucracy and strengthen allocations so that adequate resources are available to them achieve their hopes and dreams .  mr. chairman , this is a good bill , and i would urge my colleagues to support h.r. 27 .  
D	mr. chairman , we are revisiting the civil rights laws .  there has been no discrimination since 1965 , and that is exactly what we are revisiting .  
D	mr. chairman , i yield myself 2 minutes .  mr. chairman , we keep hearing that we are discriminating against religious organizations in terms of participation in government contracts .  that is not true .  the fact is that they can participate .  when you talk about a barrier , say what the barrier is .  the barrier is , there is a level playing field ; you can not discriminate .  we have also heard a lot about the 1964 civil rights act .  what has not been said is since 1965 there has been a specific prohibition against discrimination in federal contracts .  you have not been able to discriminate in a job training program since 1965 .  in fact , for defense contracts , you have not been able to discriminate since 1941 .  we also heard , mr. chairman , about the hiring for planned parenthood , i believe , and what your position is on abortion or gun control or something .  in the 1960s , mr. chairman , we passed civil rights laws to respond to our sorry history of bigotry , and we designated specific protected classes where you could not discriminate in employment , race , color , creed , national origin and sex ; and you can not discriminate against those protected classes .  there is a difference between telling somebody they can not get a job because i do not like your position on gun control and we do not hire blacks or jews .  race and religion are protected classes ; positions on gun control and abortion are not , and there is a difference .  
D	mr. chairman , i have a point of order .  if it is true that they can not discriminate with the federal money , but can discriminate with the church money , is the statement that the gentleman mentioned , true or not ?  
D	mr. chairman , i demand a recorded vote .  
D	mr. chairman , i rise today in opposition to h.r. 27 , the so-called job training improvement act of 2005 .  today 's bill has nothing to do with improving job training for our workforce -- far from it .  instead , this bill actually weakens worker protections , opens the door to hiring discrimination , and dismantles the employment service program that helps unemployed workers find jobs .  apparently the republicans have n't monitored the weak job market numbers .  how else can you explain being so cruel and unfair as to pull the rug out on our nation 's unemployed ?  let me remind my republican colleagues that there are still fewer jobs available in america than when president bush came to office .  inflation is still growing faster than the average earnings of workers -- a fact that is particularly true for low-skilled and low-income workers .  confronted with such evidence , this congress should be doing everything we can to bolster workforce investment .  yet , this republican bill cuts employment and re-employment services at the time they are needed most .  it underfunds the employment service , adult , and dislocated worker programs by consolidating them into a single block grant .  this puts a greater financial burden directly on the states , exacerbating their budget deficits and perversely triggering layoffs among the very state employees who administer these programs .  yet , much worse , it forces unemployed workers and welfare recipients to fight it out for a share of these limited funds .  to add insult to injury , the republicans give states the right to waive basic worker protections that allow employees to seek redress when they 've been treated unfairly .  they even allow religious organizations to engage in hiring discrimination in an unholy attempt to turn back a half-century of progress in preventing workplace discrimination .  current law prohibits employers participating in federal job training programs from discriminating based on race , color , religion , sex , national origin , age disability , or political affiliation or belief .  the republican bill would allow the taxpayer dollars that pay for these job-training programs to go to religious organizations that blatantly discriminate in hiring based on religious beliefs .  what next ?  will the next bush initiative include allowing discrimination based on race , sexual orientation or political affiliation ?  the vital civil rights provision barring federally-funded religious discrimination has never been controversial and has never been a partisan issue .  in fact , the provision was first included in the federal job training legislation that former senator dan quayle sponsored .  it passed through a committee chaired by senator orrin hatch and was signed by president ronald reagan .  throughout its 23-year history , this civil rights provision has not been an obstacle to the participation of religiously affiliated organizations in federal job training programs .  currently , many religious organizations participate in the federal programs and comply with the same civil rights protections that apply to other employers .  but suddenly , under the leadership of the white house , we are being asked to forget the principle of equal opportunity on which our country was founded .  now is not the time to be rolling back civil rights protections and it certainly is n't the time to be short-changing the unemployed .  congress ought to be creating solutions to make it easier for folks to find jobs , not more difficult .  this republican bill is clearly not a solution .  i urge my colleagues to vote `` no '' on h.r. 27 .  
D	mr. chairman , i thank the chairman very much .  this is an example of the collegiality of our committee on education and the workforce .  we do not agree often , but we at least have a good collegial time doing it .  i just want to stress the points that i made .  and the fact of the matter is that having a mandate that every state put all their money toward out-of-school youth does not help those states that have an in-school youth issue .  it also deprives a lot of programs that are working with our business community and in-school youth to get them better equipped to not only support themselves but their families to have them be more self-sufficient when they get out of school .  those programs would be slashed in many states if h.r. 27 were to go through as it is .  we have a great need for these in many states ; programs like girls inc. , action inc .  and others work that way .  i respect the chairman giving me this time to make that point , that this h.r. 27 change is a solution that does not have a problem .  
D	mr. chairman , i object .  
D	mr. chairman , once again my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are claiming they want to help workers in this nation .  but , as usual , their actions say otherwise .  the newest wia proposal does nothing more than force workers to compete with each other for services that they have come to expect and services they deserve from the wia system .  wia one-stops provide important job training services to help those struggling to find work to get resources they need .  if this bill passes , veterans and unemployed adults will be placed second to infrastructure costs .  instead of increasing funding in the bill to address infrastructure needs separately , this bill forces governors to choose between workers and updating facilities , all from the same pot of money .  limiting this pool of funding will deny workers quality services for reemployment and adult education programs , and that is just plain and simple true .  this bill also sets up a voucher system that will actually decrease the amount of services available to job seekers .  those receiving these new job vouchers will be able to pay for training courses or other job-searching expenses .  that sounds great .  but the catch is that once a worker takes a voucher , they will lose access to federal job training programs through wia for an entire year .  money and services are both critical for many workers to get back on track , particularly when they have become unemployed over and over again , and workers who should not have to make the choice between one or the other are continually faced with the dilemma .  this bill also changes the way in which the government will evaluate the success of wia programs .  now workers will be judged on how they serve the company they work for rather than on the quality of services they received under wia .  since when was wia focused on big business ' needs rather than the worker 's needs ?  the worst part of this bill , however , is that it will write discrimination into the law .  at religious institutions receiving wia funds , those who share the same religious philosophies will have an advantage over those applying for employment that do not subscribe to the same views .  workers can now lose job opportunities through blatant religious discrimination at places our tax dollars are funding .  this bill turns wia into a competitive service provider , rather than an equal opportunity resource for our nation 's unemployed workers .  this is not the way we can help our nation 's workforce , and i urge my colleagues to oppose h.r. 27 as it is written .  
D	mr. speaker , i would like to thank the gentleman from michigan for offering this motion to recommit .  mr. speaker , we have asked literally hundreds of thousands of our best and brightest , many of them national guard and reservists from south dakota , to serve overseas in operations iraqi freedom and enduring freedom .  we owe these brave men and women and their families a great deal for their sacrifice during these difficult times .  what we owe them is the opportunity to make good on the american dream that they have fought to defend .  this motion would create an economic transition benefit , similar to trade adjustment act assistance , for service members returning from iraq and afghanistan who find themselves without employment .  additionally , too many of the brave men and women who are serving in the national guard and reserve forces have returned home to find their jobs gone and their families struggling to make ends meet .  while our military personnel are risking their lives in iraq and afghanistan , they should not be worrying if their jobs will be there for them when they return home or what they will do if they are not .  this motion to recommit would provide unemployed veterans of iraq and afghanistan with income support and intensive employment training and job relocation assistance so that they can successfully transition back into civilian life .  i ask my colleagues to support this motion to recommit .  our returning servicemembers from iraq and afghanistan deserve no less .  
R	mr. chairman , i thank the chairman and the gentleman from california for allowing me to participate in this debate .  mr. chairman , i am somewhat perplexed and disappointed by the tactics from the other side .  this is serious business , and simply working to divide our citizens i believe to be counterproductive .  this bill , this bill , will enhance employment ; it will increase employment and job retention , plus increase the overall skill level of our labor force .  now , the demagoguery that you hear from the other side on this issue , and , frankly , on every issue , seemingly every issue , frankly is a disservice to this debate and does a disservice to our nation .  this bill gets more resources to the individual needing it .  that is a good thing .  these are very challenging times for many in our workforce .  they need more options for assistance , not a one-size-fits-all model or program .  streamlining the one-stop career center system is easier for the client .  that is a good thing .  it does not harm the wagner-peyser money .  there are no lost resources .  greater flexibility in the delivery of core , intensive , and training services allows individuals to receive the most appropriate services specifically for them .  that is a good thing .  providing personal reemployment accounts allows those who are unemployed an opportunity to use money for those things that are often that final hurdle to getting a new job , child care , transportation , housing assistance .  that is a good thing .  getting more resources to those most in need when they are out of school helps those without other opportunities , and that is a good thing .  faith-based language in this bill is identical , identical , to four separate pieces of legislation passed during the clinton administration .  there is no discrimination on the provision of services .  with this legislation , we are actively and positively addressing how the federal government , and ultimately how each and every citizen , will come together and lend a helping hand to those needing that assistance at a very pivotal time .  that is a good thing .  mr. chairman , i urge my colleagues to support this bill and move forward in helping those needing to return to the workforce .  this is a good thing .  
R	mr. chairman , i appreciate the opportunity to speak again on this , and i am astounded , frankly , at the level of misinformation that is coming from the other side .  i think it is important to look at the bill specifically as it defines youth .  the definition of youth has changed .  the age for when an individual is considered a youth has changed .  currently it is 14 to 21 years .  in the bill , it would change it from 16 to 24 years .  what that means is that we have more individuals out of school , out of school , who require assistance .  and that is one of the reasons the provision is in the bill to change it , so that more individuals out of school will have greater opportunity to access those monies .  it is also important to appreciate this is a department of labor program .  the department of education has a phenomenal number of programs eligible for in-school youth that really dwarfs the amount of money for the out-of-school individuals , 15 to 1 by my count .  some of those programs are title i grants to improve education for the disadvantaged , neglected and delinquent grants to local educational agencies , 21st century learning centers , safe and drug-free schools and community state grants , bilingual education instructional services , dropout prevention grants , and on and on and on , striving readers grant and vocational technical education .  in summary , no one , no one is decreasing the amount of money to in-school youth for the concerns and the issues that they have .  what we are doing is making it so that this bill addresses those individuals that are most in need .  
R	mr. speaker , i am impressed with the fact that america is a land of vision and opportunity .  my wife 's grandparents came through ellis island and began literally with nothing .  by the second generation , both had become professionals and had made a great impact on their local economies , passed that on to the third generation with their children , adding value , working to create jobs in the long term .  i think the exciting thing of the values of this nation is the people who have come here from every ethnic background , from every nation on this earth .  the great diversity has one thing in common , that is , a unity of vision , of opportunity , of purpose that can be accomplished when we are part of something bigger than ourselves .  when i look at the numbers right now in this nation from an unemployment standpoint , we stand at 5.2 percent , which is one of the lowest unemployments in the industrialized world , particularly in light of the fact that we are involved in a war that was forced upon us by global terrorists .  when i look at the challenges that this nation has faced , there has been a great turnaround during the last 4 years .  more than that , when i look to my own district , to the fourth district of kentucky , and the tremendous steps forward that have been made in the manufacturing economy , that have been made in technology and in the creation of jobs and in the development of industry and health sciences , i am excited about our future .  i am excited about the potential for our young people to move forward and have the opportunity to create their own future , to create jobs , to start small businesses , to follow in the opportunity that i had when i finished my military service .  after a time in industry , i chose to pursue that vision to start my own company and then end up helping other companies create jobs .  i think one of the great things that we see a need for right now is to continue to remove the burden of regulations , to remove the burdensome tax code , to remove the impediments to individuals at every level of our economy , from starting their own businesses , from creating jobs in our communities , that will stay in our communities , to keep capital investment in those communities .  i think there are several steps that are important .  first , we need to bring about meaningful tax reform .  i believe that the tax cuts that were enacted in the last congress need to be made permanent so that people can keep more of what they earn .  i think it is important that the so-called death tax be completely eliminated .  the reason why is it has nothing to do with the super-rich .  it has to do with jobs in our communities , local farmers , small family farmers , people that own family businesses that have gone on for generations , to make sure that they have the opportunity to keep those jobs in the community .  that is a tax that is pernicious .  indeed , what it does is it hurts the very people it is intended to help because it removes the capital from our local economy .  another thing that is necessary for us to do is to make sure that small business owners have the flexibility to overcome a burdensome tax code .  if they see the opportunity in a good year to take advantage of capital investment to improve their competitiveness , to increase jobs in the local community or protect the jobs that they have , they should have that flexibility ; and i would like to see the ability to expense capital investment made permanent rather than renewing it as we have been doing over the past 18 years .  education is an important area as well .  we need to open up the tremendous opportunities to entrepreneurship that we have in our economy .  i met recently with a new division of northern kentucky university , a pioneer in the university of kentucky system .  they have their own school of entrepreneurship now to encourage this creation of jobs in the local economy , to show people how they can start a business , how they can add value , how they can help people create a nest egg and a job that will last for the long term and create other jobs that will strengthen our community .  it is also important that we continue to invest in our university systems and vocational and technical education .  the reason for this , working with public-private partnerships , working closely with our local communities from the federal government is to assure that we are staying on the cutting edge of technology innovation , looking for opportunity for the long term .  in addition , it is also important that we look at reforms that will allow small businesses to function .  we need to bring about meaningful health care reform .  what does that mean ?  small businesses need to have the ability to band together and form associations to reduce the cost of health care .  i found in my own business that my premiums , if i had not been elected to congress , were going to increase 50 percent , from $ 1 , 200 to $ 1 , 800 a month , just for my family and my business .  that is unconscionable .  we need to encourage these small businesses and enact regulations that will allow them to cover more of their employees , more of our employees in the long term .  in addition to that , we need to bring about meaningful medical liability reform as part of this health care reform .  the reason for that is , first of all , to stop driving our doctors out of practice in many states .  for example , in kentucky we have lost one-third of our ob-gyn doctors in the last 5 years due to medical liability costs .  but at a small business and job creation level , it will be a job creator if we have some meaningful liability reforms , not only to keep our doctors but to keep the cost of health care provision low so that we could cover more of our employees and also be more competitive in the long term .  in the end , there are a variety of steps that we can take .  i am very excited about the potential of the american people .  we have shown in a time of national adversity now that we can compete , that we can have a strong economy , that we can create jobs ; and when i look at one of the largest employers in northeastern kentucky , a very prominent steel mill that is creating jobs , that is hiring , that is competing effectively in the world economy now , i know that we are going to be successful .  
R	mr. speaker , the gentlewoman from tennessee ( mrs. blackburn )  is so eloquent in her words about freedom and the economy and what makes this country great .  we have the healthiest economy in the world , and i want to build on the things that my colleagues have said .  the reason we have the healthiest economy in the world is because we are the freest people in the world .  i agree with what the president has been saying .  if we want to see a good world , we want to see people have all of the rights and privileges , we are going to see freedom throughout the world and we are going to see growing economies .  as again the gentlewoman from tennessee ( mrs. blackburn )  said , job creation was up in 48 of the 50 states last year , and unemployment was down in all regions .  i want to talk a little bit about the job training improvement act which is going to be voted on here tomorrow .  the committee on education and the workforce has passed it out of our committee after a great deal of debate .  h.r. 27 is called strengthening america 's job training system .  it builds on the significant reforms made in the bipartisan workforce investment act improvements that were enacted in 1998 .  while those reforms have provided workers with resources and tools necessary to rejoin the workforce or retrain for better jobs , there were still areas of inefficiency and duplication that were remaining .  what h.r. 27 is going to do , among other things , is eliminate duplication and waste .  it consolidates three adult job training programs into one consolidated adult funding stream to streamline program administration and reduce inefficiency at the state and local level .  this change will enable more job seekers to be served with no reduction in services .  last week we talked a lot about inefficiency and waste , and this is another one of the ways that we are going to do that .  we are going to ensure our one-stop delivery system is demand driven .  we are going to remove barriers to job training .  the bill eliminates arbitrary provisions of current law that prevent someone from accessing training immediately if appropriate to meet his or her employment goals .  state and local areas will have the flexibility to tailor services to meet individual needs , and that is so important to us as we drive down the decisionmaking to the local level .  the bill is also going to protect the rights of faith-based groups to help train and retrain workers .  the bill protects the rights of faith-based groups willing to participate in the nation 's job training system .  the landmark 1964 civil rights act makes clear that faith-based groups have the right to hire workers on a religious basis , and that such hiring practices do not constitute discrimination .  former president clinton signed a number of major laws upholding this right .  we are going to strengthen partnerships between businesses and job-training service providers .  we are going to improve adult education and enhance vocational rehabilitation .  the bill includes a number of provisions designed to strengthen the 1973 rehabilitation act in a continuing effort to help individuals with disabilities become employable and achieve full integration .  i want to make a comment about a wonderfully significant thing that happened in the fifth congressional district last week related to increasing jobs , and that was that dell manufacturing broke ground for a $ 100 million plant in forsythe county .  that plant is dell 's largest anywhere , 527 , 000 square feet .  they are going to hire 700 people in the first year .  workers are going to assemble two of dell 's desktop models , the dimension and the optiplex , in the new plant .  the jobs there are going to pay an average of $ 27 , 000 .  we are about 2 weeks away from the start of a process where people can express interest in being hired for the first 200-250 jobs , then dell will hire another 500 people .  most of these will be people from the fifth congressional district .  we are so excited to have dell manufacturing in forsythe county .  again , i think this is an indication that the policies of this president and the policies of this congress are working in terms of reducing taxes and making our south a very good place to bring new jobs .  
R	mr. speaker , i would like to thank the gentlewoman from tennessee .  talking about being well spoken , she certainly is , and i appreciate the way that she is addressing the great things that are beginning to or continuing to happen in the economy .  the economy is growing .  one of the things that is not , of course , is social security .  it continues , as we have been told , to limp along about 1.5 percent , 1.6 percent .  but the rest of the economy , where a free market is being allowed to thrive and grow , is helping to create jobs .  now , there are problems .  we have not conquered them all .  but what a great time of hope .  and i have seen it , and you have expressed it , and you feel it in east texas .  there is an industry that is looking at reopening a plant in lufkin , texas .  that is exciting , maybe bringing 4 or 500 jobs , plus maybe several hundred more potentially once that occurs .  there is excitement as people think about the potential for helping with tort reform .  we were having hearings a couple of weeks ago and finding that one of the drains on the medical economy is the fact that 70 percent of all the massive number of physicians who are sued are dropped without any finding of fault and without paying anything in settlement .  well , that is an area we are working on to help reform , to help eliminate ; 70 percent of the physicians that are sued having to be sued and providing a carrot and a stick to correct that form where abuse has occurred .  you know , 9/11 should have sent this economy into depression .  students of history , and i was talking with some students and teachers from grace high school in tyler , texas , and they have been studying a number of aspects of this .  but we should have gone into a full scale depression .  but we had a president with courage and with vision .  and despite what the naysayers were coming out with , he stood firm .  we had tax cuts .  and as we found , as president kennedy knew , as president reagan established , every time there has been a tax cut , it has helped the economy .  thank god for president bush and his standing there firm for tax cuts .  and we have seen the economy continue to grow .  as the students i talked with earlier from grace high school had studied , the free market system works .  you know the pilgrims , as you probably know , congresswoman , they tried a communist form of government .  and what they found was that it did not work .  they nearly starved to death .  so they had to institute free market forces and just , if you do not work you do not eat .  and the next thing you know , they are thriving , crops are growing , things are going well again .  and i tell you , we have put way too much trust in government .  and i am excited about the potential this government has and to be a part of this congress with you because i think we have more potential to get this country on the right road than any congress since the 1930 new deal congress .  we can establish free market .  we can fix social security so young people today can have the benefits of the free market economy instead of struggling in poverty with what little bit social security pays .  this president , this house , this senate have such potential and i consider it an honor to be part of it .  as it says above the speaker 's head , `` in god we trust. '' and we need to make use of the trust that god has given us .  and i thank you for the trust with some of your time .  
R	mr. chairman , the policies congress has implemented over the last four years have provided a solid foundation for american workers and businesses to build a strong economy .  with steady job growth over the last 20 months putting over 2.7 million americans back to work , it is clear that congress has the right priorities : working americans and their families .  american workers need access to job-training in order that they may obtain the skills to perform the jobs of the 21st century .  americans want more than a job -- they want jobs with higher pay and that provide them with meaning and personal satisfaction .  they also want a career , a future , and financial independence in retirement .  as our economy shifts from production to service related jobs , and from low-tech to high-tech occupations , americans need access to education and job training that provides them with the skills they need to perform .  mr. chairman , when enacted , this plan will pair workers with the employers who need the skills they offer , and vice versa .  in a dynamic and changing world economy , many americans are faced with the reality that they might have to change careers multiple times .  this plan will strengthen the ties between job training programs , adult education and vocational rehabilitation programs and the people they serve so they can continue to grow in their careers .  of particular importance to me and my colleagues who support this plan is provision i proposed that is reflected in the bill we 're voting on today .  the provision paves the way for added support for disabled veterans who need help finding meaningful work as they transition to the civilian sector after their dedicated service to our nation .  the men and women of our armed forces who have given of themselves should not only be honored , but aided as much as possible in starting life again upon their return .  the job training improvement act is a crucial step in taking the american workforce into the 21st century , and i encourage my colleagues to support its passage .  
R	mr. speaker , about 50 percent of americans or so are employed in small businesses , and obviously if something is employing almost half of americans that are working , that should be a priority .  and one can imagine my surprise the other day to find out about a guy who drove up to a bank in an old ford , about a 15-year-old ford pickup truck , with rust holes in the floor .  he went into that bank and he took out a loan for $ 2 million .  and the head of the bank was inquiring of the guy that is the accountant that handles our books that i have to do as a congressman .  he said , why in the world did this guy have to take a $ 2 million loan out ?  and it particularly seemed out of place with this guy with his old rusty holes in his pickup truck .  he said , his father just died and they have to pay the estate tax on the farm .  i had heard stories like that before , but there it was right in front of me .  so what this bill is seeking to do is to try to make it possible that we do not destroy farms and small businesses that employ close to half the people that have jobs in our country ; and that seems to be only reasonable .  and yet i am hearing the democrats saying over here that they are all upset because we have already taxed a dollar the first time the guy earns it ; then we are going to tax him again on sales tax and other things he buys , and now it is not fair to tax a dollar the third time it comes around .  it just seems to me we do not want to destroy the businesses and farms .  what we want to do is make those jobs available , and we want to get rid of this death tax .  just dying should not be a reason for taxes .  
D	mr. speaker , i rise in opposition to s. 256 .  this bill helps big credit card companies at the expense of working families in crisis .  a harvard university study reports that more than forty-five percent of all bankruptcies are filed because of a health emergency .  approximately ninety percent of all bankruptcies are due to a health care debt , job loss , or a divorce .  when this personal crisis happens , families are driven into crushing credit card debt that they ultimately can not manage .  working families are being squeezed by skyrocketing health care costs , gas prices , and housing costs .  at the same time , this republican congress is reducing the social safety net for working families : medicaid , social security , and now , bankruptcy protections .  mr. speaker , i know there are people abusing the bankruptcy code .  but there are also companies marketing loans to people who can not afford them .  credit unions and community banks make responsible loans and do responsible underwriting .  but this bill does nothing to make big credit card companies curb their abusive marketing strategies or practice responsible underwriting .  vote `` no '' on s. 256 .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman for yielding me time .  mr. speaker , it is about great pleasure that i rise today to express my strong support for the bankruptcy abuse prevention and consumer protection act .  a chinese proverb says , give a man a fish and you feed him for a day .  teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime .  and that is exactly what this bill before us does today .  there are many reasons to support this bankruptcy reform bill , but i want to focus on one that is important to many of my colleagues , to me , and to the american people .  we should support the bill because it contains important financial literacy provisions .  financial literacy goes hand in hand with helping our citizens of all ages and walks of life to negotiate the complex world of personal finance .  financial literacy can help americans avoid or survive bankruptcy .  we pass many laws that require the disclosure of the terms and conditions of the rich mix of financial products and services that are available to consumers .  unfortunately for too many americans , knowing the terms and conditions of financial products and services is challenging enough .  however , understanding those terms and conditions is often an even greater challenge .  recognizing this fact , congress included provisions in the fair and accurate credit transactions act to address the issue of financial literacy .  the bankruptcy abuse prevention and consumer protection act also contains important provisions addressing economic education and financial literacy .  these provisions are designed to ensure that those who enter the bankruptcy system will learn the skills to more effectively manage their money in an increasingly complicated marketplace .  last week we passed house resolution 148 , a bill that supports the goals and ideals of financial literacy month , which is this month , april 2005 .  h. res. 148 was co-sponsored by 82 members of this body , and 409 members of this body voted for it .  mr. speaker , the number of bankruptcies remain at a historic high , over 1.6 million bankruptcy cases were filed in federal courts in 2004 .  with this in mind , i urge my colleagues to support this bill .  
R	mr. speaker , it is with great pleasure that i rise today to express my strong support for the bankruptcy abuse prevention and consumer protection act .  a chinese proverb says : `` give a man a fish and you feed him for a day .  teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. '' and that 's exactly what this bill before us today will do .  there are many reasons to support this bankruptcy reform bill , but i want to focus on one that is important to many of my colleagues , to me and to the american people .  we should support the bill because it contains important financial literacy provisions .  financial literacy goes hand-in-hand with helping our citizens of all ages and walks of life to negotiate the complex world of personal finance .  financial literacy can help americans avoid or survive bankruptcy .  we have passed many laws that require the disclosure of the terms and conditions of the rich mix of financial products and services that are available to consumers .  unfortunately , for too many americans , knowing the terms and conditions of financial products and services is challenging enough .  however , understanding those terms and conditions is often an even greater challenge .  recognizing this fact , congress included provisions in the fair and accurate credit transactions act to address the issue of financial literacy .  the bankruptcy abuse prevention and consumer protection act , s. 256 , also contains important provisions addressing economic education and financial literacy .  these provisions are designed to ensure that those who enter the bankruptcy system will learn the skills to more effectively manage their money in an increasingly complicated marketplace .  before the house considers s. 256 , i want to highlight , for my colleagues , some of the bill 's important financial literacy provisions : first : the bill will facilitate educating future generations .  it expresses the `` sense of the congress '' that personal finance curricula be developed for elementary and secondary education programs .  if we teach our children , early-on , how to manage money , credit , and debt , they can become responsible workers , and heads of households and keep their parents out of bankruptcy court .  second : the bill will provide for pre-filing credit counseling .  it requires debtors , prior to filing for bankruptcy , to receive credit counseling from a nonprofit counseling agency .  the counseling must include a budget analysis and disclosures regarding the possible impact of bankruptcy on a debtor 's credit report .  next : the bill will provide for pre-discharge financial education , requiring debtors to complete an approved instructional course on personal financial management prior to receiving a discharge under chapter 7 or 13 .  the bill will also include important exceptions .  it authorizes phone and internet counseling for both the pre-filing and pre-discharge education requirements to assist debtors in rural and remote areas .  in addition , either or both requirements may be waived if services are not available or in exigent circumstances .  finally , the bill requires the director of the executive office for u.s. trustees to : ( 1 ) develop a financial management training curriculum and materials to educate individual debtors on how to better manage their finances ; and ( 2 ) evaluate and report to the congress on the curriculum 's efficacy .  this will ensure that congress can evaluate the effectiveness of these financial literacy provisions in the long-term .  last week , we passed house resolution 148 , a bill that supports the goals and ideals of financial literacy month , which is this month , april 2005 .  h. res. 148 was co-sponsored by 82 members of this body and 409 members of this body voted for it .  mr. speaker , the number of bankruptcies remains at a historic high -- over 1.6 million bankruptcy cases were filed in federal courts in 2004 .  with that in mind and in the spirit of financial literacy month , i urge my colleagues to pass s. 256 , the bankruptcy abuse prevention and consumer protection act , which contains important financial literacy provisions that will provide americans with the skills needed to successfully navigate the world of personal finance .  mr. speaker , let 's help our fellow citizens avoid bankruptcy altogether .  `` give a man a fish and you feed him for a day .  teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. '' vote for s. 256 .  
D	mr. speaker , i rise today to recognize the hard-working people of america who play by the rules and have paid their fair share .  decent , law-abiding , tax-paying americans are the backbone of this country , and they are the salt of the earth .  they are the farmers of southwest georgia and the family business owners who provide the jobs that keep small rural communities alive and flourishing .  all across this land are americans who have paid their taxes all their lives , only to face a final taxing event at death .  they paid their taxes during their lifetimes and should not be charged again when they die .  the death tax represents all that is unfair and unjust about the tax structure in america because it undermines the life work and the life savings of americans who want only to pass on to their children and grandchildren the fruits of their labor and the realization of their american dream .  in my state of georgia , farmers , many of whom are widow women , are faced with losing their family farms because of this death tax .  employees of family businesses , many of whom are minorities , are at risk of losing their jobs because their employers are forced to pay the unfair and exorbitant death taxes levied on them .  funeral homes , weekly newspaper publishers , radio station owners , local dry cleaners , all are affected all across the demographic spectrum .  mr. speaker , although reasonable minds may differ on this issue , i believe that the death tax is politically misguided , morally unjustifiable , and downright un-american .  let us vote today to finally eliminate the death tax and return to the american people and their progeny the hard-earned fruits of their labor .  
R	mr. speaker , i want to rise in support of the rule that will allow us to consider the permanent repeal of the death tax .  mr. speaker , i think it is so appropriate , so very appropriate that this week , as millions of american taxpayers are finalizing their federal income tax filings that we are looking at what is one of the most egregious taxes and most unfair taxes to our small business community .  i am one of those that fully believes that the death tax is the triple tax , because americans pay tax when they earn their income .  then they turn around , they buy an asset , and they spend their money , and they are paying a tax on every bit of that .  and then , when an american dies , they have to pay the tax again .  this tax affects every american , especially our small business owners .  i have found it very curious that some of my colleagues across the aisle continue to say it only affects the rich .  well , in my district , do my colleagues know that it affects thousands of farmers , thousands of small business owners who are very upset about the death tax ?  families everywhere would benefit from the repeal of this tax .  when 70 percent of family businesses do not make it to the second generation , there is a problem ; and we know we can fix part of that problem , because it is the death tax .  for too long the death tax has been a major factor in the failure of family businesses .  the tax not only forces american families to hand over their hard work to the government ; family businesses spend millions of dollars every year trying to comply with these regulations .  in addition , it discourages savings and investment , and it is costing our economy hundreds of thousands of new jobs .  mr. speaker , 89 percent of americans want death taxes repealed .  small business owners get it , seniors get it , the farmers in my district get it .  mr. speaker , i urge my colleagues to join the leadership and to support this rule in favor of h.r. 8 .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank my good friend , the gentleman from missouri ( mr. hulshof )  , for yielding to me and for the great work he has done on this issue from the day we came to congress 8 years ago .  i rise in support of the bill that would repeal this tax .  the house and senate are already both on record for repealing the tax .  we just did not repeal it permanently .  by not repealing the tax permanently , we created an incredible situation for those people who would have an estate that was not taxable at all in 2010 , but is highly taxable in 2011 .  the alternatives that the other side of the aisle have discovered during the hard work to achieve the goal of this bill are certainly a long way from where they were a few years ago .  in fact , we have all heard about the impact on small businesses and family farms , but it bears repeating as we consider this legislation today .  more than 70 percent of family businesses do not survive the second generation , and 87 percent do not make it to the third generation because of the estate tax .  the idea that you give your son $ 2 million overlooks the vast numbers of family members in this country who actually are working side by side with their son or daughter .  it is hard to tell who made the money and who did not , but on the day that the original member of the family passes away , suddenly the side-by-side partner has a big problem .  family farms and businesses are among the hardest hit .  in fact , $ 2 million is quite a bit below the alternative that the gentleman will vote for and suggests that amount somehow would be okay to give in his vote , but not okay to give in his speech .  add in the value of farm equipment and business inventory , suddenly there is a lot more money than you thought you could accumulate .  when we started this debate a few years ago , i saw some statistics that the highest percentage of estates paying at that time were estates that were only slightly above the estate tax amount , but i am sure none of the principals involved had any idea that they had accumulated over their lifetime an estate that would be taxed as a taxable estate .  on friday of this week , i am going to visit with mark and kim larson who own a family farm right outside of joplin in my district .  mark tells me he and his family spend a lot of money , money which would otherwise go into continuing to grow their family business , simply trying to comply with a tax code that says if somebody dies in 2010 , your family deals with one set of circumstances ; but if they die the next year , you are impacted by the return of the death tax .  medium-to-large farms like the larsons ' produce more than 80 percent of agricultural products in america .  let us put some certainty in the future for those kinds of families .  let us do the right thing and abolish this tax that penalizes savings and hard work .  
R	mr. speaker , i rise in strong support of h.r. 8 , legislation that would permanently repeal the death tax , a tax that haunts millions of small business owners and farmers nationwide .  the last thing the federal government should be doing is taking more money from small business owners and farmers , and curtailing further economic growth .  they are the backbone that drives our economy forward .  i commend mr. hulshof for his leadership on this issue and praise his vision to continue lowering the federal tax burden .  throughout my twenty-two years in congress , i have proudly voted for every major tax cut initiative considered by the house .  cutting taxes is one of my highest priorities .  i remain convinced that letting americans keep more of what they earn will help stimulate the economy and create more jobs .  people will not hide this much-needed relief under their mattress or store it in their closet ; instead they will purchase necessary goods and services .  an increased demand for these goods and services will require more employees ; therefore , providing incentives for businesses to hire more workers -- putting unemployed americans back on the job and providing a framework for long-term economic growth .  the key to growing our economy is simple -- allow americans to keep more of their own money to spend , save , and invest .  my favorite four-letter word -- do n't worry , it 's a four letter word that can be used in polite company -- is jobs .  permanently repealing the death tax will create new jobs across the nation .  cutting taxes is not unprecedented .  since 2001 , congress has repeatedly passed legislation , which i 'm proud to say i voted for , to lower the federal tax burden .  for example , we voted to extend relief from the marriage penalty tax , a burdensome tax on married couples for doing nothing more than saying `` i do. '' we also voted to extend the alternative minimum tax reforms ( amt ) , which is the right step toward making sure the amt applies only to those people it was designed to cover , not working families just trying to make ends meet .  we also supported a measure to extend the 10 % bracket to lower taxes for hard working , low-income families .  finally , we voted to extend the $ 1 , 000 child tax credit .  it only makes sense to take the next step and permanently repeal the death tax .  i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting h.r. 8 , and put an end to this unfair , unjust , and inefficient burden on our economy .  
D	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman for yielding me time .  mr. speaker , the reform of the nation 's bankruptcy laws which our actions today will accomplish is well justified .  this reform is strongly in the interests of consumers .  it will significantly reduce the annual hidden tax of approximately $ 400 that the typical consumer pays because others are misusing the bankruptcy laws .  that amount represents the increased cost of credit and the increased price of goods and services caused by bankruptcy law misuse .  this reform will lower that hidden tax .  the reform also helps consumers by requiring clearer disclosures of the cost of credit on credit card statements , and the reform will be a major benefit to single parents who receive alimony or child support .  that person today is fifth in priority for the receipt of payment under the bankruptcy laws .  the reform before us today elevates the spouse support recipient to number one in priority .  this reform proceeds from the basic premise that people who can afford to repay a substantial portion of what they owe should do so .  the bill requires that repayment while allowing a discharge in bankruptcy of the debts that can not be repaid .  in so doing , it responds to the broad misuse of chapter 7 's complete liquidation provisions that we have observed in recent years .  the reform measure sets a threshold for the use of chapter 7. debtors who can make little or no repayment can use its provisions and discharge all of their debts .  debtors whose annual income is below the national mean of about $ 50 , 000 per year are untouched by this reform .  they can make full use of chapter 7 and discharge all of their debts , whether or not they can afford to make repayments .  this reform imposes a modest measure of personal responsibility that is well justified , and i urge its approval by the house .  
D	mr. speaker , i rise today to comment on the republicans ' priorities .  many of them talk about protecting veterans and making sure that veterans have the support they need when they return from protecting this country 's freedom in iraq .  today the house passed h.r. 8 to make permanent the repeal of the estate tax .  this bill will cost the american taxpayers $ 295 billion over the next 10 years .  the cost on the first 2 years could go as high as $ 1 trillion .  this bill gives a tax break to the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent of estates , while imposing a new capital gains tax on most of us , including small business owners and farmers .  at the same time , the republicans passed a budget that calls for $ 800 million in cuts to the va over the next 5 years .  clearly , the republicans are attempting to balance the budget on the backs of the veterans .  tomorrow , this same house will vote on bankruptcy legislation that does not protect our veterans .  many of our servicemembers , especially the citizen soldiers of the guard and the reserve forces , face terrible financial problems because they do not qualify for a narrow protection of debt incurred while on duty if s. 256 becomes law .  since 9/11 , approximately half a million reservists and guardsmen have been called to active duty , some more than once .  hundreds of thousands of reservists and national guardsmen are currently activated in support of the ongoing military operations .  according to the national guard , four out of 10 members of the national guard and reservist forces lose income when they leave their civilian jobs for active duty .  the people of this country need to see what policies the republicans actually vote for .  they talk the talk very well , but they do not walk the walk or roll the roll for our veterans who have sacrificed their bodies for this nation .  today , the gentleman from illinois ( mr. evans )  , our ranking member , filed a bill for mental health for our veterans .  it is clear that they are slipping through the cracks , and we need to focus our attention on how to assist veterans returning from the war , whether it is economic , whether it is health care , or whether it is to make sure that they have their jobs and have a seamless transition .  we need to do more than talk the talk .  we need to make sure that our money follows all of this rhetoric we have on the floor constantly about how we support the veterans .  it should not be just talk , but it should be our actions .  
R	mr. speaker , i rise today in support of the permanent repeal of the death tax .  to put it simply , the death tax is just wrong .  it is wrong to encourage people to work hard all their life , only to have the government reap the benefits when they die .  it is wrong to levy hefty taxes against families of thriving small business owners just because their parents were successful .  it is wrong to stifle economic growth by forcing small businesses to close because of an overbearing tax bill delivered by a greedy uncle sam .  mr. speaker , our republican majority stands firmly against double taxation on working families .  taxes have already been paid on the assets subject to additional taxation under the death tax .  i am confident that americans are far better equipped than politicians to decide how to best spend their hard earned money .  it is time for congress to let important fiscal decisions to be made where they should be , at the kitchen table , not at the tax table .  let 's repeal this unjust tax and empower american working families who know best how to make the right decisions for themselves .  
R	mr. speaker , we have before us today a bill that provides a safety net for people who have lost a job , had health problems , or served in the military and can not repay their debts .  it gives them the opportunity for a fresh start while continuing to hold accountable those who are able to repay their debts .  bankruptcy abuse represents a `` hidden tax '' on the american people .  when businesses have to raise the cost of their products due to unpaid liabilities , that cost is passed unfairly to all of us .  when people file for bankruptcy and cancel out their debts , small businesses suffer major financial setbacks .  bankruptcy to a small business triggers a change in its bottom line .  a smaller bottom line means less money to pay employees , which leads to job cuts -- something nobody would like to talk about , and certainly nobody would like to encourage .  this legislation will modernize the system and make it more difficult to hide behind the protections of filing for bankruptcy .  with this bill we will lessen the impact of the unpaid debt that is a hindrance to thousands of businesses and hurts our ability to create jobs .  
R	i thank the gentleman from washington for yielding me this time .  mr. speaker , i rise today in strong support of the rule and the underlying legislation .  i am proud to be a cosponsor of h.r. 8 and thank the gentleman from missouri for his leadership in offering this bill .  i was proud to be in this chamber 4 years ago on the day congress began phasing out the death tax .  as a result , thousands of jobs were saved and second and third generations were able to take charge of their family 's business .  we knew when we passed that law the phaseout was not a permanent fix .  today we have the opportunity to complete unfinished business .  if we do not act now to permanently eliminate the death tax , it will be revived at the stroke of midnight on january 1 , 2011 .  bringing back the death tax will drive the final nail in the coffin for america 's next generation of small business owners .  the death tax repeal permanency act represents the changes to our tax code called for by our nation 's farmers and small business owners who want to pass their family business on to the next generation .  small business owners and farmers devote their time , energy and money into building a business so it can be passed on to their sons or daughters .  in the absence of the death tax , these small businesses become a legacy for one generation to pass on to the next .  with the death tax , families face a whopping tax bill on the property and assets even though taxes have already been paid annually by the owners .  the death tax is an overwhelming burden , forcing many families to sell their businesses just to pay the 37 to 55 percent tax .  as a result , jobs are lost and generations of family toil are plundered by the government .  permanently repealing the death tax will help small businesses create new jobs .  a 2002 study showed that an extra 100 , 000 jobs a year would be created if the death tax were permanently repealed .  the wall street journal wrote in 1999 that 60 percent of small businesses would add jobs if death taxes were not on the books .  the very threat of a revived death tax has a negative impact on small business .  even with the temporary phaseout , business owners must continue to plan for paying that tax .  to help owners hire new workers and continue to invest in their business , they need to know that the death tax is gone for good .  we must not allow this small business killer to rise from the dead .  the house today has an opportunity to rid the nation of this tax that kicks families when they are down , takes away a lifetime of hard work , and stifles job growth .  i hope that my colleagues will join me today in supporting the rule and the underlying legislation .  
D	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time .  mr. speaker , i hope we will reject this bill .  let me give two reasons why : first , the cost .  we talk about being fiscally responsible , we talk about trying to balance the federal budget and say we have a problem with social security as far as long-term solvency of 75 years ; but let me point out that the revenue loss of this bill equals the 75-year amount to provide long-term solvency for social security .  what we do here is make choices .  if we have a choice to provide for the long-term strength of social security or the passage of this bill , my vote is for the long-term solvency of social security .  the second issue i would like to point out is the predictability of the current estate tax situation .  it is not very predictable , and the passage of this bill will do nothing to assure people when they do their estate plans that they can rely upon the schedule congress has passed .  we have a chance with the pomeroy substitute to bring certainty to estate taxes with a reasonable exemption of $ 3.5 million , $ 7 million per couple , and reducing permanently the tax by 10 percent .  that is what people want when they do their estate planning .  they want predictability .  so if members are fiscal conservatives and are concerned about the cost of this bill on our children and seniors and if members want predictability in the estate tax , this legislation does not give it to us .  this legislation should be rejected , and we should pass a bill that provides certainty with the estate tax .  we will have that opportunity with the fiscally responsible substitute so we can deal with the budget problems of this country .  we are borrowing way too much money for our children and grandchildren .  they deserve better than that .  they deserve a congress that will be fiscally responsible , and the passage of this bill just does not do it .  i urge my colleagues to reject this legislation .  
R	mr. speaker , i rise today in strong support of s. 256 , the bankruptcy abuse and consumer prevention act .  mr. speaker , we have seen a sharp increase in bankruptcies in the past 25 years .  in 2003 , consumer filings peaked at over 1.6 million filings , a 465 percent increase from 1980 .  those who believe credit card companies , mortgage lenders and other financial institutions are bearing the cost of consumers filing for bankruptcy do not understand how business works .  these costs will be shifted to american families who are paying the price for this debt , some studies reflect $ 400 per year in every household , by higher interest rates on their credit cards , auto loans , school loans and mortgages .  when the legislation passes today it will be the american families who are the real winners .  this legislation balances the consumer 's challenge of debt repayment with the needs of businesses that collect money rightfully owed to them .  in an effort to better educate consumers and improve financial literacy , the legislation requires many filers of bankruptcy to attend financial counseling .  this change coupled with congressional encouragement for schools to incorporate personal finance curricula in elementary and secondary education programs are both useful methods of curbing future debt .  as chairman of the subcommittee on education reform , which has jurisdiction over k through 12 , i feel strongly that educating future spenders can prevent debts incurred as adults .  again , mr. speaker , i want to thank chairman sensenbrenner for his years of strong and tenacious support for this legislation and thank him for not giving up on these important , common-sense changes to our bankruptcy system .  i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation .  
R	mr. speaker , i am submitting for the record the following remarks from mr. arkadi kuhlmann , ceo of ing direct , in opposition to the bankruptcy reform legislation under consideration .  i remain a strong supporter of s. 256 ; however , i believe mr. kuhlmann 's statement should be made part of the record .  statement of arkadi kuhlmann , ceo , ing direct mr. speaker , i am arkadi kuhlmann , ceo of ing direct , a federally chartered thrift headquartered in wilmington , delaware .  ing direct launched in the u.s. in september 2000 to challenge traditional banking by touting the high interest , no fee and no minimum orange savings account as its signature product , with a brand vision to lead americans back to saving .  ing direct has since expanded its product line to include the orange mortgage , the orange home equity line of credit , orange cds and the orange investment account .  with over 2.5 million customers and more than $ 43 billion in assets , ing direct is the fourth largest thrift in the u.s. the house is now considering consumer bankruptcy legislation that would make major changes to how consumers ' debts and obligations are treated in the bankruptcy process .  thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony for the record on this legislation .  despite the many important and positive changes this bill would make to our bankruptcy laws , this proposal remains seriously flawed .  one significant oversight is the bill 's failure to consider one of the biggest problems we face in business today : identity theft .  the washington post ran a story recently about a woman whose identity was stolen , yet her credit card company forced the fraudster 's debt on her by using the arbitration clause in her card agreement .  the bankruptcy bill must address the possibility that identity theft could lead to financial devastation through no fault of the person 's own .  in addition to overlooking the problem of identity theft , this proposal had additional shortcomings .  it actually encourages further bad lending decisions by removing an important market discipline -- the possibility of a clean bankruptcy .  without important changes , millions of consumers , who might otherwise be savers , will be encouraged into debt by aggressive credit card and other lending .  we believe it is crucial that a serious study of the connection between credit card marketing and personal bankruptcy be completed .  the bill as drafted requires such a study .  we challenge the congress to take a very hard look at the results of the study and consider further legislation , if necessary .  another important issue is the bill 's creation of a `` means test. '' by giving disparate treatment to secured versus unsecured debt , the law would treat secured creditors even more favorably than under current rules .  we believe the means test should be applied across the board or not at all .  we at ing direct believe this country is still willing to give working americans -- the engine of our economy -- a second chance when debt overwhelms them .  this bill seriously limits that second chance .  thank you for the opportunity to present our views .  
R	mr. speaker , i rise today in strong support of s. 256 , the `` bankruptcy abuse and consumer prevention act of 2005. '' it has been seven years since we made our first attempt to reform the bankruptcy system in the 105th congress and thanks to the tireless efforts of chairman sensenbrenner 's committee , we can see a real chance for passing a full and comprehensive bill this year .  mr. speaker , we have seen a sharp increase in bankruptcies over the past 25 years .  in 2003 , consumer filings peaked at over 1.6 million filings -- a 465 percent increase from 1980 .  those who believe credit card companies , mortgage lenders and other financial institutions are bearing the costs of consumer 's filing for bankruptcy do n't understand how business works .  american families are paying the price for this debt -- some studies reflect $ 400 per year in every household -- by higher interest rates on their credit cards , auto loans , school loans and mortgages .  when the legislation before us passes today it will be the american families that are the real winners .  this legislation balances the consumer 's challenge of debt repayment with the needs of businesses to collect money rightfully owed to them .  in an effort to better educate consumers and improve financial literacy , the legislation requires many filers of bankruptcy to attend financial counseling .  this change , coupled with congressional encouragement for schools to incorporate personal finance curricula in elementary and secondary education programs , are both useful methods of curbing future debt .  as chairman of the education reform subcommittee , which has jurisdiction over all k-12 programs , i feel strongly that educating future spenders can prevent debts incurred as adults .  i also support the new requirement for lending institutions , which will now have to take additional steps to ensure consumers fully understand the ramifications of credit spending .  credit card billing statements will now reflect the actual time it would take to repay a full balance at a specified interest rate ; contain warnings to alert consumers that paying only the minimum will increase the amount of interest ; and list a toll-free number for consumer 's to call for an estimate of the time it would take to repay the balance if only the minimum is paid .  with these steps , lending institutions can improve their chances of repayment while pro-actively educating consumers of true costs associated with borrowing .  i believe the `` bankruptcy abuse and consumer protection act '' reflects fair solutions to minimizing spending abuse , while protecting those with genuine hardship .  relief is still available for low and moderate income families .  however , this legislation will end the protection for those who make obvious attempts to abuse their credit .  those who are able to pay their debts -- will now be held to those commitments -- through means testing .  a means test would be used to determine a debtor 's eligibility for chapter 7 bankruptcy relief , where the majority of debt is excused , or chapter 13 , where a significant portion of debt must be repaid .  importantly , disabled veterans would be exempt from the means test if their debts occurred primarily as a result of being called to active duty or for homeland defense operations .  lastly , mr. speaker , this legislation also includes four additional judges for delaware 's bankruptcy court .  this increase is long overdue , as the bankruptcy caseloads in delaware continue to exceed other districts ' caseloads for chapter 11 businesses cases .  last year alone , weighted filings for delaware judges were 11 , 789 , while the national average was 1 , 763 -- in other words , the delaware caseload was 10 times the national average .  the delaware district tends to have the largest chapter 11 business cases , often referred to as the `` mega '' chapter 11 cases which are `` those involving extremely large assets , unusual public interest , a high level of creditor involvement , complex debt , a significant amount of related litigation , or a combination of such factors. '' these are again , mr. speaker , i want to thank chairman sensenbrenner for his years of strong and tenacious support for this legislation and thank him for not giving up on these important , common-sense changes to our bankruptcy system .  i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman for yielding me time .  mr. speaker , i rise in strong support for this long overdue legislation .  i want to thank the chairman of the committee on the judiciary , the gentleman from wisconsin ( mr. sensenbrenner )  , for his leadership and his efforts in making this bill a reality .  it represent years of work , compromise and what i believe to be necessary reforms .  our bankruptcy laws have shifted away from what was their original purpose .  in 1915 the supreme court wrote that our bankruptcy laws were intended to give honest debtors a chance to `` start afresh , free from obligations and responsibilities consequent upon business misfortunes. '' this view was later reaffirmed in the 1934 case , local loan company v. hunt , in which the court wrote that `` the purpose of the act has been again and again emphasized by the courts in that it gives to the honest but unfortunate debtor a new opportunity in life and a clear field for future effort , unhampered by the pressure and discouragement of preexisting debt. '' over the last several decades , bankruptcy protections have expanded to cover basically anyone and everyone , not just those who truly need it .  statistics reveal that in 2004 approximately 1.5 million individuals sought bankruptcy protection .  increasingly , this protection is being sought for the consumer debt that has skyrocketed out of control as a result of the misuse of credit cards and other credit options .  this expansive coverage comes at a price .  personal bankruptcy filing cost businesses and our economy tens of billions of dollars every year .  it is basically a $ 500 per family annual tax on each and every american family .  h.r. 685 the bankruptcy abuse and consumer protection act of 2005 , the bill that is here before us today , strikes a balance .  it requires those who have the means to repay debts to do so while protecting those who truly need the assistance provided by chapter 7 , such as those with serious medical conditions , the men and women of our armed services who are on active duty , as well as those disabled veterans who served in years past .  decisions to seek the protection of bankruptcy should be taken seriously .  the consequences of filing are not just personal but impact our economy and society as a whole .  as i mentioned , it is $ 600 per family that we are essentially taxed this year for everybody who is paying their debts from those who are not .  personal filings can not continue at the current rate .  this bill represents a long overdue , much necessary first step ; and i urge my colleagues to support this legislation .  
D	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. speaker , this is the most special interest-vested bill that i have ever dealt with in my career in congress .  it massively tilts the playing field in favor of banks and credit card companies and against working people and their families .  i have never , ever faced such a piece of legislation .  that explains to me why it took 8 years to get this thing up here , because they kept fixing it up , making it wrong .  mr. speaker , all i want to say as we open this debate is that to those who assert that this bill cracks down on creditor abuse , i would ask them to realize that this bill does absolutely nothing to discourage abusive , underage lending ; nothing to discourage reckless lending to the developmentally disabled ; nothing to regulate the practice of sub-prime lending to persons with no means or little ability to repay their debts ; nothing to crack down on the sharks , the lenders , that charge members of the armed forces up to 500 percent interest per year or more .  they hang around the bases and lure them in .  what this is is something that we should all be truly embarrassed about .  this bill is opposed by every consumer group , by all the bankruptcy judges , the trustees , law professors , by all of organized labor , by the military groups , by the civil rights organizations , and by every major group concerned about seniors , women , and children .  please , if we do not do anything else in the 109th congress , let us not let this bill get out of the house of representatives .  mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	mr. speaker , i yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from new york ( mr. nadler )  , the former ranking member of the subcommittee on commercial and administrative law .  this is an 8-year-old bill , and the gentleman has been foremost in this process for all of those years .  
D	mr. speaker , i am now pleased to break the line of members of the committee .  
D	mr. speaker , how much time remains on either side ?  
D	mr. speaker , i yield myself 5 seconds to let the gentlewoman from california know that the credit card companies solicit five billion mailings every year to college kids and others .  mr. speaker , may i ask the chairman how many speakers he may have remaining .  
D	mr. speaker , i yield myself 1 minute .  we should all be embarrassed that instead of repealing the biggest loophole in the bankruptcy code , we have had 8 years to study it , the homestead exemption , the bill places only weak obstacles in its path .  instead of protecting women and health care providers from those who would terrorize abortion clinics , we lay out a blueprint for them to avoid their debts .  instead of helping individuals who have lost their job or faced a health care emergency , we deny them the chance for a fresh start .  by passing this measure in this form , the majority is telling the american people , republicans are telling the american people , it is more important to help credit card companies than innocent spouses and children ; that it is more important to protect corporate scam artists than workers losing their pension ; that it is more important to protect unscrupulous lenders than disabled veterans .  
R	mr. speaker , i rise in support of this rule and the bill authored by the gentleman from missouri ( mr. hulshof )  and commend him for his great work on behalf of america 's job creators .  i just heard the democratic member say that only a tiny fraction of the people who die in america and their families have to pay this death tax .  apparently , the gentleman has never had to go through the dreaded form 706 .  how many of us right now are trying to deal with form 1040 ?  even though we deal with it year in and year out , we still can not figure it out .  what we are trying to get rid of is the complexity of the tax code and the $ 20 billion a year that the death tax consumes from the american economy that does not go to the treasury but , rather , goes to tax lawyers and accountants and life insurance sales and keyman policies and so on , all of this estate planning which is economic waste .  it is hurting our economy .  eighty-eight pages of the internal revenue code , 88 pages of law , are devoted to trying to close the loopholes that have erupted over the 20th century as our experiment with the death tax has shown that it actually costs the government and costs the american people money to maintain it .  much as we would like to be able to tax the super-rich , they get out of the tax with trusts and loopholes and so on , as will the rich after we do what the democrats want , which is to create some complicated new definitions to try and cabin off this tax so it only affects a few people .  the only people who will actually be hurt by the burden of these new complex rules and laws will be people who we do not want to pay the tax in the first place .  if at the time that one of one 's loved ones dies , just to file the return , not pay the tax , they are going to have to plow through all of these helpful instructions that are in such small print that even a high school student might need reading glasses to get through some of these 40 pages .  but here is the kind of helpful thing one will find when a loved one dies : `` generally , you may list on schedule m all property interests that pass from the decedent to the surviving spouse and are included in the gross estate .  however , you should not list any `nondeductible terminable interests , ' described below , on schedule m unless you are making a qtip election .  the property for which you make this election must be included on schedule m. see `qualified terminable interest property ' on the following page .  `` for the rules on common disaster and survival for a limited period , see section 2056 ( b ) ( 3 ) . '' this is just one little paragraph out of 40 pages of this .  they are going to have to hire a lawyer .  they are going to have to hire an accountant to go through all this and list everything that their family member has accumulated throughout his or her entire life just to prove that they do not owe this tax .  anybody who is slogging through their form 1040 trying to file their income tax return now knows what i am talking about .  we are trying to eliminate the complexity of this law which hurts every single person who works for a small business in america .  when that small business is liquidated in order to pay the death tax because it is a tax on property of small businesses , people lose their jobs , and that is where the burden and the incidence of this tax falls .  repealing the death tax once and for all is the right thing to do , and i am very pleased that this rule will bring that to the floor .  
D	i thank my friend from missouri for yielding me this time .  mr. speaker , i think a number of important points have been made today , but i rise today in strong support of this bill and in opposition to the estate tax .  some of the previous speakers on this side of the aisle have made reference to the fact that a number of us on the democratic side have worked over this issue since actually the early nineties .  i know the gentleman 's predecessor jennifer dunn and i and a number of people from this side of the aisle had worked hard together to look for a commonsense way that we could end this burden which , in my opinion , is an extreme burden on the small business community and on the farm community .  i do not know about the other speakers , but when i go back to my district and i am mixing and mingling with the folks where they eat breakfast or where they have dinner or where they gather , it is my farm families that bring this issue up .  in north alabama where i come from , we have some of the most productive farm families of any district in the country .  for generations , they have struggled and used tax lawyers and tax strategies to try to find a way to effectively pass that farm on to the next generation that we want to continue engaging in that farm business .  but they are overwhelmed by this issue .  in 2001 , we did a good step , not a great step but a good step .  we passed some temporary relief .  but the reality is that if we do not permanently repeal the death tax , you have almost got to time your death for the benefit of your family .  that is outrageous .  so let us make sure that we bury this issue once and for all .  according to the congressional research service , estates that included farm or business assets represented 42.5 percent of the 30 , 000 plus taxable estate tax returns filed in 2003 .  it is not fair to say that this is just a rich person 's issue , that the estate tax only affects the wealthy , because , according to that same congressional research service , estates over $ 5 million accounted for only 6.8 percent of taxable estates .  in this day and time , assets are accumulated in a different way than they were 20 years ago , 25 years ago , 30 years ago or even more than that .  for the benefit of those farmers , for those small manufacturers , for the local car dealers , the independent car dealers , the realtors , the funeral directors , the grocers , the family restaurant owners , the florists , the convenience store owners and many others , let us end this unfair tax burden .  i urge the members to support this .  
D	mr. speaker , after eight years of consideration , we are now poised to enact bankruptcy legislation that is deeply flawed .  like so many of the policy priorities pursued by this congress and the administration , this bill hurts the most vulnerable among our citizens .  many of my colleagues have already discussed the terrible provisions that the legislation now before the house would implement .  for example , this bill would institute a means test for eligibility to file chapter 7 bankruptcy that two national commissions have concluded would be counter-productive , difficult to administer , and would yield little revenue to creditors .  it would remove critical automatic stay provisions that currently prevent the eviction of those who are seeking to clear arrearages in their rent .  s. 256 also would reduce the amount of personal property that those filing for bankruptcy can retain .  the republican-crafted and credit-industry driven bankruptcy reform bill is inapposite the goals for which bankruptcy was conceived .  bankruptcy is intended to provide a `fresh start ' to those who file -- not leave them sinking in financial quicksand .  however , rather than highlight the numerous other misguided provisions of s. 256 , i want to look for a moment at the economic policies of which this legislation is just one more disappointing part .  the sponsors of s. 256 claim that the rising number of people filing bankruptcies in our nation is evidence that there is widespread abuse of our current bankruptcy protections .  actually , the rise in bankruptcy filings is a powerful and tragic reminder that our administration 's economic policies are not raising living standards but are instead contributing to the increases in bankruptcy filings .  i note that bankruptcy filings actually decreased in 2004 .  in the economic report of the president delivered to congress in february of this year , the administration wrote that the `` president 's policies are designed to foster rising living standards at home , while encouraging other nations to follow our lead. '' the president 's policies are not worthy of emulation in other nations -- and they are not worthy of continuation in our nation .  job creation in our nation is failing to keep pace with the growth in the labor force .  the brookings institution has noted that since the year 2000 , there has been a 2 percent decrease in workforce participation among young people aged 25-34 , which is unprecedented since world war ii .  slow job creation has also put little pressure on businesses to raise wages .  as a result , wages for many low- and middle-income workers are now not keeping pace with consumer prices .  perhaps not surprisingly , the congressional research service found that in 2001 , 27 percent of families in the lowest one-fifth of household income distributions had debt obligations that exceeded 40 percent of their incomes .  while workers are not seeing increases in their purchasing power , they are also being left without health insurance to cover their medical expenses .  a recent harvard study published earlier this year found that nearly half of all bankruptcy filings involve some major medical expense .  as recently as 1981 , medical expenses accounted for less than 10 percent of bankruptcy filings .  forty-five million americans are now uninsured -- and countless millions more regularly experience lapses in coverage .  more than 38 percent of those who filed bankruptcy for medical reasons were found to have experienced some type of lapse in their insurance coverage during the two years preceding their filing .  in fact , 90 percent of the bankruptcies filed are by those who have been injured , are sick , have been laid off , and/or are going through a divorce .  laid-off workers are the fastest growing group of people filing bankruptcy .  all the while , credit card company abuses are mounting in the form of deceptive marketing practices , irresponsible accounting practices and other predatory practices .  negative amortization by credit card companies require minimum payments so low as to allow debt to increase rather than be reduced .  these practices are designed to give the debtor a false sense of financial health while incurring more debt .  the result is often inevitable .  the minute a tragedy strikes and a debtor falls behind in one payment , debtors are often swarmed upon by all of their credit card companies -- who want to collect immediately .  this is an unfair result for these debtors and a boon for creditors .  and now , congress is poised to add insult to uninsured injury by destroying the basic protections that our bankruptcy laws have offered to those most in need .  mr. speaker , the increase in personal bankruptcy filings in our nation is not proof that our bankruptcy laws need reform .  it is , instead , proof that our economic policies need reform -- and need reform urgently .  this bill only serves to disadvantage those honest americans struggling to make ends meet .  i urge my colleagues to oppose s. 256 .  
D	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman for yielding me time .  mr. speaker , i rise today in strong support of the pomeroy substitute to house resolution 8. and i argue that anyone in this body who is currently concerned about our ballooning national debt should vote in favor of the substitute .  the pomeroy substitute is fair , and it covers those who need tax exemption now , america 's small businessmen and america 's farmers .  it is clear from the debate today that the majority of members in this body believe that our farmers and small businessmen and -women need relief from the estate tax , and i will do all i can to ensure that these hardworking americans get their due tax relief .  in my opinion , the pomeroy substitute does this by increasing the estate tax exemption level in 2006 by $ 3 million for individuals and $ 6 million for couples .  additionally , from 2009 forward , the tax exemption level would be $ 3.5 & lt ; center & gt ; & lt ; pre & gt ; [ page : h1939 ] & lt ; /pre & gt ; & lt ; /center & gt ; i know my friends on the other side of the aisle desperately want to make sure that the paris hiltons of america are fully covered , but they have done pretty good the last 100 years ; and i am sure under the pomeroy bill in the future they will continue to do pretty good .  additionally , the substitute bill eliminates the liability for tax on gains accrued before death .  this is incredibly important to those children who may decide to sell the small farms and businesses they have just inherited .  by using the stepped-up basis to calculate the value on an estate at a time of death , the substitute bill is actually making the tax code simpler and less cumbersome .  it seems to me that this is important to us .  it is important to the president , and it is important to many of us in congress .  i will do all that i need to do in order to support estate tax relief for farmers and small business owners in my district .  but would it not be a great message to send to the senate and to the american people by providing them with the estate tax relief they want and need without breaking the bank ?  it seems to me that it is the fiscally conservative thing to do .  i truly believe we have got to stop this liberal policy of borrowing and spending .  to my friends on the right who believe that any estate tax is so vile that you took your polling advice and decided to start calling it the death tax , you should read leviticus 25 containing god 's message to moses that every 50 years , called the jubilee , all possessions must be returned to the original owners .  i invite you to read that scripture .  you had a chance in 2002 to increase the benefits by giving the tax relief to the estates of all americans .  why did you not ?  it clearly was not to keep the budget balanced .  was it political ?  every year around tax time and every 2 years around election time , you come back with permanent tax repeal .  i think now is the time to do it .  let us get it done .  the pomeroy substitute bill is a bill we need to send to the senate .  it is a fair bill .  it is fiscally responsible .  it should be the house 's bill .  
D	mr. speaker , to listen to this majority , we have a crisis in this country -- one brought on by spendthrifts defrauding the public via our bankruptcy system .  indeed , to look at the statistics , we are facing a crisis -- but it has nothing to do with ordinary americans acting irresponsibly or even our bankruptcy system .  last year , more than a million-and-a-half families resorted to declaring bankruptcy -- a full half of which occurred not because of any irresponsible behavior but because of unexpected medical expenses brought on by an illness or death in the family .  these families -- widows and widowers , mothers and fathers , many in the middle-class -- are hardly `` gaming the system '' -- they are doing the best they can under unbelievable circumstances that have left them with no choice but to resort to the only recourse they have : filing bankruptcy , wiping their debt and trying their best to start anew .  if there is any `` crisis , '' it is the skyrocketing cost of health care , which has left more than 14 million americans spending more than a quarter of their every paycheck on medical costs -- that mr. speaker , is what i call a crisis .  a moral crisis .  we can all agree that individuals should be accountable for living beyond their means , but if anyone is `` gaming '' our bankruptcy system , it is the credit card companies , who have long been advocating for this bill at the same time they prey on unsuspecting customers .  and as with previous incarnations of this legislation , there is virtually nothing in the bill that would require creditors to curb their outrageous predatory lending practices that mislead even the most educated consumers into debt .  this bill is especially bad for women , who are the single largest group currently in bankruptcy .  by making it harder for them to file for bankruptcy , we will make it more difficult for them to maintain essential items such as the car that gets them to and from their job .  women who are owed child support will be forced to compete with credit card companies and other lenders for dollars to spend feeding and clothing their children .  the bill also allows perpetrators of violence against women at health centers to escape liability for their actions through the bankruptcy courts .  mr. speaker , this bill is yet another product of an administration and majority that taxes work and rewards wealth .  it appeals to the worst in all of us , painting honest middle-class families who are working hard and taking personal responsibility for their actions as liars , cheaters and spendthrifts .  at the same time it lets off the hook those who do act irresponsibly by preserving loopholes which allow wealthy bankruptcy filers to hide their true wealth in mansions and trust funds .  i can hardly imagine a more unfair piece of legislation less concerned with promoting the common good , and i urge my colleagues to oppose it .  
D	mr. speaker , i rise in opposition to this latest republican assault on social security and on fiscal sanity .  at a time of apparently unending war and the largest budget deficits in american history , our republican colleagues are intent on solving a crisis that does not exist .  as the president wastes millions of our taxpayer dollars crisscrossing this country to declare that there is no social security trust fund and questioning the full faith and credit of the federal government , his republican allies here seem intent on actually making his dire and inaccurate statements a self-fulfilling prophecy .  today , what they propose is to borrow from the social security trust fund and to borrow from the medicare trust fund in order to give more tax breaks to the richest one-tenth of 1 percent of the people in this country .  that is borrowing from social security for purposes that have nothing to do with the social security system because they think some rich folks in this country do not have wallets that are fat enough .  it is taking from the hard-working employees and employers who are paying their social security money and transferring that wealth over to the richest one-tenth of 1 percent .  they call it the death tax ?  i think that is a good name .  if they keep pursuing bills like this , it will be the death of social security and medicare , as sure as i am standing here .  like most democrats , i have voted not once but a number of times to repeal the estate tax for most americans and to see that it is done right away , now , not postponing it for years as the republicans propose to do .  there is another democratic substitute coming out today that is going to exempt 99.7 percent of all estates from this tax , and only cover the richest .3 percent of the wealthiest estates in this country .  that means you are not going to have a small business in east austin or west mcallen or a family farm in karnes county that is covered if they are even covered now , which the vast majority of them are not .  why do they keep talking about family farms since it is irrelevant to this debate ?  they keep talking about the guy in the pickup who is working extra hours to try to make ends meet .  they keep talking about the little family business that with good reason wants to be able to pass that enterprise on to the next generation of that hard-working family .  the reason they talk about those folks is that steve forbes 's family is not quite as sympathetic .  the family of enrons ken lay , not quite as sympathetic .  they can not defend transferring money from the social security and medicare trust fund to ken lay 's family , to steve forbes 's family , to ross perot 's family , because it is totally indefensible .  their goal is to ensure that the richest of the rich are rewarded , as if they have not rewarded them enough for the last few years that they have controlled this congress .  social security is not in crisis today , nor is medicare , but if you keep passing bills that drain $ 750 billion from the treasury at the very time more people are retiring , you will have a crisis .  it was back almost a century ago when a republican , a fellow named teddy roosevelt , said that `` inherited economic power is as inconsistent with the ideals of this generation as inherited political power was inconsistent with the ideals of the generation which established our government. '' it is still inconsistent .  would that we had even one teddy roosevelt republican today to put a stop to this nonsense .  
D	mr. speaker , i rise in opposition to h.r. 8 , which continues , in my view , the policies by the majority of three tax cuts , in 4 years , with four straight record-breaking deficits that have added $ 2 trillion in 4 years to the nation 's debt .  and here again the majority offers $ 850 billion of tax cuts to the wealthiest families in this country .  when you get in a hole that is $ 2 trillion deep , rule one , stop digging .  if you can not figure that out , you can not produce any more when it comes to economic growth for this country or jobs or resolving the health care crisis or the educational crisis we have in the country .  my view is repeating the same mistake and expecting a different result is a sign that you have lost your bearings .  this bill will do nothing to stimulate the economic growth or savings , which is what we should be focused on , rather than further shifting the tax burden from wealth to work .  we could be debating and using this time on simplifying the code .  just 2 weeks ago there was a report out by the irs and others showing that $ 350 billion a year goes unreported in taxes where people are not complying and cheating .  we have a tax code that rewards and initiates a culture of cheating and penalizes those who abide by the rules .  that is where we should be focusing , on simplifying the code and taking away the incentive to cheat , which is what we have today in our code .  with all the economic challenges we are facing today in the area of health care , energy , education , eliminating the estate tax , fully eliminating , should be the last of our priorities .  but the republicans will soldier on and continue to fight until taxes are eliminated for the very last multimillionaire .  instead of helping the wealthy avoid taxes , we should be helping middle-class families save for their retirement .  that is a true deficit we have in this country , a retirement and savings deficit .  the savings rate is at its lowest level since the 1930s , lower than any other industrialized nation .  millions of families are financially unprepared for retirement .  given this reality , why are we debating the elimination of the estate tax instead of real tax reform and a savings agenda for the middle class .  are holding the interests of the wealthy and special interests above the hopes and dreams of the middle-class families the kind of values we want our tax code to reflect ?  as late former supreme court justice louis brandeis once said , `` we can have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few , but we can not have both. '' mr. speaker , there is no doubt which one this bill will achieve .  
D	mr. speaker , i rise today to voice my opposition to h.r. 8 .  as a part-time farmer and former small business owner , i have long supported responsible legislation to provide estate tax relief for family-owned businesses .  unfortunately , this bill will not accomplish that goal .  throughout my service in the u.s. house , i have been a strong supporter of estate tax relief for family farmers and small business owners .  the first bill i introduced as a member of congress was a bill to raise the inheritance tax exemption from $ 600 , 000 to $ 1.5 million and for the first time indexed it to inflation .  but h.r. 8 is an extremely irresponsible bill that will add billions to our national debt for our children and grandchildren to pay and will harm more taxpayers than it helps .  the unfortunate reality of our situation is that we have witnessed the most dramatic fiscal reversal in our nation 's history .  our budget surpluses have been frittered away , and our nation is now drowning in red ink with ever- growing budget deficits and increasing federal debt .  the primary culprits for our increasing debt are the risky , irresponsible tax schemes the republican congress has enacted the last 4 years .  instead of adopting a bill that would increase the burden on our children and grandchildren , we need a common-sense solution that would exempt the vast majority of americans from an estate tax while maintaining a degree of fiscal integrity .  that is why i am supporting the democratic substitute authored by representative earl pomeroy .  this substitute provides an estate tax exemption of $ 3 million for individuals and $ 6 million for couples beginning in 2006 , and the exemption would increase to $ 3.5 million and $ 7 million respectively in 2009 .  furthermore , this plan would instantly repeal the estate tax on a vast majority of farms and small businesses , as well as shield heirs from dramatic capital gains tax liabilities that are part of the republican plan .  the u.s. department of agriculture has estimated that more farm estates would have an increased tax liability from the republican plan 's carry-over basis rules than would ever benefit from the repeal of the estate tax .  i support estate tax relief , but not at the expense of our senior citizens who benefit from social security and medicare .  the only way to pay for the republican bill is by taking more money out of the social security an medicare trust funds and replacing it with ious .  h.r. 8 will compound the fiscal mistakes congress has made the last 2 years with its policy of tax cuts at any cost , including our children 's education and our nation 's future .  the people of north carolina 's second district elected me to help chart a common-sense , fiscally prudent course for the country .  i pledged to represent my constituents by paying down the national debt ; saving social security and medicare funds for older americans , and investing our country 's resources into education , health care and other initiatives that enable people to improve their lives .  h.r. 8 is inconsistent with these goals ; therefore , i oppose the bill .  
D	mr. speaker i rise in strong opposition to the misnamed `` bankruptcy abuse prevention and consumer protection act , '' ( s. 256 ) .  current bankruptcy law needs some adjustment , but this bill is not the solution .  it hurts middle-class consumers in a variety of ways : the bill would allow landlords to evict battered women without bankruptcy court approval , even if the eviction poses a threat to the women 's physical well-being ; and , it permits credit card companies to reclaim common households goods which are of little value to them , but very important to the debtor 's family .  it is very important to note that the bill does absolutely nothing to discourage abusive underage lending , nothing to discourage reckless lending to the developmentally disabled and nothing to crack down on unscrupulous pay-day lenders that prey on members of the armed forces .  last year nearly one and a half million middle class individuals filed for bankruptcy .  their average income was less than $ 25 , 000 and the principal causes for their filings were layoffs , health problems and divorce .  in my judgment , it is a grave mistake to punish these individuals while rewarding credit card companies and business lobbyists at a time when corporate greed has already destroyed the lives of millions of american workers .  i will support a balanced bankruptcy reform bill , but s. 256 is in no way balanced and i believe does more harm than good , therefore i strongly oppose this bill .  
R	mr. speaker , i rise today as a proud cosponsor of h.r. 8 , the death tax repeal permanency act of 2005 .  first , i would like to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from missouri ( mr. hulshof )  for his leadership on the bill .  mr. speaker , i do not believe that there has ever been a more reprehensible tax on the face of the earth than the death tax .  the death tax represents not only a tax on the deceased but also on their families .  husbands , wives and children and other relatives bear the burden of this tax while they are still struggling to cope with the loss of their loved one .  mr. speaker , it is intolerable and absolutely unacceptable for the federal government to exact a tax on death and on the surviving families , causing them to lose their homes , their business , their farms and the lives they have struggled to build .  after all , they have created and established these businesses with after-tax dollars .  taxes have already been paid , and every bit of profit that they might make in a year is taxed as well .  currently , the repeal of the death tax is set to expire in 2010 ; and , mr. speaker , i can not understand how anyone would allow the federal government to hand a grieving family in 2011 a bill for the death of their loved one .  death 's inevitability should not be a taxable event .  mr. speaker , let us get the federal government off the backs of grieving families and pass this rule and this bill for the sake of fairness and decency .  
R	mr. speaker , i want to commend the gentleman from missouri ( mr. hulshof )  , the gentleman from alabama ( mr. cramer )  , the gentleman from california ( mr. cox )  , and all those who have worked so hard to get rid of this onerous burden on a number of american citizens .  the federal death tax is a job killer .  i represent the fifth district of virginia .  we have a number of counties and jurisdictions that focus on manufacturing .  many of our smaller manufacturers have had to sell out to larger manufacturers ; and as a result , we have double-digit unemployment in a number of jurisdictions that used to be the home to small manufacturers .  a factor in their selling out was the federal death tax because they would not have the cash to pay when death knocked on the door .  if we pass this bill , we will help the job situation in those types of jurisdictions in the united states .  i hear the other side say that this is a bonanza and a budget breaker because we will not be getting the revenue from the federal death tax .  let me tell the members under the current law the really rich in this country trust and foundation themselves out of the federal estate tax .  i believe that mr. gates , the owner of microsoft , is a proponent of keeping the federal death tax .  he has got a father that is in charge of his foundation .  but many small farmers and average business persons are not able to have the cash to set up the trusts and the foundations that will get themselves out of the federal estate tax .  and i predict that if we pass this bill , the incentive to set up those trusts and foundations that avoid taxes will not be there and in the long run the treasury of the united states will benefit because we will still get the capital gains tax when the assets are sold .  
R	mr. speaker , bankruptcy filings are at an all-time high .  when bankruptcy filings increase , every american must pay more for credit , goods , and services through higher rates and charges .  it is time that we relieve consumers from the burden of paying for the debts of others .  since the 105th congress , the house has passed bankruptcy reform legislation eighty times .  s. 256 , the bankruptcy abuse prevention and consumer protection act , is the culmination of years of work and bicameral as well as bipartisan negotiations .  a key aspect of s. 256 is retention of the income-based means test .  the means test applies clear and well-defined standards to determine whether a debtor has the financial capability to pay his or her debts .  the application of such objective standards will help ensure that the fresh start provisions of chapter vii will be granted to those who need them , while debtors that can afford to repay some of their debts are steered toward filing chapter 13 bankruptcies .  s. 256 is good for america 's family farmers .  as chairman of the house committee on agriculture , i am pleased that we are finally making the chapter 12 provisions of the bankruptcy code permanent .  bankruptcy relief for family farmers will be made easier for those to obtain a discharge of their indebtedness .  in addition , the bill allows more family farmers to qualify for chapter 12 relief by doubling the debt limit and lowering the percentage of income that must be derived from farming operations .  in addition , s. 256 prevents fraud .  under the current system , irresponsible people filing for bankruptcy could run up their credit card debt immediately prior to filing knowing that their debts will soon be wind away .  what these people may not realize or care about is that these debts do not just disappear .  they are passed along in higher charges and rates to hard working people .  mr. speaker , i rise in strong support of the `` bankruptcy abuse prevention and consumer protection act of 2005. '' bankruptcy filings are at an all time high .  when bankruptcy filings increase every american must pay more for credit , goods , and services through higher rates and charges .  it is time that we relieve consumers from the burden of paying for the debts of others .  since the 105th congress , the house has passed bankruptcy reform legislation eight times .  s. 256 , the `` bankruptcy abuse prevention and consumer protection act of 2005 '' is the culmination of years of work and bi-camerla , as well as bi-partisan negotiations .  a key aspect of s. 256 is the retention of the income-based means test .  the means test applies clear and well-defined standards to determine whether a debtor has the financial capability to pay his or her debts .  the application of such objective standards will help ensure that the fresh start provisions of chapter 7 will be granted to those who need them , while debtors that can afford to repay some of their debts are steered toward filing chapter 13 bankruptcies .  s. 256 is good for america 's family farmers , who are the backbone of our agriculture industry .  the bill permanently extends chapter 12 bankruptcy relief for family farmers and makes it easier for family farmers to obtain discharges of their indebtedness .  in addition , the bill allows more family farmers to qualify for chapter 12 relief by doubling the debt limit and lowering the percentage of income that must be derived from farming operations .  in addition , s. 256 prevents fraud .  under the current system , irresponsible people filing for bankruptcy could run up their credit card debt immediately prior to filing , knowing that their debts will soon be wiped away .  what these people may not realize or care about is that these debts do not just disappear -- they are passed along in higher chargers and rates to hard-working folks who pay their bills on time .  s. 256 ends this fraudulent practice by requiring bankruptcy filers to pay back nondischargable debts made in the period immediately preceding their filing .  s. 256 also helps consumers .  for example , this legislation helps children by strengthening the protections in the law that prioritize child support and alimony payments .  in addition , it protects consumers from `` bankruptcy mills '' that encourage people to file for bankruptcy without fully informing them of their rights and the potential harms that bankruptcy can cause .  s. 256 also ensures the fair treatment of those that administer our bankruptcy laws .  specifically , this legislation restores fairness and equity to the relationship between the u.s. trustee and private standing bankruptcy trustees by providing that in certain circumstances , after an administrative hearing on the record , private trustees may seek judicial review of u.s. trustee actions related to trustee removal .  this compromise , worked out between the u.s. trustee 's office and representatives of the private bankruptcy trustees , will ensure fairness for those who dedicate themselves to their duties as private trustees while ensuring that the u.s. trustee is subject to the same checks and balances as other government agencies .  bankruptcy should remain available to people who truly need it , but those who can afford to repay their debts should repay their debts .  s. 256 provides bankruptcy relief for those who truly can not pay their debts , but also clearly demonstrates to those who would abuse our system that the free ride is over .  i believe that s. 256 strikes the appropriate balance between these two important goals .  i want to commend chairmen sensenbrenner and cannon for their tremendous work on this legislation , and i urge each of my colleagues to support this fair and reasonable overhaul of the u.s. bankruptcy system .  
D	mr speaker , i rise today in opposition to this bill .  this bill will weaken homestead protections currently in place under state laws , hurting my constituents , the citizens of texas , and the citizens of any other states that have laws protecting individuals ' homes valued over $ 125 , 000 , which is the limit this bill sets .  texas , which has the longest and oldest history of homestead protection laws in our country , has no cap on homestead protection , along with kansas , iowa , florida , and south dakota .  minnesota , rhode island , and nevada 's laws protect home equity of $ 200 , 000 .  property values across the nation vary widely .  the median resale price of a home in california is $ 215 , 000 .  in nebraska it 's $ 70 , 200 .  while i understand there must be a sensible cap on exemptible home equity to ensure the law is not protecting million dollar mansions , $ 125 , 000 is unreasonable given the skyrocketing price of real estate in texas and many other parts of the country .  this bill will make bankruptcy even more expensive and burdensome than it already is , on hardworking americans who have fallen on hard times and seniors on fixed incomes , while doing nothing to address the out of control lending practices by credit card companies .  mr. speaker , i can not support a bill that will hurt hard-working texans , and i oppose this bill .  
R	mr. speaker , i rise in support of h.r. 8 , which will finally free america 's hard-working farmers and small business owners from the specter of the death tax .  benjamin franklin said : `` in this world nothing is certain but death and taxes , '' but i doubt even the inventive mr. franklin imagined the taxation of death itself .  americans get taxed when they earn money .  they get taxed again when they spend what is left , and government pursues them beyond the grave , devastating their relatives who must sell the family farm or liquidate the family business just to pay the taxes .  the impact of the death tax extends far beyond the pain it inflicts upon grieving families .  the death tax distorts economic decisions on a massive scale .  it punishes thrift .  it reduces savings and investment , and it diverts capital away from job creation to tax avoidance .  the national federation of independent businesses has estimated that the death tax will compel one-third of small business owners today to sell some or all of their business .  the center for the study of taxation found that 70 percent of all family businesses can not survive the second generation and 87 percent do not make the third .  all of this wasted money , energy and over 100 , 000 jobs lost per year and for what , a tax that the joint economic committee says costs just as much to collect as it generates in revenue .  mr. speaker , the opponents of h.r. 8 can not provide any justification for the continued existence of this useless relic .  it hurts the people it is intended to help , and it reduces stock in our economy by $ 497 billion a year .  i urge my colleagues to drive the final nail in this coffin so 6 years from now americans will not wake up to find that , like a vampire , this unfair tax has arisen from the dead to once again suck the blood from a lifetime of hard work and sacrifice .  
R	mr. speaker , we come to the floor today to address an issue of tax fairness .  you see , no matter what kind of spin our friends on the other side of the aisle try to use -- the death tax simply is n't fair .  it 's an unfair burden that the government has placed on families and small business owners .  i 've called it a cancer -- because it 's slowly destroying family farms and businesses across the nation .  many of our small family businesses are wrapped up in a loved one 's estate .  and when family members are left with a huge tax bill , it hits them hard .  i 've heard countless stories from families who have had to sell off a chunk of the family farm just to handle their tax burden .  our friends on the other side of the aisle say that this is too costly and it 's bad for the budget .  i say it 's too costly not to act .  this tax is destroying small businesses .  and we all know they 're the real job creators in our economy .  what kind of nation have we become when a small family farmer ca n't afford to pass the business on to his children ?  look at the facts .  70 percent of family businesses do not survive the second generation , 87 percent do not make it to the third generation .  many of these businesses are going belly-up because of the death tax .  we all realize that the government must have revenues , and that taxes are a necessary evil .  but this tax is n't necessary ; it 's just evil -- because it takes away the american dream from too many american families .  it 's time we give families a real chance at the american dream .  we need to tell the irs to stop lurking around a grieving family 's pockets .  death is not a taxable event .  it 's time we let the death tax die .  
R	mr. speaker , by direction of the committee on rules , i call up house resolution 202 and ask for its immediate consideration .  
R	mr. speaker , for the purpose of debate only , i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts ( mr. mcgovern )  , pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume to remind my colleagues that the rule that we are debating here to talk about the repeal of the death tax makes in order the substance of the subject that the gentleman from massachusetts talked about , the pomeroy substitute .  we will have a vigorous debate on that .  this is a very fair rule so that we can debate the difference between the two , and the body will work its will .  
R	mr. speaker , i rise today as a cosponsor of h.r. 8 and in support of this rule .  i believe , as most americans do , that it is unacceptable for a grieving family who has recently lost a loved one to get a visit from the undertaker and the irs on the very same day .  it is unconscionable , and it ought to be illegal .  the death tax is really a tax on the american dream .  americans work hard all their lives building up farms and ranches and small businesses , hoping that maybe one day they can pass this along to their families .  but after years of payroll taxes and income taxes and sales taxes and property taxes , many businesses and farms just do not make it .  and those that do , the government can step in and take over half of what they worked their entire life to build .  now , mr. speaker , i grew up working on a farm , and i represent a large portion of rural east texas .  east texas is a great place to live , but sometimes it can be a challenging place to make a good living .  recently , i spoke to a rancher in my district who has worked hard nearly 30 years building up a cattle ranch operation .  his greatest dream is one day to leave that ranch to his family .  but with sadness in his voice he told me , you know what , congressman ?  by the time the government takes its share , there is just not enough to go around .  it is not fair to take that family 's ranch .  it is not fair that americans are being taxed twice on the same income .  and it is not fair that the federal government can step in and automatically inherit 55 percent of the family farm , a family business or a family nest egg .  mr. speaker , let us vote for this rule .  let us support h.r. 8 .  let us kill the death tax and breathe new life into the american dream .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman very much for the time .  mr. speaker , i rise in strong support of legislation to bury the destructive death tax once and for all ; and i might mention that my personal experiences , even with my own family and others , has been just the opposite of the gentleman who just spoke before .  nearly everywhere i go throughout my largely rural , agricultural district in northern california , i hear from businessmen and businesswomen and many farmers and ranchers who have had to liquidate and sell a family business or farm just to pay the federal estate tax .  this is simply wrong .  four years ago , i joined with president bush and a majority of representatives and senators in an effort to enact into law historic tax relief legislation , including repeal of the death tax .  unfortunately , due to outdated senate budget rules , the 2001 tax law will sunset on december 31 , 2010 .  this has created an incredibly unfair and arbitrary situation .  consider that the heirs of those who pass away in 2010 will face no death tax whatsoever , while those whose families are unfortunate enough to pass away in 2011 or thereafter will face tax rates of up to 55 percent on their assets , forcing many of them to have to sell .  certainly no one can reasonably argue that this is rational tax policy .  furthermore , the death tax extracts a high cost from american taxpayers .  studies have found that family businesses spend up to $ 125 , 000 on attorneys , accountants and financial experts to assist in estate planning .  these dollars could otherwise be used to modernize equipment , expand their business or farms and create new jobs .  mr. speaker , the death tax is , without question , one of the most destructive , counterproductive and unfair provisions of our tax code .  let us bury the death tax once and for all .  vote `` aye '' on this legislation .  
D	mr. speaker , i favor cutting unnecessary , ineffective or unfair taxes , but in balanced and fiscally responsible ways .  i have been one of the few democrats in congress who has been willing to cross party lines to vote for tax cuts .  i have voted to eliminate the estate tax in the past .  i have been willing to vote for eliminating the marriage penalty , to vote for cutting taxes for small businesses , to vote for cutting taxes to help people pay for education and retirement , and to vote for cutting taxes for senior citizens and to give business tax credit for research work .  with a war in iraq and looming postwar costs , increased expenses for domestic security and a ballooning budget deficit , congress must exercise restraint on both revenues and spending to prevent fiscal policy from spiraling out of control .  the consensus in favor of balancing the budget over the long term must be re-established .  there are a wide range of pressing national challenges that need action , from rapidly increasing health care costs , to our increasing dependence on ever-more-expensive foreign oil , to a broken and increasingly corrupt political system , and yet today we are passing a bill that will only help a few of the already wealthy .  today we are debating total elimination of the federal inheritance tax .  permanently repealing the estate tax would further balloon the federal budget deficit by an estimated $ 290 billion through 2015 ; and by $ 745 billion through 2021 .  add in the interest costs of borrowing the funds to pay for this measure , and the true 10-year cost is nearly $ 1.3 trillion .  i support the substitute offered by representative earl pomeroy which will protect families and small business from the estate tax .  the substitute increases the estate tax credit to $ 3 million , $ 6 million for married couples , beginning in 2006 .  under the substitute , the credit would be increased to $ 3.5 million , $ 7 million for couples , in 2009 .  the pomeroy substitute would eliminate tax reporting compliance burdens and carryover taxes for over 71 , 000 estates each year which effects small business and families .  according to representative pomeroy 's calculation , his package would exempt 99.68 percent of all estates from the estate tax , yet it would save the treasury $ 217 billion compared to total repeal .  it is worth noting that the saving of $ 217 billion is equal to 40 percent of the shortfall of social security of the next 75 years .  mr. speaker , today the national debt is the largest in history .  americans now collectively owe about $ 7.8 trillion .  here we have another tax cut that is not being paid for , even as the bush administration and the leadership of this congress spend more than the american government has ever spent on homeland security and on all the other expenses of running the government -- especially the huge costs of the war in , and occupation of , iraq .  government borrowing of this scale places the burden of repaying our debts on our children .  governing is about making choices .  our constituents all across america sent us to congress to make the tough decisions .  they did not send us here so we can pass those decisions on to our children , and they certainly did not send us here to pass the cost of our decisions on to our children .  i want the people of this country to realize that , right now , we owe collectively , about $ 4.5 trillion to foreign countries .  japan holds $ 702 billion of our debt ; china , including hong kong , $ 246 billion ; the u.k .  $ 163 billion ; taiwan , $ 59 billion ; germany , $ 57 billion ; opec countries , $ 65 billion ; switzerland , $ 50 billion ; korea , $ 68 billion ; mexico , $ 41 billion ; luxembourg , $ 29 billion ; canada , $ 43 billion -- the list goes on and on .  more tax cuts of this size will not only jeopardize critical public services now , but they will also hurt americans well into the future .  massive deficits now create large debt and will create high interest payments that will crowd out spending on public investments for future generations .  moreover , these deep deficits threaten to increase interest rates in the future -- making it harder for americans to buy homes and afford higher education and making it harder for businesses to raise capital .  i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting permanent reform of the estate tax , but not irresponsibly repealing it .  government should follow the principle of helping the present generation and helping future generation as well -- not leaving future generations to pay our bill .  
D	mr. speaker , i rise in opposition to h.r. 8 , legislation that unwisely imperils our nation 's financial security in order to advance the interests of an elite few .  since my election to congress , i have consistently advocated for reasonable estate tax reform .  estate tax reform is extremely important for all the people in the 15th district of california .  high real estate values and generous stock option packages have pushed many estates over exemption limits .  as a result , too many of my santa clara county constituents have been burdened by an estate tax that was originally written to affect only the very wealthiest americans .  the estate tax needs to be modified to protect hardworking americans and their heirs .  in keeping with this spirit , i intend to support a democratic alternative to h.r. 8 that will benefit almost all americans .  offered by representative earl pomeroy , the democratic substitute will increase the estate tax exemption to $ 3 million for individuals and $ 6 million for married couples effective january 1 , 2006 with a scheduled increase in 2009 .  under this plan , 99.7 percent of all estates would have no estate tax liability .  the republican majority has put forward a more expensive plan to benefit the three-tenths of one percent not covered by the democratic substitute .  their plan comes at a significant cost .  once fully in effect , h.r. 8 will cost $ 1 trillion over 10 years .  this astronomical price tag will exacerbate record federal deficits and undermine our nation 's ability to strengthen key federal priorities , including social security , medicare , education programs and veterans health care .  h.r. 8 may also harm more taxpayers than it would help .  current income tax law provides for a `` step-up '' in the basis of an inherited asset to its fair market value at the time of decedent 's death .  when the heir sells the asset , the capital gain for income tax purposes is measured by the difference between the heir 's selling price and the stepped-up basis of the asset .  h.r. 8 repeals the step-up basis and substitutes carryover basis rules in which the capital gain would be measured by the difference between heir 's selling price and the asset 's cost at the time when the decedent acquired it .  as a result , all estates with gross assets over $ 1.3 million would face reporting requirements and tax liabilities potentially more burdensome than under current law .  while i am deeply concerned with the problems surrounding the estate tax , and believe that substantial , long-term reform is needed , permanent repeal for all estates is not necessary to resolve these issues .  given our nation 's challenges , i can not support the republican 's fiscally irresponsible approach to this issue .  i urge my colleagues to oppose h.r. 8 .  
D	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman for yielding me time .  mr. speaker , i was very interested in the last presentation .  the bottom line was , he did not pay a tax .  all that story , all those facts , and he did not pay a tax .  he did pay his accountant some money to go through and make sure that he was doing what was right .  he did that because the tax code is extraordinarily complicated and has been made 25 percent more complicated by the republican majority over just the last 48 months .  mr. speaker , let us be absolutely crystal clear : this republican proposal is nothing but a tax increase .  hear me , this is a tax increase disguised as a tax cut .  `` who are you , mr. hoyer ?  lewis carroll ?  what is this gibberish that you are talking about ?  `` it would raise taxes for thousands of families and thousands of family farmers and small businesses .  there are no two ways about it .  for years , house republicans have proclaimed that the elimination of the inheritance tax , a tax , now hear me on this side of the aisle , i know you want to hear this , a tax first proposed by theodore roosevelt in 1906 .  now for those of you who may not be quite fully cognizant of our history , theodore roosevelt , of course , was a republican president of the united states of america .  it was intended to save family farms and small businesses .  but , today , not according to the gentleman from maryland ( mr. hoyer )  , not according to the gentleman from north dakota ( mr. pomeroy )  , not according to all the democrats in this house or in the senate , according to the republican department of agriculture , i tell my friend from missouri , the republican department of agriculture says more farm estates would have increased tax liability from the carryover basis rules in this bill than would benefit from repeal of the inheritance tax .  in other words , if we pass this bill , family farmers and small businesses are going to pay more taxes .  now , i am for the pomeroy alternative .  first of all , we do not have that complicated look-back to find out what the basis was 10 , 20 , 30 , 40 , 50 years ago .  we do as we do now , what is the basis now when you get it ?  but we exempt under the substitute offered by the gentleman from north dakota ( mr. pomeroy )  $ 7 million .  that means that 99.7 percent of the people in america would never pay an estate tax .  i am for that .  so this argument , i tell my friend from missouri , is about the three-tenths of 1 percent of the very largest estates in america .  because if you vote for pomeroy , 99.7 percent are exempt .  so , as we have been doing for the last 4 years , we have been talking about the upper 1 percent .  that is who we are talking about .  now we are pretty well off in congress .  the american people do pretty well by us , very frankly .  i am doing well enough .  i paid a little bit of alternative minimum tax this year .  it shocked me , but my accountant pointed out that i did .  so we are doing pretty well .  but there are a whole lot of people that are not doing nearly as well as we are doing , and we are not helping them at all by simply giving away revenue that we could spend on the education of their kids and the defense of their country , which we are borrowing for , of course , so that their kids will pay the debts .  mr. speaker , under current law , the joint economic committee estimates that only 7 , 500 estates , in a nation of 290 million people where some 3 million people die every year , 7 , 500 estates out of the 3 million people that die would have any estate tax liability in 2009 .  however , the permanent switch to carryover basis rules , rules that are used to calculate cap gains , would impact an estimated 71 , 000 additional estates , and many of those estates would face capital gains tax increases .  now even as this bill increases the capital gains tax on many farm estates and small businesses , i tell my friend , it still adheres to what seems to be the republican party 's core economic principle : fiscal irresponsibility .  the gentleman says this tax , that tax , and he is right .  there are a lot of taxes on all of us , and we have a lot of services in this country .  and , frankly , for the most part , as the gentleman knows , particularly if you take the industrialized nations , our tax structure at the federal level is lower .  but , still , they are high , and we would like to see them reduced .  but the fact of the matter is , i have three children , three daughters , they are wonderful people , and they provided me with three grandchildren .  and i am buying stuff .  i am buying defense against terrorists , i am buying stabilizing iraq , i am buying education , i am buying health care , i am buying roads .  all of us are buying that .  i do not want to have to say to my grandchildren , look , i am going to use it , but you pay for it .  that is an immoral policy as well as a fiscally irresponsible one , an unwillingness to pay our bills .  now , this is $ 290 billion .  just $ 29 billion a year over 10 years .  no sweat .  shoot , we are borrowing all the social security money right now that the republicans said they were not going to spend a nickel of .  they are going to spend $ 170 billion of social security money this year alone .  how do we do that ?  we borrowed $ 118 billion last february , from foreigners mostly , which we are putting our kids deeply in hock to china , to japan , to germany .  at a time of record budget deficits of nearly half a trillion dollars , this republican bill would cost nearly $ 1 trillion over the first 10 years of full repeal .  it would irresponsibly drive our nation even further into debt and immorally force our children to continue to be liable for our bills .  in sharp contrast , i tell my friend from missouri , and i wish there were more people on this floor , but it is only giving away , you know , $ 250 billion to $ 1 trillion .  what do we care ?  we have given away trillions of dollars over the last 4 years as we go trillions of dollars into debt .  as a matter of fact , $ 9 trillion into debt .  the substitute offered by the gentleman from north dakota ( mr. pomeroy )  is excellent .  it costs less than one-third of this republican bill .  it would permanently increase the current exclusion amounts to $ 3.5 million per individual and $ 7 million for couples .  three-tenths of the estates would be left in 2009 and , as a result , exempt 99.7 percent of all estates from estate tax liability .  mr. speaker , i congratulate the gentleman from north dakota ( mr. pomeroy )  for this alternative .  it solves the problems of small farmers , it solves the problems of small businesses , it solves the problems of pretty significant but nevertheless smaller estates , to make sure that the hard work of mom and dad can be passed along to their daughter and their son and their son 's and daughter 's families .  we agree with the gentleman from missouri ( mr. hulshof )  that that is a good objective , but we also agree that we ought to have fiscally responsible policies .  
D	mr. speaker , i ask my friend , whose debt is it ?  
R	mr. speaker , pursuant to house resolution 202 , i call up the bill ( h.r. 8 ) to make the repeal of the estate tax permanent , and ask for its immediate consideration .  
R	mr. speaker , i ask unanimous consent that all members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 8 .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself 5 minutes .  mr. speaker , i appreciate the fact that we are here today poised to pass h.r. 8 , the death tax repeal permanency act of 2005 .  on behalf of the lead democratic sponsor , my colleague , the gentleman from alabama ( mr. cramer )  , as well as the over 200 bipartisan members who have co-sponsored this bill , i am pleased that we are poised to pass in this body this commonsense legislation .  i would like to talk about a couple of constituents , particularly a constituent named howard effert who is a resident of columbia , missouri , who in 1965 began a lumber yard business there in columbia .  he contributed $ 100 , which was a very modest contribution , as he had three young children to provide for with a modest wage .  he had the idea and a desire for a new venture even though many within the community felt this venture would be unsuccessful , but yet his partners helped him provide the financial assistance and of course some valuable mentoring to help him open the doors to this lumber business .  fast forward now 40 years .  his two sons , brad and greg , are running the day-to-day operations of the business .  of course , they want this family business that has been in their family since its modest beginnings in 1965 to be able to be passed on pursuant to the american dream , that is , to create a legacy , to help your children be better off than you were .  yet the effert family today , mr. speaker , has to write a check for $ 1 , 000 a week , $ 52 , 036 to be precise , to purchase a term life insurance policy , the proceeds of which will be to pay the federal government on that inevitable day that howard effert passes from this world to the next .  in 2001 we passed historic legislation that let all income tax payers keep a little bit more of what they earned , and this historic legislation included a repeal of the federal death tax which was a top tax priority for a lot of small business and family farm groups .  thus under current law , the death tax is gradually phased out between now and 2010 .  this is accomplished by increasing the exemption from the tax .  currently it is $ 1.5 million shielded from this very confiscatory tax , and at the same time we chip away at that top rate , which was as high as 55 percent , and in fact , in a few isolated instances as high as 60 percent tax .  we now chip that away , and it is currently 47 percent .  unfortunately , as we know , the death tax does not stay dead and buried .  as things now stand , it will rise from the grave in 2011 , and it will revert to its form prior to 2001 .  now , this quirk in the law can be directly attributed to the senate 's byrd rule , which applies to the consideration of reconciliation bills .  as a matter of basic fairness , we must permanently repeal the death tax .  the death of a family member quite simply should not be a taxable event .  and if it was good policy when we enacted it in 2001 , it remains a good idea today .  let me touch briefly on some policy rationales for finishing this unfinished work .  the death tax is fundamentally unfair .  by its very structure , the tax punishes thrift , savings , and hard work .  conversely , the tax forces taxpayers to engage in a host of economically inefficient activities to avoid the very punitive nature of the tax .  not only does this have a very real effect on taxpayers and their behavior but a negative impact on the economy .  with a tax like the death tax , a family business or farm has no choice but to divert these precious resources , as in the case of the effert family , to plan financially for the financial impact for the tax : money that could be used to expand the business , to purchase a forklift , to bring another person on the payroll , whatever is in the best interest of that business .  instead , this money is diverted in anticipation of this very punitive tax .  now , supporters of retaining the death tax will claim that perhaps redistribution of income promotes economic fairness and social responsibility .  we will get to have that debate .  i respectfully disagree .  instead of rewarding savings and investment , this tax actually rewards those who spend lavishly and leave no ongoing business interest or assets to the next generation .  i am mindful of the bumper sticker that i saw recently traveling missouri 's highways on a big recreational vehicle that says `` i am spending my children 's inheritance. '' if you wanted to give some good estate tax advice to someone that has put together some assets to pass along , it would be simply to consume it .  yet as we talk about some sort of tax reform and perhaps a consumption tax , this tax actually focuses on non-consumption and on thrift and savings .  for that and for a variety of reasons , we will have the opportunity , i hope , in a good debate , in a civil discourse .  i think we should permanently repeal the death tax .  we should enact h.r. 8 .  mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself 30 seconds .  i am sure the gentleman from michigan misspoke , and i am certain it was inadvertent .  the bill , h.r. 8 , actually does allow for a step up in basis of $ 3 million for a surviving spouse and another $ 1.3 million for surviving heirs .  if the intent of the legislation , which it is , is to help family businesses be passed from one generation to the next and the surviving heirs choose not to farm or continue the family business , then they are the ones making the taxable decision to dispose of assets that would be subject to a 15 percent capital gains rate but certainly not the 45 percent estate tax .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. speaker , among the many groups that support h.r. 8 , including the national federation of independent business , which is the voice of small business , there are many minority owners of small businesses that also support complete repeal .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. speaker , i would remind the gentleman from massachusetts ( mr. neal )  as he mentions iraq and afghanistan that the budgetary impact of h.r. 8 is really not felt until the year 2011 and beyond .  
R	mr. speaker , i certainly respect my friend from tennessee and i trust he will bring that passion to the floor when we have our discussion on our spending bills .  
R	mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself the balance of my time .  mr. speaker , i appreciate in large measure the tone of the debate .  what i would say to the gentlewoman who just spoke and to others who raised the red herring of social security is to remind folks , first of all , the federal receipts from the federal death tax represent less than 1.5 percent of all revenues , first of all ; and , secondly , that none of the income tax money generated from the estate tax goes to social security for the trust funds , and eliminating the tax in no way will affect or impact current social security benefits .  not one bit .  now , i do want to respond .  i heard , i think , the gentleman from massachusetts earlier say that really there has been no policy justification for keeping this tax , other than we need the money .  in fact , i think one gentleman said something , from massachusetts , about we need to pay our fair share .  well , let me just ask you to consider your day .  when you woke up this morning , if you hit the snooze button on your electric alarm clock , you are paying an electric tax .  when you jumped into the shower this morning , you paid a water tax .  if you saw the gentleman from north dakota ( mr. pomeroy )  and i on c-span debating this issue this morning , you are paying a cable tv tax .  when you drove to work this morning , you are paying a gasoline tax .  if you stopped for a cup of coffee , you paid a sales tax .  if you used the telephone at all today , you are paying a telephone tax .  and , of course , when you are at work , your wages are subject to a payroll tax that does go into social security , payroll taxes that do pay for medicare , not to mention your income taxes .  if you drive home to your home and you are lucky enough and fortunate enough to own a home , you are probably paying a local property tax .  when you kiss your spouse good night , you think that is free .  no , leave it to the federal government to continue to have this thing called the marriage tax .  and , yes , if you scrape and invest and save and you build a family business , have the audacity to pursue the american dream , the federal government is there with its hand out saying give us 45 percent of the value of your family business .  now i have heard from my colleagues on the other side who say that family farms are not affected .  well , then let me tell you a very quick personal story , a story of a farm family in missouri , a young married couple who in 1956 left portageville , missouri , in the district of the gentlewoman from missouri ( mrs. emerson )  , with $ 1 , 000 in their pocket , and that was going to be the stake that they had .  it happened that the woman was an expectant mother with her first child and , as it turned out , her only child .  that married couple happened to be my parents , and over the last 2 1/2 years i have had the unfortunate reality that obviously death is inevitable , and i have had the unfortunate experience in our family of having both my father pass away in late 2002 and my mother one year ago .  i do not mind sharing with you , a 514 acre farm , a modest life insurance policy , the house that i grew up in , a combine , three tractors and some irrigation equipment , and that is it .  and i am sitting across the mahogany desk from our long-time family accountant with the adding machine with a tape on it , and he is plugging in an arbitrary value for these assets that my parents invested their soul into .  and i am breaking out into a cold sweat wondering whether or not this business that they built and wanted to pass on is going to fall above an arbitrary line or below an arbitrary line that we in congress have set .  now we did not have to pay the tax , but 14 days ago i had the requirement of filling out the form and paying the $ 2 , 000 accountant fee ; and , again , i do not quarrel with that .  but , mr. speaker , the death of a family member should not be a taxable event , period .  mr. speaker , i urge my colleagues to vote for h.r. 8 .  
R	mr. speaker , i claim the time in opposition .  
R	mr. speaker , just a quick comment for whatever time i may consume before yielding to the gentleman from south carolina ( mr. barrett )  .  did i hear the last speaker correctly , that we have given away , whose money is that ?  it would be the american taxpayers ' money , who are probably , even as we speak , trying to grapple with those forms as they have tax day coming , as the income tax payers of america that provide for the comfortable living that he and i enjoy .  
R	mr. speaker , i would say to my friend , and of course , as we have had a lot of unforeseen circumstances that have occurred , as was mentioned earlier , iraq and afghanistan .  and let us hope and pray that as permanent repeal occurs , if it occurs , in the outyears that we will not be in that war on terrorism .  but i would say to my friend , and i appreciate the question , but he also mentioned the department of agriculture , and lest , mr. speaker , anyone wonder who those agricultural groups are that represent farm families across america , i would place into the record a letter from said groups .  in essence , the letter reads as follows : the groups listed below support permanent estate tax repeal , ask for this body to vote for h.r. 8 , and the letter goes on to say , individuals and families own virtually all of the farms and ranches that dot america 's rural landscape .  death taxes threaten the transfer of these operations to the next generation of food and fiber producers .  sincerely , alabama farmers federation , american farm bureau federation , american sheep industry association , the american soybean association , farm credit council , national association of wheat growers ; to my friend from north dakota , national cattlemen 's beef association , national corn growers association , national cotton council , national grain sorghum producers , national milk producers federation , national potato council , usa rice producers federation , u.s. rice producers association , and the western peanut growers association .  april 13 , 2005 .  dear representative : the groups listed below support permanent estate tax repeal and ask you to vote for h.r. 8 , the death tax repeal permanency act of 2005 .  individuals and families own virtually all of the farms and ranches that dot america 's rural landscape .  death taxes threaten the transfer of these operations to the next generation of food and fiber producers .  in 2001 , congress recognized the harm that death taxes cause family businesses and voted to repeal this onerous tax .  unfortunately , repeal scheduled for 2010 is temporary and sunsets after only one year .  congress should act now to make death tax repeal permanent .  please show your support for permanent death tax repeal by voting for h.r. 8 when the bill reaches the house floor this week .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. speaker , the gentleman just indicated that the pomeroy substitute solves the problem once and for all , and i have listened to a number of individuals on the other side during the course of this discussion that this is only going to affect the superwealthy and that really there are no family businesses that are affected by the estate tax .  it has been interesting , because some of those comments have come from colleagues of mine on the committee on ways and means .  mr. speaker , we have had a number of hearings going back to at least , from my memory , 1997 .  so i will mention some of these folks who have come and testified in front of the committee on ways and means .  martin whalen testified about his family-owned and -operated company , etline foods corporation , a distributor of food service products in york , pennsylvania .  when they purchased the business , 48 employees ; in 1997 , 105 employees .  rhetorically , i would say to my friend from north dakota , will this solve their problem ?  wayne nelson , a farmer from winner , south dakota .  his father farmed until his father 's death in 1993 .  their estate planning was inadequate .  several parcels of land in south dakota were liquidated in order to pay the federal tax .  will the substitute rectify that situation ?  what about roger hannay of hannay reels , incorporated , a small manufacturer in the foothills of the catskill mountains about 25 miles from albany , new york , a small manufacturer employing 150 employees ?  what about richard forrestal , jr. , a principal in cold spring construction , a firm specializing in highway and bridge construction ?  what about douglas stinson , a tree farmer from toledo , washington , that runs the cowlitz ridge tree farm ?  each of these testified , mr. speaker , that they were impacted negatively by the existence of the death tax .  what about carol loop , jr. , president of luke 's nursery and greenhouses , a wholesale plant nursery operation in jacksonville , florida ?  he started his business with a $ 1 , 500 loan and a borrowed truck .  would the problem be solved with the pomeroy substitute ?  or christopher and kimberly clements of golden eagle distributors in tucson , arizona .  they lost their father unexpectedly after a valiant bout with cancer .  he lost his life at the age of 58 .  or jeannine mizell , a third-generation owner of mizell lumber and hardware company of kensington , maryland .  what about robert sakata , a vegetable farmer from brighton , colorado , or jean stinson , a railroad track manufacturing company in barto , florida , running the r. w. summers railroad contractors ?  their family had to shut down a facility in north carolina , laying off two-thirds of the 110 employees to pay the estate tax .  or jack cakebread , founder of cakebread cellars in napa valley , california .  would each of these individuals be solved or their estate problems solved by the substitute ?  it is a rhetorical question , and the gentleman from north dakota ( mr. pomeroy )  knows it , and i do not mean to put him on the spot , but he can not answer the question because when we draw a line , an arbitrary line , wherever we draw that line , we still are going to have those entrepreneurs that have been willing to invest in their businesses , hire employees , build local communities ; and as long as the death tax remains in existence , they are going to have to do some sort of estate planning .  i think it is much the better course to completely and finally permanently repeal the tax .  mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  as the gentleman from north dakota recognizes ; and , again , i do not think he meant to misspeak , but the underlying bill , h.r. 8 , does provide a step up in basis of $ 3 million for the surviving spouse and a $ 1.3 million step up in basis for surviving heirs .  mr. speaker , many have worked on the death tax repeal and going back even to the , i think , family heritage preservation act of 1993 .  the gentleman from california introduced that bill and i think had 29 cosponsors .  now , of course , we are over 200 on permanent repeal .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. speaker , notwithstanding the gentleman 's props , i would commend to him for his reading leisurely `` the economics of the estate tax : an update , '' a joint economic committee study dated june 2003 which in essence states the estate tax raises very little , if any , net revenue because of distortionary effects of the estate resulting in income tax losses roughly the same size as the revenue collected .  secondly , estate taxes force the development of environmentally sensitive land .  through 2001 , 2.6 million acres of forest land were harvested and 1.3 million acres were sold every year to raise funds to pay the estate tax .  regarding his criticism on philanthropy , the estate tax according to the joint economic committee study , the estate tax may actually be one of the greatest obstacles to charitable giving as estate taxes crowd out charitable bequests .  
R	mr. speaker , i have no further requests for time , and i can assure my friend i will not use the entire 14 minutes to close .  mr. speaker , who has the right to close ?  
R	mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from washington ( miss mcmorris ) , a newly elected member from the state of washington .  miss mcmorris .  mr. speaker , i appreciate the opportunity to address the house today on this very important piece of legislation , the repeal of the death tax and making it permanent .  the repeal of the death tax is one of the first bills that i was honored to place my name on as a cosponsor .  growing up on a family farm in eastern washington , i have seen firsthand the negative impacts the death tax has on our families and our businesses .  one of my top priorities in congress is to grow jobs and expand the economy in the pacific northwest .  i believe that the repeal of the death tax will help accomplish this goal , especially for the farmers and small businesses in my district .  the death tax costs thousands of jobs each year ; and by repealing this unnecessary tax , jobs will be created and many small business owners will be able to add workers to their payrolls .  as a member who represents a significant farming sector , i have seen the death tax destroy some family farms .  without a doubt , death taxes hurt our farmers and our ranchers by forcing family farms to sell land , buildings or equipment needed to operate their business in order to pay for this excessive tax .  some family farmers have had to take out a second mortgage on their home to pay for the tax .  when farms and ranches shut down , so do the businesses they support , leaving many out of work and leading to a depressed rural economy .  the time is now to end the death tax .  i support the passage of h.r. 8 in order to end this unjust , unfair , and inefficient tax burden on our families , businesses and especially our farming communities .  
D	mr. speaker , benjamin franklin noted over 200 years ago that `` in this world nothing can be said to be certain , except death and taxes. '' unfortunately , the convergence of these two inescapable events , in the form of the federal estate tax , results in a number of destructive outcomes in terms of slower economic growth , reduced social mobility , and wasted productive activity .  moreover , the costs imposed by the estate tax far outweigh any benefits that the tax might produce .  for these reasons , among others , i urge my colleagues to join with me in support of permanent repeal of the federal estate tax .  the estate tax has been enacted four times in our nation 's history -- each time in response to the exigent financial straits deriving from war .  in three of those instances ( 1797-1802 , 1862-70 , and 1898-1902 ) , the estate tax was repealed shortly thereafter .  most recently , the estate tax was reintroduced during world war i ( 1916 ) and has existed ever since .  what was meant to bring short-term budgetary relief has become a permanent burden on america 's farmers , small business owners and families .  some observers might believe that the estate tax is free from serious controversy .  for example , it is often claimed that the tax only falls on the `` rich '' and thus serves to reduce income inequality .  other supporters of the estate tax point to the $ 22 billion in tax revenues for 2003 , or to the incentive for charitable bequests .  nonetheless , there are many reasons to question the value of taxing the accumulated savings of productive , entrepreneurial citizens .  not the least of these reasons is the widely-held belief that families who work hard and accumulate savings should not be punished for sound budgeting .  additionally , it is unclear whether the estate tax raises any revenue at all , since most if not all of its receipts are offset by losses under the income tax .  the freedom to attain prosperity and accumulate wealth is the basis of the `` american dream. '' we are taught that through hard work we can achieve that dream and , god willing , pass it on to our children .  unfortunately , for many the estate tax turns that dream into a nightmare .  the current tax treatment of a person 's life accumulations is so onerous that when one dies , the children are often forced to turn over half of their inheritance to the federal government .  the estate tax , which is imposed at an alarming 45 to 47 percent rate , is higher than in any other industrialized nation in the world except japan .  thus , many families must watch their loved one 's legacy being snatched away by the federal government at an agonizing time .  this is tragically wrong and nullifies the hard work of those who have passed on .  in the minority community there are numerous examples of the injurious effects of the estate tax .  the chicago daily defender -- the oldest african american-owned daily newspaper in the united states -- is a good example of the unique problem presented for minority families .  it was forced into bankruptcy due to financial burdens imposed by the estate tax .  but , beyond that , the questions were -- was the chicago defender family forced to sell , could a minority owner be found to purchase it , or would it become a white-owned asset , reducing the overall wealth of the african american community ?  on a smaller scale , another potential victim , a storeowner named leonard l. harris who is a first generation owner of chatham food center on the south side of chicago is frightened that all the work and value he has put into his business will be for naught because it will be stripped from his two sons .  according to mr. harris , `` my focus has been putting my earnings back into growing the business .  for this reason , cash resources to pay federal estate taxes , based on the way valuation is made , would force my family to sell the store in order to pay the irs within 9 months of my death .  our yearly earnings would not cover the payment of such a high tax .  i should know .  i started my career as a cpa. '' these two stories are not isolated .  according to the life insurance marketing research association , less than half of all family-owned businesses survive the death of a founder and only about 5 percent survive to the third generation .  another recent study found the following : eight out of ten minority business owners questioned believe the federal estate tax is unfair .  only one minority business owner in three has been able to take any steps whatsoever to prepare for the ramifications of the estate tax .  one in four believes that his or her heirs will be forced to sell off at least part of their businesses to pay the estate tax liability .  fully half the respondents already know a minority-owned business that has had trouble paying the tax , including some that have been forced to liquidate .  those few minority-owned businesses that have been able to take steps to reduce their estate tax liability complain that it has detracted from their ability to meet business objectives by channeling time , energy and resources away from productive endeavors .  many of my colleagues who are proponents of the estate tax contend that the tax adds progressivity to the tax code and provides needed tax revenue .  they argue that the estate tax falls on wealthier and higher income individuals and increases the total tax paid by this segment of the population relative to their income .  this helps offset the regressivity of payroll taxes and excise taxes , which fall more heavily on low-income groups relative to their income .  they also argue that increasing the unified credit to $ 4 , $ 5 , $ 6 or $ 7 million would remove small family-owned businesses and farms from the harsh impact of the estate tax .  i share my colleagues concerns about protecting the tax base and ensuring that our tax code remains progressive .  however , i find these arguments in support of the estate tax unconvincing in the face of substantial evidence otherwise .  first , there is no clear evidence that the estate tax is progressive or that larger estates are paying a greater portion of the tax .  wealthier members of our society are able to reduce and or eliminate the impact of the estate tax by stuffing money away here and there at the suggestion of high-priced attorneys and accountants .  similarly , tax planning techniques such as gift tax exclusions or valuation discounts reduce the size of the gross estate but do not appear in the irs data causing effective tax rates to be overstated for many larger estates .  the institute for policy innovation recently revealed evidence of this fact in a study showing that the effective tax rate on the most valuable estates was actually lower than that on medium-sized estates .  second , the insignificant amount of money the estate tax raises for the federal government can not justify the harmful effects it has on business owners who spend more to avoid the tax than the federal tax revenue raised .  according to the president 's fiscal year 2005 budget , the estate and gift tax brought in $ 22.8 billion in revenues to the federal government in 2003 .  this represents less than 1.1 percent of the total revenues out of a more than $ 2 trillion federal budget and less than the amount of money spent complying with , or trying to circumvent , the death tax .  in 2003 , congress ' joint economic committee reported that the death tax brought in $ 22 billion in annual revenue , but cost the private sector another $ 22 billion in compliance costs .  therefore , the total impact on the economy was a staggering $ 44 billion .  and , when one calculates the amount of money spent on complying with the tax , the number of lost jobs resulting from businesses being sold , or the resources directed away from business expansion and into estate planning , it is clear why this punitive tax must be eliminated .  it is also important to note that many economists believe that overall tax revenues would increase if the estate tax were repealed .  according to a study of estate tax repeal proposals , which was prepared by dr .  allen sinai for american council for capital formation and center for policy research , federal tax receipts would rise in response to a stronger economy , feeding back 20 cents of every dollar of estate tax reduction .  in fact , over the years 2001 to 2008 , estate tax repeal would increase real gross domestic product by $ 90 billion to $ 150 billion , and u.s. employment by 80 , 000 to 165 , 000 .  finally , it is not clear that increasing the unified credit to $ 6 or $ 7 million would remove small family-owned businesses and farms from the threat of the estate tax .  the small business administration 's definition of a small business is based on industry size standards .  for example , a construction company or grocery store with less than $ 27.5 million in annual receipts is considered a small business .  thus , families who build their businesses past the exemption amount will continue to face estate taxes that range from the aforementioned , alarming rate of 45 to 47 percent .  the exemption threshold would not help these small businesses .  more significantly , without significant reform or , more appropriately , repeal , these same small businesses face the prospect of estate tax rates as high as 60 percent beginning in 2011 .  permanent repeal of the estate tax will provide american families with fairness in our tax system and remove the perverse incentive that makes it is cheaper for an individual to sell the business prior to death and pay the individual capital gains rate than pass it on to heirs .  but for minorities , it provides much more .  it will allow wealth created in one generation to be passed on to the next thereby establishing sustainable minority communities through better jobs and education , better healthcare , and safer communities .  mr. speaker , i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 8 to permanently repeal the federal estate tax and to restore fairness to our nation 's tax code .  
D	mr. speaker , i rise today in strong support of making estate tax relief permanent so that family-owned farms and businesses can be passed down from generation to generation .  the estate tax should be updated and modernized to reflect both the economic growth many americans have experienced in recent years , and the hard work of millions of entrepreneurs and those just trying to make a living .  these businesses should not be punished for being successful or for simply having their owners pass away .  the united states is the land of opportunity , encouraging free enterprise and rewarding entrepreneurs .  the estate tax should be modified to protect family-owned small businesses and family farms from the threat of having to be sold just to pay the tax .  but , mr. speaker , h.r. 8 would fully repeal the estate tax for all americans at a time when the administration is running record deficits that threaten the futures of our children 's children .  as we all know , the estate tax applies to fewer than 2 percent of all estates , about 50 , 000 a year .  this bill would initially cost the nation 's treasury $ 290 billion over 10 years .  this year alone , our budget deficit will exceed $ 400 billion .  this administration has turned a projected $ 5.6 trillion surplus over ten years into deficits totalling $ 2.6 trillion .  however , even with these record deficits , we are debating yet another tax cut .  with the majority 's policies leading our nation toward a fiscal train wreck , we should not be talking about totally repealing the death tax and instead talk about doing something about the debt tax , which falls upon all americans .  therefore , i am supporting the substitute being offered by my good friend mr. pomeroy .  his legislation will immediately help the small businesses and family farms by increasing the estate tax exemption to $ 3 million for individuals and $ 6 million for couples .  this meaningful , common-sense bill will exempt 99.7 percent of all estates from the estate tax .  under current law , the tax basis for inherited property is `` stepped up '' to its value at transfer through 2009 , which helps farmers and small business owners who inherit property by reducing the amount of capital gains taxes to which the property is subject .  under current law , in 2010 , `` carry-over '' basis rules ( with a $ 1.3 million exemption ) replace the `` stepped-up '' basis rules , creating burdensome mr. speaker , it is our responsibility to avoid towering deficits and reduce the debt future generations will inherit .  we must give them the capability and flexibility to meet whatever problems or needs they face .  i can not , in good faith , support legislation that will put our country further into deficit spending with a tax cut that will hurt future generations for the unforeseeable future .  
D	mr. speaker , i rise today in support of this legislation because the current system needs reform to protect those people truly in need of debt relief , while holding accountable those who can repay their debt .  bankruptcy filings have risen steadily in recent years , an indication that our current system is an ineffective one that discourages consumers from saving and planning responsibly and ultimately is n't good for consumers , families , or a society that values individual responsibility .  i believe bankruptcy should be a last resort -- one that allows people who need protection to receive it and people who can repay all or some of their debts to do so .  the system in place now gives incentives to people in trouble and encourages them to steamroll headfirst into chapter 7 liquidation of all their debts , even when they could get back on their feet through a reasonable repayment plan or basic credit counseling .  while s. 256 is not a perfect bill , i do believe it goes great lengths in addressing the growing problem of bankruptcy in this country .  i believe there is great misunderstanding about what this bill does and who will be affected .  only those earning above the median income and who have the ability to pay will be required to pay back their debt .  however , millionaires who use bankruptcy law as a method of financial planning will no longer be able to buy extravagantly and subsequently have all of their debt written off .  it is also important to note that many families and small businesses will benefit because of changes to this law .  bankruptcy costs are passed on to other consumers , and the average family pays hundreds of dollars each year in higher prices .  additionally , small businesses that might otherwise not be paid for their goods or services will have a better chance of gaining compensation as a result of this bill .  a very positive aspect of s. 256 is that it makes permanent chapter 12 of the bankruptcy code .  i , along with other members of congress , have been working for years to make permanent this much-needed source of relief for our family farmers .  there have been accusations that this bill will be detrimental to the most needy ; in fact , there are a great deal of safeguards .  s. 256 includes protections ensuring that alimony and child support payments are made .  i believe single parents and dependent children need our help far more than millionaires who benefit from current bankruptcy laws .  additionally , families who have exorbitant medical bills they can not afford can still file for chapter 7 , and judges will still have a great deal of discretion when it comes to the issue of means-testing .  in addition , this legislation will create new disclosure requirements for lending institutions to provide better information to consumers about credit cards and debt .  this is particularly important for young adults who are bombarded by credit applications and have limited knowledge about the risks that accompany credit card ownership .  it is important to note that this legislation is only the first step in addressing the bigger problems underlying savings in this country .  with an over-reliance on credit cards and a lack of saving for retirement , too many americans find themselves on shaky financial ground .  addressing this problem must be our next goal , and we must encourage more personal responsibility in consumers .  the bankruptcy abuse prevention and consumer protection act will benefit consumers and provide all americans with better access to credit .  it helps prevent abuse of the system while providing debt protection to those who truly need it .  i urge my colleagues to support this legislation .  
R	mr. speaker , i am proud to vote in favor of s. 256 , the bankruptcy abuse prevention and consumer protection act of 2005 .  this important bill brings needed reforms to our nation 's bankruptcy system .  the legislation reduces the unfair disparity of treatment in the bankruptcy system by establishing more uniform and predictable standards .  i am particularly pleased to note the compromise reached on healthcare and employee benefits .  this legislation takes great strides to protect patients ' rights , and it encourages debtors and trustees to consider patients ' interests when administering healthcare bankruptcy cases .  patients are given a voice through the appointment of an ombudsman , who advocates for the confidentiality of patients ' records and ensures patients are transferred to appropriate facilities .  these are critical provisions that protect the rights of those with failing health .  i would like to commend a constituent from my district for his contributions to this legislation , keith j. shapiro , esq. , of northbrook , illinois , and his colleague nancy a. peterman , esq .  mr. shapiro testified in support of these patient health provisions before the u.s. senate committee on the judiciary subcommittee on administrative oversight and the courts on june 1 , 1998 .  the passing of this legislation marks the culmination of mr. shapiro and ms. peterman 's tireless efforts to protect patients ' interests in bankruptcy cases .  on behalf of my colleagues in congress , i offer my sincere gratitude for their dedication to fair bankruptcy policy .  
D	mr. speaker , almost half of the bankruptcies in the united states are connected to an illness in the family , whether people had health insurance or not .  middle-class americans , who had the misfortune of either experiencing a medical emergency themselves or watching a family member suffer , were then forced to face the daunting task of pulling themselves out of debt .  bankruptcy law has allowed them to start over .  it has given hope .  now this new law will put people on their own .  illness or emergency creates medical bills .  we are telling the people that they themselves are to blame .  at the same time , we are removing protections that would stay an eviction , that would keep a roof over the head of a working family .  we allow the credit industry to trick consumers into using subprime cards , with exorbitant interest rate hikes and fees .  then we hand those same consumers over 
D	today i rise in support of the pomeroy substitute to h.r. 8 , the estate tax repeal permanency act , and in opposition to the underlying bill .  as the son of a small business owner , i know firsthand the tax burden placed on entrepreneurs and working families , and i support efforts to responsibly protect small business owners .  the pomeroy substitute provides needed relief by eliminating estate taxes for assets totaling $ 3.5 million per individual or $ 7 million per married couple .  increasing the exemption to this level would mean that 99.7 percent of all estates will not pay a single penny of the estate tax .  small businesses and farm owners should not be penalized for their success , nor should they need to worry about their ability to pass the family business on to future generations , and the substitute addresses these concerns .  h.r. 8 goes far beyond providing fair tax relief to small businesses and family farms .  while the benefits overwhelmingly go to the wealthiest 0.3 percent of estates , republican leaders fail to mention that their proposal actually raises taxes on thousands of estates , including those not previously affected by the estate tax .  this is because their legislation increases capital gain taxes owed on inherited property .  the department of agriculture estimates that this change will raise taxes on more farms than would benefit from repealing the tax .  the republicans ' call for repealing the estate tax comes at a time when our government is already in fiscal crisis .  ending the estate tax will reduce revenues by $ 290 billion over ten years , and by 2021 , this legislation will have added a total of more than $ 1 trillion to our debt .  with a $ 400 billion deficit projected this year , now is not the time to add trillions in debt to the tab that future generations must pay .  these added costs also come as the president proposes to privatize social security at a cost of up to $ 6 trillion .  in addition , the house recently passed a budget that cuts $ 20 billion from medicare and underfunds critical priorities including veterans ' health care and homeland security .  we must work to meet our existing obligations rather than cutting taxes for the wealthiest 0.3 percent of families in america .  based on internal revenue service data for 2004 , out of approximately 10 , 000 deaths in my home state , only 312 rhode island decedents filed estate tax returns .  this number would be much lower with the $ 3.5 million exemption under the pomeroy substitute .  under our democratic alternative , most small business owners and family farmers would receive estate tax relief .  i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting permanent reform of the estate tax , but not irresponsibly repealing it .  our small business owners are in need of relief , and we must provide it without leaving future generations to pay the bill .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman for yielding me time .  mr. speaker , it is fascinating if you would think if there was a proposal in the substitute to eliminate the whole list of taxes that the gentleman referred to , but i have never heard one case where they have talked about eliminating any tax , only increasing taxes .  so it is quite an interesting debate .  let me just say , i come to this as someone who grew up in a family farm operation , a family small business .  i can tell you firsthand from real life , honest experience the effect that the death tax has on families and creating jobs and opportunities and being able to continue what i believe is the american dream , and that is to have an opportunity for your children and your grandchildren to continue a life that you love and cherish .  nothing stands in the way more for families and small businesses to be successful , to continue , than the death tax .  we spend thousands and thousands of dollars every year as a way to try and avoid what the death tax will do to us .  it is morally wrong that the day you die , your heirs should not only see the undertaker but have to go see the tax man to see how much the federal government is going to take away from a lifetime of work .  the idea , while the gentleman from north dakota ( mr. pomeroy )  , i have the greatest respect for him , but the idea of continuing an immoral tax that destroys family , destroys family businesses , i have seen neighbors who have lost everything they have , lost generations of work on a family farm because of the death tax .  it is a fact that nothing is more harmful , nothing is more hurtful than a tax that takes away the hope of the american dream .  this country is based on farms , on small businesses .  that is the lifeblood of this nation , and nothing destroys it more than the death tax ; and that is why we have to kill this death tax to make sure that we can experience the american dream in this country .  
D	mr. speaker , this bill hurts americans .  one group who will be especially hurt are family forced into bankruptcy because of a medical crisis .  a recent study conducted by professors at harvard medical and law school showed that about half of all personal bankruptcies can be attributed to medical costs .  among those who cited illnesses as a cause of bankruptcy , the average unreimbursed medical costs totaled nearly $ 12 , 000 even though more than three-quarters had health insurance .  how does the bill hurt the families ?  under the bill for the first time there will be a presumption that many of these families abuse the bankruptcy system .  under current law , people facing a medical bankruptcy can seek several forms of relief .  chapter 7 is by far the most common .  under 7 debtors are required to forfeit all of their property other than the exempt assets in exchange for having their debts extinguished .  current law already gives bankruptcy courts discretion to deny chapter 7 relieve where the filing is found to be a substantial abuse .  but unlike this bill , current law provides a presumption in favor of granting relief to the debtor .  the other option is chapter 13 where a debtor is required to continue paying creditors .  this makes it more difficult for debtors to get back on their feet .  this bill will hurt families facing medical bankruptcy because it will force many of them into chapter 13 .  that is because it presumes that these families are abusing the bankruptcy system if they fail the means test .  the means tests starts with a family 's income and then subtracts monthly expenses permitted by irs guidelines .  but instead of using a debtor 's actual projected income , the means tests uses the debtor 's average income over the prior 6 months .  thus , if a family 's bankruptcy was triggered by a loss of income resulting from a serious illness , the means test would still attribute the lost income for the purpose of determining whether the family is abusing the bankruptcy system .  further , the means test uses the median income for a state .  my constituents in santa clara county live in a high-cost area .  almost nobody will be able to discharge their debts in bankruptcy from santa clara county because of that high cost , no matter how meritorious for their claim for relief .  similarly , instead of using the debtor 's actual expenses , the inflexible guidelines developed by the irs is used .  as a result , more families facing medical bankruptcy will be presumed to be abusing the system , will be forced into chapter 13 and will never be able to stand on their feet again .  that is not right .  the harvard study found that these struggling families did everything they could to pay their medical bills to avoid bankruptcy .  one in five skipped meals .  one-third had their electricity cut off .  almost half lost their phone service .  one in five was forced to move .  incredibly , they also cut back on needed medications to try to avoid bankruptcy .  in fact , half went without needed prescriptions .  and a full 60 percent went without a needed doctor appointment .  please join me in opposing this unfair bill .  illness and injury as contributors to bankruptcy abstract : in 2001 , 1.458 million american families filed for bankruptcy .  to investigate medical contributors to bankruptcy , we surveyed 1 , 771 personal bankruptcy filers in five federal courts and subsequently completed in-depth interviews with 931 of them .  about half cited medical causes , which indicates that 1.9-2.2 million americans ( filers plus dependents ) experienced medical bankruptcy .  among those whose illnesses led to bankruptcy , out-of-pocket costs averaged $ 11 , 854 since the start of illness ; 75.7 percent had insurance at the onset of illness .  medical debtors were 42 percent more likely than other debtors to experience lapses in coverage .  even middle-class insured families often fall prey to financial catastrophe when sick .  `` if the debtor be insolvent to serve creditors , let his body be cut in pieces on the third market day .  it may be cut into more or fewer pieces with impunity .  or , if his creditors consent to it , let him be sold to foreigners beyond the tiber. '' -- twelve tables , table iii , 6 ( ca .  450 b.c. ) our bankruptcy system works differently from that of ancient rome ; creditors carve up the debtor 's assets , not the debtor .  even so , bankruptcy leaves painful problems in its wake .  it remains on credit reports for a decade , making everything from car insurance to house payments more expensive .  debtors ' names are often published in the newspaper , and the fact of their bankruptcy may show up whenever someone tries to find them via the internet .  potential employers who run routine credit checks ( a common screening practice ) will discover the bankruptcy , which can lead to embarrassment or , worse , the lost chance for a much-needed job .  personal bankruptcy is common .  nearly 1.5 million couples or individuals filed bankruptcy petitions in 2001 , a 360 percent increase since 1980 .  fragmentary data from the legal literature suggest that illness and medical bills contribute to bankruptcy .  most previous studies of medical bankruptcy , however , have relied on court records -- where medical debts may be subsumed under credit card or mortgage debt -- or on responses to a single survey question .  none has collected detailed information on medical expenses , diagnoses , access to care , work loss , or insurance coverage .  research has been impeded both by the absence of a national repository for bankruptcy filings and by debtors ' reticence to discuss their bankruptcy , in population-based surveys , only half of those who have undergone bankruptcy admit to it .  the health policy literature is virtually silent on bankruptcy , although a few studies have looked at impoverishment attributable to illness .  in his 1972 book , sen .  edward kennedy ( d-ma ) gave an impressionistic account of `` sickness and bankruptcy. '' the likelihood of incurring high out-of-pocket costs was incorporated into older estimates of the number of underinsured americans : twenty-nine million in 1987 .  about 16 percent of families now spend more than one-twentieth of their income on health care .  among terminally ill patients ( most of them insured ) , 39 percent reported that health care costs caused moderate or severe financial problems .  medical debt is common among the poor , even those with insurance , and interferes with access to care .  at least 8 percent , and perhaps as many as 21 percent of american families are contacted by collection agencies about medical bills annually .  our study provides the first extensive data on the medical concomitants of bankruptcy , based on a survey of debtors in bankruptcy courts .  we address the following questions : ( 1 ) who files for bankruptcy ?  ( 2 ) how frequently do illness and medical bills contribute to bankruptcy ?  ( 3 ) when medical bills contribute , how large are they and for what services ?  ( 4 ) does inadequate health insurance play a role in bankruptcy ?  ( 5 ) does bankruptcy compromise access to care ?  `` bankrupt '' is not synonymous with `` broke. '' `` bankrupt '' means filing a petition in a federal court asking for protection from creditors via the bankruptcy laws .  a single petition may cover an individual or married couple .  the instant a debtor files for bankruptcy , the court assumes legal control of the debtor 's assets and halts all collection efforts .  shortly after the filing , a court-appointed trustee convenes a meeting to inventory the debtor 's assets and debts and to determine which assets are exempt from seizure .  states may regulate these exemptions , which often include work tools , clothes , bibles , and some equity in a home .  about 70 percent of all consumer debtors file under chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code ; most others file under chapter 13 .  in chapter 7 the trustee liquidates all nonexempt assets -- although 96 percent of debtors have so little unencumbered property that there is nothing left to liquidate .  at the conclusion of the bankruptcy , the debtor is freed from many debts .  in chapter 13 the debtor proposes a repayment plan , which extends for up to five years .  chapter 13 debtors may retain their property so long as they stay current with their repayments .  under both chapters , taxes , student loans , alimony , and child support remain payable in full , and debtors must make payments on all secured loans ( such as home mortgages and car loans ) or forfeit the collateral .  this study is based on a cohort of 1 , 771 bankruptcy filings in 2001 .  for each filing , a debtor completed a written questionnaire at the mandatory meeting with the trustee , and we abstracted financial data from public court records .  in addition , we conducted follow-up telephone interviews with about half ( 931 ) of these debtors .  sampling strategy .  we used cluster sampling to assemble a cohort to households filing for personal bankruptcy in five ( of the seventy-seven total ) federal judicial districts .  we collected 250 questionnaires in each district , representative of the proportion of chapters 7 and 13 filings in that district .  these 1 , 250 cases constitute our `` core sample. '' for planned studies on housing , we collected identical data from an additional 521 homeowners filing for bankruptcy .  we based our analyses on all 1 , 771 bankruptcies with responses weighted to maintain the representativeness of the sample .  data collection .  with the cooperation of the judges in each district , we contacted the trustees who officiate at meetings with debtors .  the trustees agreed to distribute , or to allow a research assistant to distribute , a self-administered questionnaire to debtors appearing at the bankruptcy meeting .  questionnaires ( which were available in english and spanish ) included a cover letter explaining the research project and human subjects protections and encouraging debtors to consult their attorneys the questionnaire asked about demographics , employment , housing , and specific reasons for filing for bankruptcy , it also asked whether the debtor had medical debts exceeding $ 1 , 000 , had lost two or more weeks of work-related income because of illness , or had health insurance coverage for themselves and all dependents at the time of filing , and whether there had been a gap of one month or more in that coverage during the past two years .  in joint filings , we collected demographic information for each spouse .  during the spring and summer of 2001 we collected questionnaires from consecutive debtors in each district until the target number was reached .  follow-up telephone interviews .  the written questionnaire distributed at the time of bankruptcy filing invited debtors to participate in future telephone interviews , for which they would receive $ 50 ; 70 percent agreed to such interviews .  we ultimately completed follow-up telephone interviews with 931 of the 1 , 771 debtor families , a response rate of 53 percent .  the telephone interviews , conducted between june 2001 and february 2002 using a structured , computer-assisted protocol , explored financial , housing , and medical issues .  detailed medical questions .  each of the 931 interviewees was asked if any of the following had been a significant cause of their bankruptcy : an illness or injury ; the death of a family member ; or the addition of a family member through birth , adoption , custody , or fostering .  those who answered yes to this screening question were queried about diagnoses , health insurance during the illness , and medical care use and spending .  interviewers collected information about each household member with medical problems .  in total , we collected in-depth medical information on 391 people with health problems in 332 debtor households .  data analysis .  we used data from the self-administered questionnaires ( and court records ) obtained from all 1 , 771 filters to analyze demographics , health coverage at the time of filing , and gaps in coverage in the two years before filing .  we also used the questionnaire to estimate how frequently illness and medical bills contributed to bankruptcy .  we developed two summary measures of medical bankruptcy .  under the rubric `` major medical bankruptcy '' we included debtors who either ( 1 ) cited illness or injury as a specific reason for bankruptcy , or ( 2 ) reported uncovered medical bills exceeding $ 1 , 000 in the past years , or ( 3 ) lost at least two weeks of work-related income because of illness/injury , or ( 4 ) mortgaged a home to pay medical bills .  our more inclusive category , `` any medical bankruptcy , '' included debtors who cited any of the above , or addiction , or uncontrolled gambling , or birth , or the death of a family member .  data from the 931 follow-up telephone interviews were used to analyze hardships experienced by debtors in the period surrounding their bankruptcy , including problems gaining access to medical care .  the in-depth medical interviews regarding 391 people with medical problems are the basis for our analyses of which household members were ill , diagnoses , health insurance at onset of illness , and out-of-pocket spending .  two physicians ( himmelstein and woolhandler ) coded the diagnoses given by debtors into categories for analysis .  sas and sudaan were used for statistical analyses , adjusting for complex sample design .  to extrapolate our findings nationally , we assumed that our sample was representative of the 1 , 457 , 572 households filing for bankruptcy during 2001 .  human subject committees at harvard law school and the cambridge hospital approved the project .  who files for bankruptcy ?  exhibit 1 displays the demographic characteristics of our weighted sample of 1 , 771 bankruptcy filers .  the average debtor was a forty-one-year-old woman with children and at least some college education .  most debtors owned homes ; their occupational prestige scores place them predominantly in the middle or working classes .  on average , each bankruptcy involved 1.32 debtors ( reflecting some joint filings by married couples ) and 1.33 dependents .  extrapolating from our data , the 1.5 million personal bankruptcy filings nationally in 2001 involved 3.9 million people : 1.9 million debtors , 1.3 million children under age eighteen , and 0.7 million other dependents .  medical causes of bankruptcy .  exhibit 2 shows the proportion of debtors ( n = 1 , 771 ) citing various medical contributors to their bankruptcy and the estimated number of debtors and dependents nationally affected by each cause .  more than one-quarter cited illness or injury as a specific reason for bankruptcy ; a similar number reported uncovered medical bills exceeding $ 1 , 000 .  some debtors cited more than one medical contributor .  nearly half ( 46.2 percent ) ( 95 percent confidence interval = 43.5 , 48.9 ) of debtors met at least one of our criteria for `` major medical bankruptcy. '' slightly more than half ( 54.5 percent ) ( 95 percent ci = 51.8 , 57.2 ) met criteria for `` any medical bankruptcy. '' a lapse in health insurance coverage during the two years before filing was a strong predictor of a medical cause of bankruptcy ( exhibit 3 ) .  nearly four-tenths ( 38.4 percent ) of debtors who had a `` major medical bankruptcy '' had experienced a lapse , compared with 27.1 percent of debtors with no medical cause ( p & amp ; lt ; .0001 ) .  surprisingly , medical debtors were no less likely than other debtors to have coverage at the time of filing .  ( more detailed coverage and cost data for the subsample we interviewed appears below. ) medical debtors resembled other debtors in most other respects ( exhibit 1 ) .  however , the `` major medical bankruptcy '' group was 16 percent ( p & amp ; lt ; 03 ) less likely than other debtors to cite trouble managing money as a cause of their bankruptcy ( data not shown ) .  privations in the period surrounding bankruptcy .  in our follow-up telephone interviews with 931 debtors , they reported substantial problems .  during the two years before filing , 40.3 percent had lost telephone service ; 19.4 percent had gone without food ; 53.6 percent had gone without needed doctor or dentist visits because of the cost , and 43.0 percent had failed to fill a prescription , also because of the cost .  medical debtors experienced more problems in access to care than other debtors did ; three-fifths went without a needed doctor or dentist visit , and nearly half failed to fill a prescription .  medical debt was also associated with mortgage problems .  among the total sample of 1 , 771 debtors , those with more than $ 1 , 000 in medical bills were more likely than others to have taken out a mortgage to pay medical bills ( 5.0 percent versus 0.8 percent ) .  fifteen percent of all homeowners who had taken out a second or third mortgage cited medical expenses as a reason .  follow-up phone interviews revealed that among homeowners with high-risk mortgages ( interest rates greater than 12 percent , or points plus fees of at least 8 percent ) , 13.8 percent cited a medical reason for taking out the loan .  following their bankruptcy filings , about one-third of debtors continued to have problems paying their bills .  medical debtors reported particular problems making mortgage/rent payments and paying for utilities .  although our interviews occurred soon after the bankruptcy filings ( seven months , on average ) , many debtors had already been turned down for jobs ( 3.1 percent ) , mortgages ( 5.8 percent ) , apartment rentals ( 4.9 percent ) , or car loans ( 9.3 percent ) because of the bankruptcy on their credit reports .  medical diagnoses , spending , and type of coverage .  our interviews yielded detailed data on diagnoses , health insurance coverage , and medical bills for 391 debtors or family members whose medical problems contributed to bankruptcy .  in three-quarters of cases , the person experiencing the illness/injury was the debt or spouse of the debtor ; in 13.3 percent , a child ; and in 8.2 percent , an elderly relative .  illness begot financial problems both directly ( because of medical costs ) and through lost income .  three-fifths ( 59.9 percent ) of families bankrupted by medical problems indicated that medical bills ( from medical care providers ) contributed to bankruptcy ; 47.6 percent cited drug costs ; 35.3 percent had curtailed employment because of illness , often ( 52.8 percent ) to care for someone else .  many families had problems with both medical bills and income loss .  families bankrupted by medical problems cited varied , and sometimes multiple , diagnoses .  cardiovascular disorders were reported by 26.6 percent ; trauma/orthopedic/back problems by nearly one-third ; and cancer , diabetes , pulmonary , or mental disorders and childbirth-related and congenital disorders by about 10 percent each .  half ( 51.7 percent ) of the medical problems involved ongoing chronic illnesses .  our in-depth interviews with medical debtors confirmed that gaps in coverage were a common problem .  three-fourths ( 75.7 percent ) of these debtors were insured at the on-set of the bankrupting illness .  three-fifths ( 60.1 percent ) initially had private coverage , but one-third of them lost coverage during the course of their illness .  of debtors , 5.7 percent had medicare , 8.4 percent medicaid , and 1.6 percent veterans/military coverage .  those covered under government programs were less likely than others to have experienced coverage interruptions .  few medical debtors had elected to go without coverage .  only 2.9 percent of those who were uninsured or suffered a gap in coverage said that they had not thought they needed insurance ; 55.9 percent said that premiums were unaffordable , 7.1 percent were unable to obtain coverage because of preexisting medical conditions , and most others cited employment issues , such as job loss or ineligibility for employer-sponsored coverage .  debtors ' out-of-pocket medical costs were often below levels that are commonly labeled catastrophic .  in the year prior to bankruptcy , out-of-pocket costs ( excluding insurance premiums ) averaged $ 3 , 686 ( 95 percent ci = $ 2 , 693 , $ 4 , 679 ) ( exhibit 5 ) .  presumably , such costs were often ruinous because of concomitant income loss or because the need for costly care persisted over several years .  out-of-pocket costs since the onset of illness/injury averaged $ 11 , 854 ( 95 percent ci = $ 8 , 532 , $ 15 , 175 ) .  those with continuous insurance coverage paid $ 734 annually in premiums on average over and above the expenditures detailed above .  debtors with private insurance at the onset of their illnesses had even higher out-of-pocket costs than those with no insurance .  this paradox is explained by the very high costs -- $ 18 , 005 -- incurred by patients who initially had private the human face of bankruptcy .  debtors ' narratives painted a picture of families arriving at the bankruptcy courthouse emotionally and financially exhausted , hoping to stop the collection calls , save their homes , and stabilize their economic circumstances .  many of the debtors detailed ongoing problems with access to care .  some expressed fear that their medical care providers would refuse to continue their care , and a few recounted actual experiences of this kind .  several had used credit cards to charge medical bills they had no hope of paying .  the co-occurrence of medical and job problems was a common theme .  for instance , one debtor underwent lung surgery and suffered a heart attack .  both hospitalizations were covered by his employer-based insurance , but he was unable to return to his physically demanding job .  he found new employment but was denied coverage because of his preexisting conditions , which required costly ongoing care .  similarly , a teacher who suffered a heart attack was unable to return to work for many months , and hence her coverage lapsed .  a hospital wrote off her $ 20 , 000 debt , but she was nevertheless bankrupted by doctor 's bills and the cost of medications .  a second common theme was sounded by parents of premature infants or chronically ill children ; many took time off from work or incurred large bills for home care while they were at their jobs .  finally , many of the insured debtors blamed high copayments and deductibles for their financial ruin .  for example , a man insured through his employer ( a large national firm ) suffered a broken leg and torn knee ligaments , he incurred $ 13 , 000 in out-of-pocket costs for copayments , deductibles , and uncovered services -- much of it for physical therapy .  bankruptcy is common in the united states , involving nearly four million debtors and dependents in 2001 ; medical problems contribute to about half of all bankruptcies .  medical debtors , like other bankruptcy filer , were primarily middle class ( by education and occupation ) .  the chronically poor are less likely to build up debt , have fewer assets ( such as a home ) to protect , and have less access to the legal resources needed to navigate a complex financial rehabilitation .  the medical debtors we surveyed were demographically typical americans who got sick .  they differed from others filing for bankruptcy in one important respect : they were more likely to have experienced a lapse in health coverage .  many had coverage at the onset of their illness but lost it .  in other cases , even continuous coverage left families with ruinous medical bills .  study strengths and limitations .  our study 's strengths are the use of multiple overlapping data sources ; a large sample size ; geographic diversity ; and in-depth data collection .  although our sample may not be fully representative of all personal bankruptcies , the chapter 7 filers we studied resemble chapter 7 filers nationally ( the only group for whom demographic data has been complied nationally from court records ) .  several indicators suggest that response bias did not greatly distort our findings .  as in all surveys , we relied on respondents ' truthfulness .  might some debtors blame their predicament on socially acceptable medical problems rather than admitting to irresponsible spending ?  several factors suggest that our respondents were candid .  first , just prior to answering our questionnaire , debtors had filed extensive information with the court under penalty of perjury -- information that was available to use in the court records and that virtually never contradicted the questionnaire data .  they were about to be sworn in by a trustee ( who often administered our questionnaire ) and examined under oath .  at few other points in life are full disclosure and honesty so aggressively emphasized .  second , the details called for in our telephone interview -- questions about out-of-pocket medical expenses , who was ill , diagnoses , and so forth -- would make a generic claim that `` we had medical problems '' difficult to sustain .  third , one of us ( thorne ) interviewed ( for other studies ) many debtors in their homes .  almost all specifically denied spend-thrift habits , and observation of their homes supported these claims .  most reflected the lifestyle of people under economic constraint , with modest furnishings and few luxuries .  finally , our findings receive indirect corroboration from recent surveys of the general public that have found high levels of medical debt , which often result in calls from collection agencies .  even when data are reliable , making casual inferences from a cross-sectional study such as ours is perilous .  many debtors described a complex web of problems involving illness , work , and family .  dissecting medical from other causes of bankruptcy is difficult .  we can not presume that eliminating the medical antecedents of bankruptcy would have preventing all of the filings we classified as `` medical bankruptcies. '' conversely , many people financially ruined by illness are undoubtedly too ill , too destitute , or too demoralized to pursue formal bankruptcy .  in sum , bankruptcy is an imperfect proxy for financial ruin .  trends in medical bankruptcy .  although methodological inconsistencies between studies preclude precise quantification of time trends , medical bankruptcies are clearly increasing .  in 1981 the best evidence available suggests that about 25 , 000 families filed for bankruptcy in the aftermath of a serious medical problem ( 8 percent of the 312 , 000 bankruptcy filings that year ) .  our findings suggest that the number of medical bankruptcies had increased twenty-threefold by 2001 .  since the number of bankruptcy filings rose 11 percent in the eighteen months after the completion of our data collection , the absolute number of medical bankruptcies almost surely continues to increase .  policy implications .  our data highlight four deficiencies in the financial safety net for american families confronting illness .  first , even brief lapses in insurance coverage may be ruinous and should not be viewed as benign .  while forty-five million americans are uninsured at any point in time , many more experience spells without coverage .  we found little evidence that such gaps were voluntary .  only a handful of medical debtors with a gap in coverage had chosen to forgo insurance because they had not perceived a need for it ; the overwhelming majority had found coverage unaffordable or effectively unavailable .  the privations suffered by many debtors -- going without food , telephone service , electricity , and health care -- lend credence to claims that coverage was unaffordable and belie the second , many health insurance policies prove to be too skimpy in the face of serious illness .  we doubt that such underinsurance reflects families ' preference for risk ; few americans have more than one or two health insurance options .  many insured families are bankrupted by medical expenses well below the `` catastrophic '' thresholds of high-deductible plans that are increasingly popular with employers .  indeed , even the most comprehensive plan available to us through harvard university leaves faculty at risk for out-of-pocket expenses as large as those reported by our medical debtors .  third , even good employment-based coverage sometimes fails to protect families , because illness may lead to job loss and the consequent loss of coverage .  lost jobs , of course , also leave families without health coverage when they are at their financially most vulnerable .  finally , illness often leads to financial catastrophe through loss of income , as well as high medical bills .  hence , disability insurance and paid sick leave are also critical to financial survival of a serious illness .  only broad reforms can address these problems .  even universal coverage could leave many americans vulnerable to bankruptcy unless such coverage was much more comprehensive than many current policies .  as in canada and most of western europe , health insurance should be divorced from employment to avoid coverage disruptions at the time of illness .  insurance policies should incorporate comprehensive stop-loss provisions , closing coverage loopholes that expose insured families to unaffordable out-of-pocket costs .  additionally , improved programs are needed to replace breadwinners ' incomes when they are disabled or must care for a loved one .  the low rate of medical bankruptcy in canada suggests that better medical and social insurance could greatly ameliorate this problem in the united states .  in 1591 pope gregory xiv fell gravely ill .  his doctors prescribed pulverized gold and gems .  according to legend , the resulting depletion of the papal treasury is reflected in his unadorned plaster sarcophagus in st .  peter 's basilica .  four centuries later , solidly middle-class americans still face impoverishment following a serious illness .  
D	mr. speaker , my colleague from florida , i wish he would stay , because we are here today because the republican majority would like to repeal the estate tax , but they have forgotten history .  i am sure my colleague was not here , but i would like to remind him that it was a republican , president roosevelt , teddy roosevelt , who strongly supported an estate tax in the first place .  here is what he said .  there is no argument for this .  `` the man of great wealth , '' teddy said , `` owes a particular obligation to the state because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government. '' wow , nicely said , and a republican , too .  that proves two things , that republicans can sometimes speak eloquently , and sometimes they can even do something that is right .  though republicans want to undo all the good for the sake of greed , please , america , do not be phonied up by this rhetoric that we hear on this bill .  they will pitch some gibberish about how they are helping americans .  that is nonsense .  we just came from the committee on ways and means .  the reason this place was in recess is because we were over there giving out $ 8 billion to oil companies .  those poor people , whose profits have quadrupled in the last 2 years , that is what we did a little while ago .  now we come over here , and we are going to give more money away .  does that seem like it benefits real people ?  this is not about real people .  this is about very , very , very rich people , and that is about as plainspoken as teddy roosevelt would have said it .  only 2 percent , at the most , pay any estate tax whatsoever .  three-quarters of the money that comes in comes from people with estates over $ 2.5 million .  if we repeal this , the rich get richer and america 's deficit gets deeper and redder .  we create an oligarchic class in this country from whom the money can never be taxed .  if they can manipulate it around while they are alive , they can never have to pay a penny .  the real losers in this are not only the american people .  it is the american universities , the american churches , all those people who get money contributed by rich people because they do not want to pay the inheritance tax .  now my colleagues have taken away the encouragement .  why should they give anything away ?  oh , well , because they have big hearts .  they have big hearts we are told .  really ?  then why are we out here with a bill like this which gives them the ability to keep every single dime ?  now if you can give your kid $ 2 million and say , now , johnny , here is two million bucks , i think that ought to kind of get you a start in the world .  does that not seem like enough ?  well , to the republicans , there is never enough ; take as much as you can from everybody and keep it .  ronald reagan put the sign of the cross on it .  he said , are you better off today than you were 4 years ago ?  never does anyone say on my colleagues ' side , are we better off .  we are in debt to the world .  we borrowed from the japanese last year our entire deficit , more than $ 400 billion , and the president wanders around the country saying , well , that is just paper .  those things in the social security trust fund , that is just paper .  do not pay any attention to that .  if the japanese stop buying dollars and they start buying euros , and the chinese start buying euros and the middle east buys euros , where do my colleagues think we are going to borrow money and what kind of interest rate are we going to pay ?  this is a bad bill , it is bad policy , and it is bad ethics .  
D	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  we hear the phrase `` death tax , '' which really is kind of a misnomer .  there is no such thing .  when i am dead , i am dead .  you can not collect any taxes from me .  the issue is whether or not estates in the billions of dollars should be subject to any taxation .  we are not talking about small family farms or small businesses .  that is not what this is about .  if you read the washington post today , it is very clear what this is about .  it is about the most extremely wealthy companies , the most extremely wealthy people in this country .  the gentleman from north dakota has a substitute that would basically exempt 99.7 percent of all estates from any estate tax .  so let us be clear about what is going on , and let us also be clear about the cost to our kids .  the joint committee on taxation says that this is going to cost up to $ 290 billion .  there seems to be no concern on the other side of the aisle about what this does to our deficit or our debt .  this is not paid for .  they make no attempt to pay for it .  let me just remind my colleagues that the debt that we are faced with right now is close to $ 8 trillion , and the interest on that debt is astonishingly high .  that is the legacy that they are passing on to our kids .  our good colleague from tennessee ( mr. tanner )  in a presentation , i thought , said it best .  he said , so people can understand what the debt means , if you stack up one thousand dollar bills , a million dollars would be about a foot high ; a billion dollars would be about the size of the empire state building ; a trillion dollars would be 1 , 000 empire state buildings .  our debt is close to $ 8 trillion , and there is no outrage on the other side , there is no concern about what we are doing and what it means to our economy by making these tax cuts permanent .  i think that people need to understand what is going on here .  this is not about small family farms .  it is not about small businesses .  this is about helping the wealthiest of the wealthy .  
D	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  let me again remind people that we are talking about three-tenths of 1 percent who actually pay an estate tax .  in that category we are not talking about family farms or small businesses .  we are talking about paris hilton , and i would say to my colleague from california that i think she has enough accountants and lawyers to be able to fill out form 706 .  
D	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  let me just make a couple of points here .  this is not about protecting small businesses or family farms .  i mean , i think that is clear to everybody here .  this is about protecting the three-tenths of the 1 percent wealthiest people in this country .  i enter into the record an article that appeared in today 's washington post that really kind of explains what this debate is all about , about how mars candy , gallo wine , and campbell soup fortunes have been lobbying for the complete repeal of the estate tax for some time so they can end all taxation on their inheritance .  that is what this is about .  this is not about working families .  this is not small family farms or small businesses .  this is about protecting the richest of the rich .  erosion of estate tax is a session in politics in 1992 , when heirs to the mars inc .  fortune joined a few other wealthy families to hire the law firm patton boggs llp to lobby for estate tax repeal , the joke on k street was that few washington sightseers had paid so much for a fruitless tour of the capitol .  today , the house is expected to vote to permanently repeal the estate tax , moving the mars candy , gallo wine and campbell soup fortunes one step closer to a goal that once seemed quixotic at best : ending all taxation on inheritances .  `` i think this train has an awful lot of momentum , '' said yale university law professor michael j. graetz , a former senior official in the treasury department of president george h.w .  bush .  last month , graetz and yale political scientist ian shapiro published `` death by a thousand cuts , '' chronicling the estate tax repeal movement as `` a mystery about politics and persuasion. '' `` for almost a century , the estate tax affected only the richest 1 or 2 percent of citizens , encouraged charity , and placed no burden on the vast majority of americans , '' they wrote .  `` a law that constituted the blandest kind of common sense for most of the twentieth century was transformed , in the space of little more than a decade , into the supposed enemy of hardworking citizens all over this country. '' the secret of the repeal movement 's success has been its appeal to principle over economics .  while repeal opponents bellowed that only the richest of the rich would ever pay the estate tax , proponents appealed to americans ' sense of fairness , that individuals have the natural right to pass on their wealth to their children .  the most recent internal revenue service data back opponents ' claims .  in 2001 , out of 2 , 363 , 100 total adult deaths , only 49 , 911 -- 2.1 percent -- had estates large enough to be hit by the estate tax .  that was down from 2.3 percent in 1999 .  the value of the taxed estates in 2001 averaged nearly $ 2.7 million .  congressional action since 2001 will likely bring down the number of taxable estates still further .  president bush 's 10-year , $ 1.35 trillion tax cut in 2001 began a decade-long phase-out of the estate tax .  the portion of an estate exempted from taxation was raised from $ 675 , 000 in 2001 to $ 1.5 million in 2004 .  next year , the exemption will rise to $ 2 million for individuals and $ 4 million for couples .  the impact has been clear , tax policy analysts say .  the number of estates filing tax return is falling sharply , from 123 , 600 in 2000 to an expected 63 , 800 this year .  and only a small fraction of those will actually be taxed .  under the 2001 legislation , however , all of the tax cuts , including the estate tax 's repeal , would be rescinded in 2011 .  the vote today is the first to address the sunset provisions .  house democrats , led by rep .  earl pomeroy ( d-n.d. ) , today will propose permanently raising the exclusion to $ 3.5 million -- $ 7 million for couples .  that would be enough to exempt 99.7 percent of all estates .  the pomeroy bill would cost the treasury $ 72 billion over 10 years , compared with the $ 290 billion price tag of a full repeal through 2015 , according to the joint committee on taxation .  `` the ideological fervor that is admittedly still pretty strong in some quarters is now being tempered by the runaway debt that is weighing down this country , '' said pomeroy , who thinks voters are ready for a compromise .  indeed , senate majority leader bill frist ( r-tenn. ) has asked sen .  jon kyl ( r-ariz. ) , a repeal proponent , to find a compromise that could win a filibuster-proof 60 votes in the senate this year , even if it falls short of full repeal .  a compromise that includes any estate tax , no matter how small , may fail if the fervent repeal coalition holds firm , graetz said .  repeal opponents have been unable to whip up big support , he said , because they never made the emotional case that the american belief in equal opportunity runs counter to the existence of an aristocracy born to inherited riches .  paris hilton , who inherited her wealth .  and now famously enjoys spending it , could have been their counter to the small-business owners and family farmers whom repeal proponents held up as the victims of the tax .  `` the public does n't believe people should be taxed at the time of death , whether they are paupers or billionaires , '' said frank luntz , a republican pollster who has been working on estate tax repeal for a decade .  `` compromise is very difficult because the public does n't want it to exist. '' it is that sentiment that the fledgling repeal forces tapped into when they mobilized more than a decade ago .  a little-known southern california estate planner named patricia soldano launched her repeal effort with the backing of about 50 wealthy clients , with the gallo and mars families leading the way .  other contributors included the heirs of the campbell soup and krystal hamburger fortunes .  frank blethen , whose family controls the seattle times co. , was also pivotal .  the effort caught fire when small-business groups such as the national federation of independent business and agriculture groups led by the national cattlemen 's beef association joined in .  by 1994 , newt gingrich 's republican insurgents had latched onto the estate tax issue , but the contract with america called for an estate tax reduction , not repeal .  in 1995 , luntz poll-tested the term `` death tax '' and advised the new gop majority to never use the terms `` inheritance '' or `` estate tax '' again .  by then , soldano 's policy and taxation group was spending more than $ 250 , 000 a year on lobbying .  a parade of small-business owners and family farmers appealed to their congressmen , worried that they could not pass on their enterprises to their children , even though most of them would not be affected by the tax .  `` there 's been a sustained , determined campaign of misinformation that in the end has left the american people with a very different notion of what the estate tax is and does than actually exists , '' pomeroy said .  but ultimately , whether people believe the estate tax will affect them has little bearing on support for repeal .  early this year , with soldano 's money , luntz again began polling , this time in the face of record budget deficits and lingering economic unease .  more than 80 percent called the taxation of inheritances `` extreme. '' about 64 percent said they favored `` death tax '' repeal .  support fell to a still-strong 56 percent when asked whether they favored repeal , even if it temporarily boosted the budget deficit .  democrats `` still do n't get it , '' graetz said .  `` the politics are still very powerful. '' mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  i appreciate the words from my colleague on the committee on rules , the gentleman from florida ; but quite frankly , i do not know what he is talking about .  the small businesses and the family farms , we are all in agreement that they need to be protected .  that is not what the debate is about here today .  the debate is about whether three-tenths of 1 percent of higher income-earners in this country deserve additional tax relief at a time when they are cutting medicaid , veterans benefits , when they are dipping into the social security trust fund .  this is not a death tax .  what they are talking about is a debt tax , d-e-b-t , adding to the deficits and the debt of this country .  right now , this year , we are paying $ 177 billion this year in interest on the debt .  next year it will be $ 213 billion .  it is ridiculous .  we need to rein in some of these extravagant tax cuts for the wealthy so that we can get our fiscal house in order here in this country , so we can start taking care of social security in the long term , so we do not have to cut veterans benefits or educational benefits or environmental protection .  mr. speaker , i at this time i will enter into the record an article by e.j. dionne entitled `` the paris hilton tax cut. '' the paris hilton tax cut the same people who insist that critics of social security privatization should offer reform proposals of their own are working feverishly to eliminate alternatives that might reduce the need for benefit cuts or payroll tax increases .  i refer to the fact that house republican leaders have scheduled a vote this week to abolish the estate tax permanently .  under a wacky provision of the 2001 tax cut designed to disguise the law 's full cost , congress voted to make the estate tax go away in 2010 , but come back in full force in 2011 .  with so many other taxes around , it 's hard to understand why this is the one congress would repeal .  it falls , in effect , on the heirs to the wealthiest americans .  fewer than 1 percent of the people who died in 2004 paid an estate tax , and half the revenue from the tax came from estates valued at $ 10 million or more .  yet , because the wealthy have gotten wealthier over the past three decades or so , the estate tax produces a lot of money .  counting both revenue losses and added interest costs , complete repeal of the estate tax would cost the government close to $ 1 trillion between 2012 and 2021 , according to the center on budget and policy priorities .  and that is where social security comes in .  you can reject outlandish claims that social security faces some sort of `` crisis '' and still acknowledge that it faces a gap in funding for the long haul .  the estate tax should be part of the solution .  in a little-noticed estimate confirmed by his office yesterday , stephen goss , the highly respected social security actuary , has studied how much of the social security financing gap could be filled by a reformed estate tax .  what would happen if , instead of repealing the tax , congress left it in place at a 45 percent rate , and only on fortunes that exceeded $ 3.5 million -- which would be $ 7 million for couples ?  that , by the way , is well below where the estate tax stood when president bush took office and would eliminate more than 99 percent of estates from the tax .  it reflects the substantial reduction that would take effect in 2009 under bush 's tax plan .  according to goss , a tax at that level would cover one-quarter of the 75-year social security shortfall .  the congressional budget office has a more modest estimate of the shortfall .  applying goss 's numbers means that if cbo is right , the reformed estate tax would cover one-half of the social security shortfall .  this is big news for the social security debate .  michael j. graetz and ian shapiro , authors of a new book on the estate tax , `` death by a thousand cuts , '' have referred to its repeal as the `` paris hilton benefit act. '' to pick up on the metaphor , why should congress be more concerned about protecting paris hilton 's inheritance than grandma 's social security check ?  how can a member of congress even think about raising payroll taxes while throwing away so much other revenue ?  this also means that democrats now talking about reaching a `` compromise '' with the republicans on the estate tax should put the discussions on hold until the social security debate plays itself out .  most of the `` compromises '' being discussed would repeal 80 to 90 percent of the estate tax .  at some point , it might be reasonable to agree to make the 2009 estate tax levels permanent .  but if they agree to any steps beyond that , democrats will , once again , be placing the concerns of wealthy donors over the interests of the people who actually vote for them .  the friends of paris hilton realize that as federal deficits mount and rising medicare costs loom , the case for the total repeal of the estate tax grows steadily weaker .  that 's why they 're hoping they can sucker defenders of estate taxes into a so-called compromise that gives away the store -- the store , in this case , going to neiman-marcus shoppers , not to those who rely on target .  this is an instructive moment .  what we are having is not a real debate on the future of social security but a sham discussion in which the one issue that matters to the governing majority is how to keep cutting taxes on the wealthiest people in our country .  those who vote to repeal the estate tax this week will be sending a clear message : they see the `` crisis '' in social security as serious enough to justify benefit cuts and private accounts .  but it 's not serious enough to warrant a minor inconvenience to those who plan to live on their parents ' wealth .  mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  again , i am having trouble following this debate here .  the gentlewoman from tennessee talked about the thousands of people in her district that had to pay the estate tax last year .  i am reading from a report here that said there were roughly 440 taxable estates , or about 2 percent of all taxable estates were made up of farm and business assets in the year 2004 .  what we are talking about here , and again , if we agree to the pomeroy substitute , is three-tenths of 1 percent of the wealthiest people in this country .  that is what we are talking about .  we are not talking about family farms .  i mean , that is a red herring .  we are not talking about small businesses .  we are talking about the campbell soup fortunes , the mars candy fortunes .  we are talking about the richest of the rich .  that is what this is about .  what is unconscionable is that we are moving forward on this at a time when the majority of this house is proposing budgets that slash medicaid , that cut community development block grants , that cut veterans health benefits , that cut education , that cut things that people rely on every single day .  this is absurd that we are having this debate here today .  again , i would urge my colleagues to look at the facts .  please do not exaggerate the impact of the difference between what the gentleman from north dakota ( mr. pomeroy )  has suggested and what you are proposing here .  what you are doing here is trying to extend this to protect the richest of the rich , and that is just wrong .  mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  i want to make it clear , as there is a lot of misinformation being promoted on the other side here : our side supports relief for family farmers and small businesses .  that is not what we are talking about here today .  the difference between our approach is the three-tenths of 1 percent richest people in this country , the paris hiltons of the world , the executives at campbell soup , the heirs of campbell soup or mars candy if you read the washington post today .  that is what this is about .  in a climate where the majority is cutting medicaid , cutting veterans benefits , cutting programs that help feed the most vulnerable in our country , to go out and protect and to try to extend a special tax cut to those richest people in this country , i think , is unconscionable .  
D	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  let me again , just for the record , point out that the pomeroy substitute would provide $ 3 million in relief for individuals immediately , $ 3.5 million by 2009 , and $ 7 million per couple .  and , again , what we are talking about here is not what the gentleman just spoke of .  what we are talking about here is the richest of the rich in this country .  mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	again , mr. speaker , i would urge that the people join with us on this vote .  
D	mr. speaker , on that i demand the yeas and nays .  
D	mr. speaker , i did not say the bill did not pay for service members ' medical expenses who are injured in iraq or afghanistan .  i said if they incur debt after they come back from serving this country and are forced to bankruptcy , they get the punitive means test .  that is wrong .  we should not do it to people serving in iraq and afghanistan .  
D	mr. speaker , i think this piece of legislation that the majority is clearly going to be able to pass today is one of the most outrageous tax cuts that we have brought to the house floor .  the democrats are going to offer an alternative , and i appreciate the fact that it was allowed by the rules committee , but this alternative would exempt 99.7 percent of american families from having to pay inheritance taxes .  so all we are really talking about is three-tenths of 1 percent , a relative handful , the people who clearly can most afford to pay taxes .  this excessive , unnecessary cut will pass despite the fact that , within the last few legislative sessions , this congress has voted to take 300 , 000 families off food stamps , to take 300 , 000 children off daycare , to run the risk , by taking $ 20 billion out of medicaid , that as many as 7 million very poor elderly people dependent on government help in nursing homes will not get that assistance .  where are our priorities ?  where is our source of fairness ?  you know , i think that we would all agree that we believe in equal opportunity .  but in this country , unfortunately , when you see the effect of these tax cuts , that equal opportunity is really dependent upon the accident of birth .  millions of people in our country are suffering for the accident of birth , without health insurance , without any real prospect of getting decent schooling .  and yet where are we putting our tax cuts ?  what excuse are we using for burdening the next generation with hundreds of billions of dollars of debt ?  we are taking hundreds of billions of dollars , borrowing it from the social security trust funds , just to give more help to the very children who , because of the accident of birth , have the very best education that this country can allow , have all the contacts imaginable , are virtually guaranteed economic success unless they choose to turn their backs on it .  what we have done is to turn our backs on the vast majority of the american people , and to close our consciences to our children 's generation , who are getting swamped with debt .  this bill is going to cost $ 290 billion added on to a public debt that our children will never be able to recover from .  and it is not necessary .  i ask you to consider the fact that it takes away the stepped-up basis at the point of inheritance , insuring that there will be more small businesses , more family farms that are going to get hurt -- over 70 thousand -- by this provision , by this legislation than are going to be helped , because they are going to have to pay capital gains at the point when they actually inherit calculated by going back to the original cost to the deceased .  so it just does not make any sense , other than to people gripped by this ideological fervor to cut taxes irregardless of the rationale or the consequence .  it is terrible legislation .  it ought to be defeated .  
D	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman from california ( mr. stark )  for yielding me this time .  mr. speaker , the gentleman from florida said i want members to give me a good reason why we should not repeal the estate tax .  let me give members two good reasons : afghanistan and iraq .  the idea that we would be borrowing the money to pay for afghanistan and iraq when by just leaving this tax in place we could pay for those incursions and maybe get the humvees to those men and women who are defending us every single day , or maybe get bulletproof vests to them on time , borrowing the money .  the slogan of the moderate republican party is this : we are rich , and we are not going to take it any more .  it is day after day in this institution , borrow money , run up the debt , run up the deficits and then with a straight face say , we are going to repeal a tax that affects 1 percent of the american people , just 1 percent of the american people .  they talk about industriousness and thrift and the work ethic .  we see what happens to this money when it gets to the fourth and fifth generation of the same family : thrift is gone , the work ethic is gone .  they quarrel about who is going to have enough money so they can enjoy the lavish ways of american life .  when i hear people say , as they have said recently in this debate , well it is going to take care of the family farmer , they can not find a farmer that is not taken care of in the legislation that is about to be proposed here .  this legislation that they are proposing today cuts against the grain of what thomas payne reminded us in `` common sense. '' he was concerned about hereditary power , the idea that the same people would control the wealth of america with the same families that would get to go to the same schools so the same families would have the same doctors and lawyers and accountants so the rest of america might not have a chance to participate .  whatever happened to the republican party in america .  teddy roosevelt said this was about thrift and hard work and honesty ; they were blessed to be born in this country .  that is what patriotism is .  when we look at who enjoys the fruits of this money , the smallest number of american people , again the top 1 percent in america .  inherited wealth , that is not what america is based upon .  we do not live in an aristocracy .  look what happened to europe and the way they lag behind as they do .  there is no sense in the house of lords that you can advance yourself .  here in this house , the people 's house , every walk of life is represented .  why do we just not establish a house of lords after we get rid of the estate tax so then when we get rid of hereditary power , we will simply have the permanent state of aristocracy and privilege for the few .  
D	mr. speaker , you would not even exempt our brothers and sisters coming back from war , and you want me to believe that this is reasonable legislation ?  rising debt levels in turn reflect a shift in our economy away from a time when families could afford to save and into a time when their wages are stagnant .  the costs of their health premiums increased 163 percent since 1988 .  their tuitions have increased 170 percent .  their mortgages , their child care .  this is not a stable economy .  they are not crooks .  they are not evil people .  the american bankruptcy institute says that 96.3 percent of the people filing chapter 7 just do not have the money .  now we are not saying forget about all of this , but we are saying let us be reasonable .  who should we help ?  who should be first on the list of congressional priorities ?  the families who are in financial straits or the credit card companies who made a record $ 30 billion in profits last year and whose profits have soared almost triple in the last decade ?  this legislation does nothing to put caps on interest rates or late fees or the overtime limits and other penalties , even those among reasonable people .  
D	mr. speaker , i want to make sure that everybody quite understands that i will no longer support this legislation .  i am changing my vote this year to a no vote .  this is terrible legislation , and we have only made it worse .  
D	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman for his leadership and his recognition on this very important legislation that is before us today .  i am very proud of the work of the gentleman from north dakota ( mr. pomeroy )  , our member of congress , a very distinguished member of the committee on ways and means , for his initiative and leadership in presenting to the congress today an alternative that makes sense to the american people , that is fair to america 's families .  the gentleman from north dakota ( mr. pomeroy )  speaks with authority on the issues that impact rural america , small business , and america 's families and certainly america 's family farms .  he has their interests at heart .  he knows firsthand what their challenges are .  that is what makes his proposal so wise , and we all appreciate his leadership .  mr. speaker , in the 20th century , in the early part of the 20th century , our country made a decision to honor our american value of fairness by moving forward toward a progressive system of taxation .  but under 10 years of republican rule , this congress has consistently passed legislation that has moved away from a progressive tax code .  republican tax policies have rewarded wealth over work .  in its analysis of the president 's budget , the nonpartisan congressional budget office found that the tax rate on wage income is nearly twice the rate of capital income , unearned income .  and now today republicans have come to the floor with an estate tax bill continuing their harmful approach .  the republican estate tax bill again rewards extreme wealth .  the republican approach would hurt more people than it helps by increasing taxes and administrative burdens on more than 71 , 000 estates .  and it comes at a staggering cost of nearly $ 1 trillion over 10 years once it takes full effect .  democrats want to be fair to all americans , and we support being able to pass a better life on to our children and our grandchildren .  but we can not support putting the luxuries of the super-rich before the needs of america 's families .  the difference between the democratic and republican bills is that democrats take a more responsible , indeed , a responsible approach that gives immediate tax relief to small businesses and farmers across the country .  the pomeroy substitute would provide relief to 99.7 percent of estates in america , 99.7 percent ; and .3 percent of estates would not be covered under the bill .  that is a small percentage , but a huge amount of money being deprived from the national treasury .  the savings achieved by pursuing the more fair and targeted approach put forth by the gentleman from north dakota ( mr. pomeroy )  would cover about one half of the long-term shortfall facing social security .  think of it : if we pass the gentleman from north dakota 's ( mr. pomeroy )  bill , the savings would cover one half of the shortfall in social security down the road .  it would strengthen social security for generations to come .  that is the choice we are facing today .  do we want to put the wealthiest .3 percent of estate holders ahead of millions of american workers who have earned their social security benefits with a lifetime of work ?  do we want to continue reckless republican tax policies or return to a fair system of taxation ?  this is a remarkable choice before us , and i hope that the american people can avail themselves of the information to understand what is at stake here .  basically , it all comes back to our deficit , to our budget , and whether we have fiscal soundness in our budget or not .  what the republicans are proposing is saying to average working families in america every day they go to work , and every paycheck money is taken from their paycheck for social security .  what the republicans are doing today is putting their hand into that pot and saying we are taking that money and we are going to subsidize the super-rich in our country , the largest , wealthiest estates in our country , .3 percent .  mind you , the gentleman from north dakota ( mr. pomeroy )  has covered 99.7 percent , which is most , of course , 99.7 percent of the people in america .  so anyone listening to this is not , odds are , affected in any positive way by what the republicans are proposing .  in fact , they will be hurt because of what it does to social security and what it does in terms of capital gains for over 71 , 000 families in america .  so i think the choice should be clear , to choose to reward work .  we respect wealth .  the creation of wealth is important to our economy .  but that does not mean we take money from working families to give more money to the wealthiest families in america .  and this at the same time as the tax cuts that the administration has proposed to make permanent , that would give people making over $ 1 million a year over $ 125 , 000 in tax cuts .  who are we here to represent ?  this is the reverse robin hood .  we are taking money from the middle class and we are giving it to the super rich , and not only the super rich but the super , super , super rich .  so let us come down and vote for america 's workers , let us come down in favor of america 's families , and let us recognize that everybody , the wealthiest as well as those not so wealthy , everyone in america benefits when we have fairness in our tax code , where we have balance in our budget in terms of our values and in terms of our fiscal responsibility .  i urge our colleagues to support the very responsible pomeroy resolution and vote no on the irresponsible and reckless republican proposal .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time , and i rise in strong support of the rule and the death tax repeal permanency act of 2005 .  i do so , mr. speaker , really to just speak about small business america and about a small businessman who raised me .  it was 17 years ago today at the too-young age of 58 that my father , ed pence , passed away .  it happens to be an unfortunate anniversary in my family , but on april 13 , 1988 , we said goodbye to my father .  he was a small business owner that many on the floor of the congress today would classify as a rich american .  now , the rich american that i saw was a man who started out in a very small business in columbus , indiana , and worked tirelessly to raise his four sons and two daughters and build a business that employed several hundred local people in support of their families .  it is really , with the memory of my father in mind , that i rise in vigorous support of the permanent repeal of the death tax .  because while my family was reeling from the grief of the loss of my father to a sudden heart attack 17 years ago today , also we were settling into the reality that much of what he had built , all of which he had already paid taxes on , was now subject to as much as a 47 percent estate tax .  my father 's death and the business that he built and the resources that he had husbanded , after paying all of his debts and all of his taxes , should not have been subject to another tax .  and we come into this well today on behalf of small business owners and family farmers just like my dad to put to an end permanently this truly immoral death tax in america .  it is the reality out there , not the heated rhetoric of rich versus poor , that explains why 89 percent of small business owners favor permanent repeal .  in fact , they know that more than 70 percent of family businesses do not survive to a second generation ; 87 percent do not make it to a third generation .  much is made of middle america that i am proud to represent and the fact that main streets and courthouse squares are largely boarded up .  people want to blame the internet .  they want to blame mass retailers .  well , i put the majority of the blame in practical terms at the doorstep of the death tax .  it has waged war on small business and family farmers all across america , and we will begin to reverse that in a permanent way today .  so in the tender memory of my father , of his earnest labors , and with it in my mind the men and women who to this day labor to raise their families and build small businesses and family farms all across america that i extol the authors of this bill .  i endorse the rule , and i vigorously support the permanent repeal of the death tax .  
D	i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time .  mr. speaker , this rule brings an important debate to the floor .  let me tell you what is not on the floor .  what is not being debated is whether there should be additional estate tax relief .  we agree there should be .  much has been accomplished over the last few years in that regard .  the estate tax level attached at $ 600 , 000 per individual at the beginning of this decade .  so that , as my colleague from west virginia talks about the concern of estate tax on small businesses and farms , that may have been more the case at that time .  certainly it is less the case now .  the estate tax level attaches at $ 1.5 million per individual , $ 3 million per couple , and obviously the number of estates that would have tax consequences has fallen significantly .  is it enough ?  no .  let us do something quite dramatic .  the proposal that i am offering as a substitute would double from where we are today and in a very certain and immediate way bring to $ 6 million the estate tax exclusion for couples .  couples across this country possessing less than $ 6 million in assets , no estate tax .  nothing .  gone .  immediately and certainly .  by the end of the decade , it moves to $ 7 million .  by 2009 , there could be $ 7 million in a couple 's estate .  is this meaningful ?  you bet it is meaningful .  you look at the numbers , and it will tell you that we all but make this problem go away .  looking across this country , 99.7 percent of estates in this country no longer have estate tax issues under the substitute that i am advancing .  that is 997 out of 1 , 000 .  that is pretty significant .  there are a couple of other differences .  it is one-quarter of the cost of the majority proposal , $ 290 billion , that they are talking about .  there are things they are saying that just are not so , that small businesses and family farms have major estate tax issues when the level is $ 6 million per couple .  they do not .  i represent family farms and small businesses all across the state of north dakota .  i am telling you , if we set this level at $ 6 million per couple , to move to $ 7 million by the end of the decade , we largely take care of the problem .  but beyond that , going forward , there is yet another very important wrinkle in the majority proposal .  this is the capital gains tax that their proposal would add .  it is unlike a tax relief bill that i have seen before , because , for everyone it helps , it adds capital gains taxes for many more .  right now in the handling of an estate , there is no capital gains tax .  under their proposal , they establish something called the carryover basis .  not to get technical with you , but what that does is impose capital gains tax exposure on estates .  the way the numbers work out , more estates are going to end up with capital gains consequences than get relief from estate taxes .  so you help a few ; you harm a lot .  it does not make much sense to me .  again , at a total budget cost of $ 290 billion over the first 10 years and more than $ 800 billion over the second 10 years .  this is a budget buster , my friends .  at a time when we are talking about how we address the long-term solvency of social security , to just , without a concern , pass a $ 290 billion bill to help three-tenths of 1 percent of the most affluent in this country seems to be standing priorities directly on their head .  the very people that favor privatizing social security , which is going to add risk in the social security benefit , which is going to reduce benefits sharply because they change the inflation index going forward , that is going to reduce the benefits on our children and grandchildren , want to now run up the debt on our children and grandchildren in order to help that three-tenths of 1 percent , the very wealthiest among us .  what kind of sense is that ?  so we have proposed something quite different , immediate and certain estate tax relief , $ 6 million per couple , $ 3 million per individual , right now , and in 2009 , $ 7 million per couple , $ 3.5 million per individual .  and , once more , a proposal that i think we would want to consider closely , we could take the difference between the majority bill and our bill and dedicate it to the social security trust fund .  there is a lot of talk from the other side : where 's your plan ?  where 's your plan ?  how about this one ?  let us start by addressing the problem and making a good deal of it go away .  if we took the difference , the amount of estate tax revenue over the $ 7 million figure at the end of the decade , and dedicated it to the social security trust fund , we could fill 40 percent of the hole over 75 years , almost make half the problem go away , while preserving benefits , while keeping the inflation adjustment that our grandchildren need .  i think in the consequence of our floor discussions today it is important to talk about both concepts , the immediate and certain estate tax relief alternative that we are advancing and what we could do with the difference .  they say this estate tax has to be repealed , that it is the most unfair thing in the world .  i can think of something even more unfair , and that is cutting the benefits of social security to our children and grandchildren .  that is more unfair in my opinion .  we do not have to make that trade-off .  we can make estate tax go away for 99.7 percent of the people in this country , take the balance between the bills , invest it in the social security trust fund and deal with almost half of the problem of the underfunding over the next 75 years .  that is what the minority is bringing forward today .  it is a thoroughly considered and balanced alternative , i believe a reasonable and responsible alternative , and i urge the members ' consideration .  
D	mr. speaker , i thank my colleague , the gentleman from massachusetts , for leading the debate on this important rule in this fashion .  i will just respond to my friend , the gentleman from indiana ( mr. pence )  , the preceding speaker .  it is important that we talk about real facts today and , honest to goodness , some of the language does not reflect what reality would be relative to the estate tax if you would pass the pomeroy substitute and set it at $ 6 million per couple , taking care of , making estate tax completely go away for 99.7 percent of the people in this country .  language like `` waging war on small business '' and the majority reason for why small family farms do not pass on , 99.7 percent have no , absolutely no estate tax under the proposal that we are advancing .  clearly , that language does not match the facts of the proposal that we have advanced .  we heard about the immorality of taxing for the wealthiest three out of the 1 , 000 estates in this country .  i believe another immorality is on the floor today , and that is the immorality of privatizing social security and reducing the benefits of social security for our children and grandchildren .  an essential part of the social security debate is changing the inflation index that would reduce the benefit for our subsequent generations .  in my opinion , that is immoral .  what i think we ought to have captured in this debate on estate tax is the trade-off , because they say it is just estate tax ; believe me , it is also social security .  if you take $ 290 billion out of the budget for the wealthiest three out of 1 , 000 , you impact the ability to fix social security for everybody else .  and the proposal i would like considered before the house is , let us give immediate and certain estate tax relief , 6 million per couple , and let us capture the amount over that dedicated to social security .  that would fill 40 percent of the unfunded liabilities .  in context , we are looking at a 75-year solvency figure that the president has found so troublesome he wants to privatize social security .  well , by dedicating the sums that we capture with this three-tenths of 1 percent , we could fill 40 percent of the hole on social security .  we would not have to cut benefits for our children .  we would not have to cut benefits for our grandchildren .  so what we have is a very reasonable proposal going forward .  let us make the estate tax go away for 99.7 percent of the estates in this country .  let us not impose new capital gains taxes at the time of estates , and let us dedicate the difference to addressing social security .  it brings us almost halfway there in terms of keeping all of the guarantees , while meeting the funding challenge over the next 75 years .  that is what is advanced by the minority proposal in this debate , and i hope it will get my colleagues ' close consideration .  
D	mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	mr. speaker , i yield myself 5 minutes .  mr. speaker , it is a privilege to carry this debate today on behalf of the minority , and a privilege to participate with the gentleman from missouri , who is one of my favorite members of the house .  he has presented his side very well .  he asked relative to a number of estates , would they be covered under the pomeroy substitute ?  well , i believe that a number of them would have their estate tax problems completely eliminated , because we take the exemption and we double it .  we go from today , a joint estate at $ 3 million , and we say , if you have a joint estate of $ 6 million , no estate tax .  we , like 2009 , take that up to $ 7 million in a joint estate circumstance .  so as to the question he asked , i do not know the particulars of those cases , but i expect that a number , if not all of them are covered , because 99.7 percent of the estates in this country are under that amount .  but there is a feature of the majority proposal that is not represented in our substitute , and i want to talk about it right now , and this involves the imposition of capital gains liability at the handling of an estate under the majority bill .  i can just imagine members in the majority , some of them that might have signed that `` no new tax '' pledge that was going around last congress , just wringing their hands because they are about to vote for a tax increase , a tax increase in the form of capital gains taxation on estates .  section 541 of the bill that the majority proposal would make permanent reads this way : termination of step-up in basis at death .  tax legalese , but what does it mean ?  it means new capital gains and capital gains if you have an estate that exceeds that 1.3 gross value .  you have a reporting commitment that attaches at 1.3 gross value for estate .  you know , it is the darndest tax bill i ever saw .  because , while they talk about tax relief , they are hurting more than they are helping .  i direct you to this chart .  number of estates today with capital gains issue , zero ; and that is because the taxable basis in the property is established at time of transfer in an estate .  no capital gains .  what happens under their proposal ?  well , we know that there are 71 , 000 estates in the year 2011 that are likely to have reportable amounts , in other words , gross valuation over $ 1.3 million .  some will have a capital gains issue they have to pay .  some will not .  but they are all going to have to report with the irs .  and this report is something else .  it means going back in and trying to establish what the value of the property was at the time mom and dad acquired it .  it is a nightmare .  and that is well-established in the congressional record .  because i have here the hearing , i have here the ways and means record at the time the committee considered testimony to repeal the carryover basis , the very provision they want to re-establish in tax law .  you see , it passed once before , in 1976 .  it was delayed from implementation and then repealed retroactively because of its consequences .  here is what some very interesting participants had to bring to the committee .  carryover basis fosters an insidious bias against farmers and ranchers .  carryover basis calculations for land , buildings , machinery , livestock and timber have been described as , at best , potential nightmares .  trying to establish what the taxable basis on this is , which their law would require , is a nightmare .  so says the american farm bureau in their 1979 testimony .  the cattlemen 's association , one touted as one of these that want to re-establish capital gains on estates , they say , because of its complexity , carryover base is impossible to comply with .  it will increase the tax burden and compound the illiquidity of estates of farmers , ranchers and other family business operators who sell inherited property in the normal course of business , and i quote , and find it in the record from the national cattlemen 's association .  nfib also states , i strongly urge you , as an individual and as a taxpayer and as one who professionally and through an association represents small business people , repeal the carryover basis .  so says the national federation of independent business , the very group that they have cited as trying to re-establish carryover basis in the tax code and put capital gains back on estates .  we have been here before .  we do not want to do it again .  do you not understand , voting for the repeal bill brings a new bill , a capital gains bill , and a capital gains bill to thousands that have no estate tax consequence ?  so if you want to cast a vote this afternoon for a tax relief proposal , vote the pomeroy substitute .  no capital gains in the pomeroy substitute .  mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	mr. speaker , i yield myself 90 seconds .  you know , anyone in the accountant or tax-planning profession worrying about losing business because of the estate tax is going to be smiling broadly at the end of tonight when we pass this re-creation of capital gains tax and estates .  in fact , the aba task force report devotes almost 70 pages to discussing the problems that exist with the new carryover basis rules in their legislation .  the problems identified in the report include unequal treatment of capital losses , difficulty in applying basis adjustments to property sold during the administration of the estate , treatment of property with debt and excessive basis , treatment of installment loans , unequal treatment of pension assets , administrative problems with allocation to spousal property , discrimination in favor of spouses in community property states .  even a cursory examination of that report leads to a conclusion that serious problems exist with the new rules and that their surface simplicity is quite misleading .  let us just walk through some of the titles , some of the titles of the new capital gains law that they are going to have : basis increase for certain property ; limit increased by unused built-in losses and carryovers ; spousal property basis increases ; qualified terminable interest property ; definitions and special rules for application of subsections ( b ) and ( c ) ; fair market value limitation ; coordination with section 691 ; information returns , et cetera .  and to think that for every one taxpayer getting relief under their proposal , an additional ten are now going to face this nightmare .  it is a funny way to give tax relief .  
D	mr. speaker , how much time remains on each side ?  
D	mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	mr. speaker , in light of the imbalance of time , i would be happy to have my friend from missouri burn up a little more of his time , unless he has no further speakers .  
D	mr. speaker , i believe we are at the end of our time , and i yield myself the balance of the time to close our side .  mr. speaker , i am feeling a bit like the man in the middle as we approach this debate .  there has been some on our side that suggests the pomeroy substitute provides too much estate tax relief .  indeed , the amounts are higher than acceptable .  obviously , we have heard from the other side they believe this is too low , but i would say to my friends in the majority , and listen to this carefully , those who approach this issue with an all-or-nothing mentality are likely to get nothing .  we can not tell what is going to happen in the year 2010 .  none of us know .  except there is one thing we know , and look at this chart , the national debt is going to exceed $ 10 trillion , $ 10 trillion , 36 percent above where we are at today , and this is based upon established budget projections .  do we really believe that that future congress is going to sit blithely by and let this become implemented ?  there is not a nickel 's worth of certainty in that .  and we all know , because as damaging as this is to the budget in the first 10 years , with $ 290 billion of revenue loss , debt service added , this is a $ 326 billion hit to the budget in the first 10 years , look what happens in the second 10 years : $ 1.3 trillion impact in the second 10 years when we count the value of the debt service .  do any of us think that we are really going to allow this to happen in the future years ?  that is why i have advanced a very different alternative , entitled certain and immediate estate tax relief , because it is certain and it is immediate , and it deals by taking the estate tax to $ 6 million per couple , $ 7 million per couple by the time we get to 2009 .  it deals with the estate tax issues of 99.7 percent of the population .  those of my colleagues looking at this chart may not be able to see this tiny red line , because that is what three-tenths of 1 percent represent with looking at the total population , three out of 1 , 000 , and we know that on average those estates are going to average $ 15 million .  so for three-tenths of 1 percent we offer an alternative that has no capital gains , that is one-quarter of the cost , that immediately phases in estate tax relief and is far and away the superior way to go .  all or nothing gets us nothing .  vote pomeroy , immediate and certain estate tax relief .  
D	mr. speaker , i demand a recorded vote .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time .  i am proud to be a part of the committee on rules , which reported out a very balanced rule that allows both sides to be heard on this issue .  the interesting thing about this issue is that there is agreement that the death tax should go away .  there is disagreement about the numbers and the number of people for whom it should go away , our side believing that it should be totally repealed , the other side believing that there are a certain number of people who should be exempt from paying this .  it is good to see that we have finally come together to recognize that the death tax is a killer for small businesses and family farms and ranches .  i am glad that that is a bipartisan agreement , and i am glad that this rule reflects that .  a wise man once joked that there is always death and taxes , but death does not get worse every year .  with the death tax in place , that is not true .  each year that passes , many family-owned farms and businesses are subject to this tax .  it is fundamentally unfair that death is a taxable event .  taxes have already been paid on the assets subject to the taxation under the death tax during the lifetime of the owners .  it amounts to a second bite of the apple for the government .  with the repeal of the tax , more small businesses and farms will stay in the hands of those families .  currently , the death tax is a leading cause of dissolution .  and we see this all the time in agriculture , that when the grandparents die they have to sell off a portion of the land so that the government gets their share so that they break up the very asset that made that farm what it was .  they eliminate the opportunity for that next generation to participate even though they worked on it themselves , growing up , paying their way through school , helping to support all of the family efforts .  that is a great cause of the loss of rural communities and small-time agriculture in this country , and i think that we can all agree that that is a shameful loss to our nation .  they form the backbone of our rural heritage .  the death tax is a virtue tax in the sense that it penalizes work , penalizes savings and thrift in favor of large-scale consumption .  in other words , if those same families had sold off everything and spent it , then they would not be subject to the death tax .  but the fact that they made a decision to hold something , to build it , to grow it so that their children and grandchildren might have a farm to continue to cultivate the bread basket for the world in , then they are taxed .  where is the fairness in that ?  mr. speaker , 87 percent of family businesses do not make it to the third generation .  unquestionably , the death tax plays a tremendous part in that statistic .  this is especially true of businesses that are land-rich and cash-poor .  that is what we call it in the south , mr. speaker , where you have all of your assets tied up in things .  you can not afford a brand-new car , you can not afford a brand-new tractor , you can not afford all the nicer things ; but yet on paper you are quite wealthy , because you purchased land , you gave value to that land as time passes .  mr. speaker , i urge that we adopt the rule and continue forward with the repeal of this scurrilous tax on death .  
R	mr. speaker , the issue before us today is certainly not a new on new one .  during the past three congresses , the house has voted repeatedly in a bipartisan fashion to eliminate the death tax .  and today , once again , we have the opportunity to bury the death tax once and for all .  the death tax punishes savings , thrift , and hard work among american families .  small businesses and farmers , in particular , are unfairly penalized for their blood , sweat and tears -- paying taxes on already-taxed assets .  instead of investing money on productive measures such as creating new jobs or purchasing new equipment , businesses and farms are forced to divert their earnings to tax accountants and lawyers just to prepare their estates .  all too often , those families are literally forced to sell the family farm or business just to payoff their death taxes .  equally disturbing is the fact that the death tax actually raises relatively little revenue for the federal government .  in fact , some studies have found that it may actually cost the government and taxpayers more in administrative and compliance costs than it raises in revenue .  mr. speaker , my rural and suburban district in western new york is home to countless small businesses and family farms .  they 're owned by hard-working families who pay their taxes , create jobs and contribute not only to the quality of life in their communities , but to this nation 's rich heritage .  is it so much to ask that they be able to pass on the fruits of their labor -- their small business or their family farm -- to their children ?  must uncle sam continue to play the grim reaper ?  the fact is that they paid their taxes in life -- on every acre sown , on every product sold , and on every dollar earned .  they should n't be taxed in death , too .  mr. speaker , it 's time to bury the death tax once and for all .  i commend congressman hulshof for introducing this crucial legislation and chairman thomas for his continued leadership on this issue .  
R	mr. speaker , today , congress has the opportunity to finish the task of preventing corporate malfeasance by agreeing to pass s. 256 .  included in this bill is a sensible provision that sharply limits to $ 125 , 000 the homestead exemption that many ceos and corporate officers have used to shield their assets from creditors after they plunder their shareholders ' wealth .  by empowering the government to go after the ill-gotten gains that crooked corporate officers tie up in offshore mansions , shareholders and pensioners who have been swindled can have their hard-earned savings returned to them .  in addition , this bill prohibits people convicted of felonies like securities fraud from claiming an unlimited exemption when filing for bankruptcy , protecting taxpayers from having to bear the cost of corporate malfeasance .  it also guards against fraud and abuse by requiring that high-income debtors who have the ability repay a significant portion of their debts do so , preventing them from sticking responsible borrowers with their tab .  it accomplishes all of this while preserving the ability of people who truly need to discharge their debts to do so .  for far too long , americans who work hard and pay their bills have been held accountable for the debts incurred by those who irresponsibly file for bankruptcy .  this long-overdue legislation will reform the critically-flawed bankruptcy process , and prevent affluent filers from gaming the system and passing on their bad debt to hard-working families while preserving the ability of people who truly need to discharge their debt through bankruptcy to do so .  bankruptcy should be preserved as a last resort for those who truly need the protections that the bankruptcy system has to offer -- not a tool for those who could pay their debts but choose to discharge them instead .  by agreeing to this legislation , congress will make the existing bankruptcy system a needs-based one and correct the flaw in the current system that encourages people to file for bankruptcy and walk away from debts , regardless of whether they are able to repay any portion of what they owe ; and it does this while protecting those who truly need protection .  i commend my colleagues for their hard work on this legislation , and i strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this report and help honest taxpayers by closing the loopholes in the current bankruptcy system .  
D	mr. speaker , i demand a recorded vote .  
D	mr. speaker , i rise in strong opposition to the so-called bankruptcy abuse prevention and consumer protection act of 2005 .  contrary to its name , this bill does not protect consumers and it certainly does not help honest , hard-working families with financial problems .  the only thing that this bill does is distort our bankruptcy laws so that working families are treated more like criminals than people in need of relief .  our bankruptcy laws must strike a fair and practical balance between debtors and creditors .  this means that honest people with financial troubles can make a fresh start by getting creditors off their backs .  but this bill does the exact opposite of that .  instead of helping struggling families in debt , this bill erects harsh legal and monetary roadblocks for people who are trying to file bankruptcy .  the vast majority of people who file for bankruptcy , 9 out of 10 , do so because they have either lost their job , suffered a medical emergency , or there has been a divorce or separation in their family .  these are not people who are abusing the bankruptcy system .  we are talking about recently divorced , single working mothers trying to support their children who may not be getting their child support .  we are talking about young men and women in our armed forces returning home after serving their country in iraq .  we are talking about some of the 1.6 million families who have lost their private-sector jobs since 2001 when a republican administration took over the white house .  these are honest , hard-working families who have resorted to bankruptcy to find some relief for their debts and a chance to start their lives anew .  this is a terrible bill .  it is harmful to struggling families and goes against the basic policy of our bankruptcy laws , helping families in financial trouble get a fresh start .  i urge every member of the house to stand by america 's working families by voting no for passage of s. 256 .  
D	yes .  
D	mr. speaker , i object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present .  
D	mr. speaker , what the gentleman suggested was , if someone has overwhelming medical bills , hundreds of thousands in medical bills , that they can file under chapter 7. that is not true .  if they have a job and they have $ 100 a month left over after essential expenses , they are going to have to go under a wage earner plan for the next 5 years .  every dime they have got after food and rent will go to all of their bills .  they can not file under chapter 7 . 
R	mr. speaker , pursuant to house resolution 211 , i call up the senate bill ( s. 256 ) to amend title 11 of the united states code , and for other purposes , and ask for its immediate consideration in the house .  
R	mr. speaker , i ask unanimous consent that all members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on s. 256 .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield by myself such time as i may consume .  mr. speaker , i rise in support of s. 256 , the bankruptcy abuse prevention and consumer protection act of 2005 .  this legislation consists of a comprehensive package of reform measures pertaining to consumer and business bankruptcy cases .  the current system has created a set of incentives that encourage opportunistic personal filings and the abuse of a bankruptcy system originally intended to strike a delicate balance between debtor and creditor rights .  these abuses ultimately hurt debtors as well as creditors , consumers as well as businesses , suppliers as well as purchasers .  the only winners in the current bankruptcy system are those who game the system for personal gain .  s. 256 restores personal responsibility and integrity to the bankruptcy system and ensures that the system is fair to both debtors and creditors .  this legislation represents the most comprehensive reform of the bankruptcy system in more than 25 years .  as many of us know , bankruptcy reform has been subject to exhaustive congressional review for more than a decade , beginning with the establishment of a national bankruptcy review commission in 1994 .  it is important to note that over the course of the last four congresses , the house has passed bankruptcy reform on eight separate occasions by overwhelming and bipartisan margins .  this bill will help stop fraudulent , abusive , and opportunistic bankruptcy claims by closing various loopholes and incentives that have produced steadily cascading claims .  central to these reforms is a merit-based test that reflects the commonsense proposition that those who are capable of repaying their debts after seeking bankruptcy relief must actually repay their debts .  s. 256 will also give the courts greater powers to dismiss abusive bankruptcy cases and to punish attorneys who encourage their clients to file such claims .  in addition , the bill prevents violent criminals or drug traffickers from using bankruptcy relief to evade their creditors .  the bill closes the `` millionaire 's mansion '' loophole in the current bankruptcy code that permits corporate criminals to shield their multi-million dollar homesteads from deserving creditors .  of critical importance , the legislation prevents deadbeat parents from abusing the bankruptcy system to shirk their child support obligations .  with respect to these reforms , the national child support enforcement association stated that s. 256 is `` crucial to the collection of child support during bankruptcy. '' some might ask why congress has been so concerned about abuse in the bankruptcy system .  the answer to this question should be obvious .  it is estimated that every american household bears an annual $ 400 hidden tax for profligate and abusive bankruptcy filings .  that is a $ 400 tax on every household that no politician has to vote for , but gets paid anyhow .  as a result , every abusive bankruptcy filing impacts hard-working americans in the form of higher interest rates and increased costs of goods and service .  our economy and the hard-working americans who sustain it should not suffer any longer from the billions of dollars in losses associated with abusive bankruptcy filings .  mr. speaker , this legislation not only deals with abuse in the bankruptcy system ; it includes many vital consumer protections as well .  s. 256 will provide the tools to crack down on bankruptcy petition mills , which often misrepresent the benefits and risks of bankruptcy relief .  it will impose heightened standards of professional responsibility for attorneys who represent debtors .  it will require certain credit card solicitations , monthly billing statements , and related materials to include important disclosures and explanatory statements on a broad range of credit terms and conditions , including introductory interest rates and minimum payments .  the bill also helps america 's family farmers and fishermen confronting economic hard times by providing more tools to assist in their bankruptcy reorganization .  the bill includes protections for medical patients in bankruptcy health care facilities and pro-privacy provisions that protect against the unwanted disclosure of personal information .  there are several other critical reforms contained in this comprehensive legislation , but the limits of time prevent an exhaustive recitation .  mr. speaker , the time for bankruptcy reform is long overdue .  bankruptcy reform legislation has been subject to more process , more consideration , more deliberation , more debate , and more voting than virtually any other legislative item in the past decade .  we have before us legislation that represents the culmination of a decade of legislative toil and persistence .  it is the product of extensive bicameral and bipartisan compromise and was approved by the other body by a vote of 74 to 25 .  we also have before us a historic opportunity to return a measure of fairness and accountability to the bankruptcy system in a manner that will curb bankruptcy abuse while rewarding the vast majority of hard-working americans who play by the rules and pay their bills as agreed upon .  mr. speaker , i urge my colleagues to seize this opportunity to join me in supporting this legislation .  mr. speaker , before closing , i include for the record a supplemental statement acknowledging the hard work of many members and staff who have helped make this legislation possible , as well as a summary of the principal provisions of this bill .  mr. speaker , over the many years this legislation has been pending in the congress , many members , senators , and staff members have devoted themselves to making s. 256 a reality .  i would like to take this opportunity to recognize these individuals .  beginning with my colleagues in the house , i would like to mention the many contributions of the chairman of the subcommittee on commercial and administrative law ( mr. cannon )  for his hard work on behalf of this legislation .  the chairman of the financial services committee ( mr. oxley ) has also been a great resource .  i also appreciate the contributions of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle , the ranking member of the judiciary committee ( mr. conyers ) and the gentleman from virginia ( mr. boucher ) .  former members should also be recognized for their contributions .  bill mccollum is to be commended for being the first to introduce comprehensive bankruptcy reform and george gekas deserves our gratitude for his tireless efforts .  in addition , i would like to mention the following staff on the judiciary committee for their contributions : phil kiko , majority committee general counsel and chief of staff ; rob tracci , chief legislative counsel and parliamentarian ; raymond smietanka , chief counsel , subcommittee on commercial and administrative law ; perry apelbaum ; david lachmann ; matt iandoli , legislative director for representative cannon ; todd thorpe , chief of staff for representative cannon ; laura vaught , deputy chief of staff for representative boucher ; jean harmann , house legislative counsel and dina ellis , counsel for the house financial services committee .  former staffers who should also be recognized , include will moschella , joe rubin , alan cagnoli , and liz trainer .  the vital and indispensable efforts of one staff member have uniquely contributed to the bankruptcy reform legislation we consider today .  from her service as general counsel on the congressionally-created national bankruptcy review commission to her often behind the scenes work on bankruptcy reform legislation extending to the 105th congress , susan jensen , counsel to the judiciary subcommittee on commercial and administrative law , deserves special recognition .  her technical expertise in a complex area of law has resulted in dramatic improvements in successive drafts of bankruptcy reform legislation and helped establish a record of legislative history that elucidates the legislation we consider today .  her professionalism , attention to detail , and commitment to serving the house of representatives deserves the recognition and commendation of this house .  i would also like to acknowledge the countless contributions of our colleagues in the other body .  these include senators grassley , hatch , sessions , specter , biden and leahy .  this legislation has also benefitted from the hard work and devoted assistance of numerous senate staff members .  these include , rita lari , counsel for senator grassley , who has been a wonderful resource for our staff .  in addition , the following individuals must also be acknowledged : harold kim and tim strachan , counsels for senator specter ; perry barber , rene augustine , and former staffer makan delrahim , counsels for senator hatch ; and ed pagano , chief of staff for senator summary of principal provisions of s. 256 , `` the bankruptcy abuse prevention and consumer protection act of 2005 '' abuse prevention : s. 256 instills a greater level of personal responsibility by closing various loopholes and eliminating incentives in the current bankruptcy system that encourage opportunistic consumer bankruptcy filings and abuse .  the bill 's needs-based provisions target , for example , those debtors who have a demonstrated ability to repay their debts and channels them into a form of bankruptcy relief that requires debt repayment .  courts , under s. 256 , are given greater powers to dismiss abusive bankruptcy cases and to punish attorneys who encourage their clients to file such cases .  debtors who have committed crimes of violence or engaged in drug trafficking will no longer be able to use bankruptcy to hide from their creditors .  likewise , deadbeat needs-based reforms : s. 256 implements an income and expense analysis to determine whether a debtor has a demonstrated ability to repay a significant portion of his or her debts .  if a debtor has the ability to repay debts , he or she must either be channeled into a form of bankruptcy relief that requires repayment or risk having the bankruptcy case dismissed as an abusive filing .  this needs-based test specifies certain expense amounts -- derived from irs expense standards and other specified expenses -- that are deducted from the debtor 's income .  these include expenses for food , clothing , housing , and transportation as well as certain educational expenses for the debtor 's children .  the debtor may rebut the presumption of abuse by demonstrating special circumstances warranting additional expenses or income adjustment .  spousal and child support protections : s. 256 prioritizes the collection and payment of spousal and child support in bankruptcy cases by giving these claims the highest payment priority ( current law gives these claimants an only 7th level payment priority ) .  the bill requires bankruptcy trustees to give child support claimants important information about the availability of state child support enforcement assistance and to notify the proper state child support enforcement authorities of the deadbeat parent 's bankruptcy filing .  s. 256 allows various enforcement actions to be brought against a bankrupt deadbeat parent , including the withholding of his or her driver 's license , or the suspension of the debtor 's professional or occupational license .  it also allows state child support enforcement agencies to intercept closes the `` mansion loophole '' for greedy corporate culprits : under current bankruptcy law , debtors living in certain states can shield from their creditors virtually all of the equity in their homes .  in light of this , some debtors actually move to these states just to take advantage of their `` mansion loophole '' laws .  s. 256 closes this loophole for abuse by requiring a debtor to reside in the state for at least 2 years before he or she can claim that state 's homestead exemption -- the current residency requirement is only 91 days !  the bill further reduces the opportunity for abuse by requiring a debtor to own the homestead for at least 40 months before he or she can use state exemption law -- current law imposes no such requirement .  in addition , s. 256 requires a debtor 's homestead exemption to be reduced for to the extent attributable to the debtor 's fraudulent conversion of nonexempt assets ( e.g. , cash ) into a homestead exemption .  most debtor protections : s. 256 requires debtors to receive credit counseling before they can be eligible for bankruptcy relief so that they will make an informed choice about bankruptcy -- its alternatives and consequences .  the bill also requires debtors , after they have filed for bankruptcy , to participate in financial management instructional courses so they can hopefully avoid future financial distress .  s. 256 penalizes creditors who unreasonably refuse to negotiate a pre-bankruptcy debt repayment plan with a debtor .  the bill strengthens the disclosure requirements for reaffirmation agreements so that debtors will be better informed about their rights and responsibilities .  in addition , s. 256 requires certain monthly credit card billing statements to include specified disclosures regarding the increased interest and repayment time associated with making minimum payments .  the bill also requires certain protections for small business owners : under current bankruptcy law , a business can be sued by a bankruptcy trustee and forced to pay back monies previously paid to it by a firm that later files for bankruptcy protection .  s. 256 contains provisions making it easier -- particularly for small businesses -- to successfully defend against these suits .  promotes greater certainty in the financial market place : s. 256 reduces systemic risk in the banking system and financial marketplace by minimizing the risk of disruption when parties to certain financial transactions become bankrupt or insolvent .  federal reserve board chairman alan greenspan says these reforms are `` extremely important. '' family farmers : s. 256 helps small family farmers facing financial distress .  while current bankruptcy law has a specialized form of bankruptcy relief -- chapter 12 -- that is specifically designed for family farmers , its benefits for farmers are limited because of its restrictive eligibility requirements .  the bill responds to this problem in several key respects : it more than doubles the debt eligibility limit and requires it to be periodically adjusted for inflation ; it lowers the requisite percentage of a farmer 's income that must be derived from farming operations ; and it gives farmers more flexibility with respect to how certain creditors can be repaid .  as a result , many more deserving family farmers facing financial hard times will be able to avail themselves of chapter 12 .  in addition , s. 256 makes chapter 12 a permanent component of the bankruptcy laws and extends the benefits of this form of bankruptcy relief to family fishermen .  small business debtors : s. 256 addresses the special problems presented by small business debtors by instituting firm deadlines and enforcement mechanisms to weed out those debtors who are not likely to reorganize .  it also requires the court and other designated entities to monitor these cases more actively .  transnational insolvencies : in response to the increasing globalization of business dealings and operations , s. 256 establishes a separate chapter under the bankruptcy code devoted to transnational insolvencies .  these provisions are intended to provide greater legal certainty for trade and investment as well promote the fair and efficient administration of these cases .  privacy protections : under current law , nearly every item of information supplied by a debtor in connection with his or her bankruptcy case is made available to the public .  s. 256 prohibits the disclosure of the names of the debtor 's minor children and requires such information to be kept in a nonpublic record , which can be made available for inspection only by the court and certain other designated entities .  in addition , if a business debtor had a policy prohibiting it from selling `` personally identifiable information '' about its customers and the policy was in effect at the time of the bankruptcy filing , then s. 256 prohibits the sale of such information unless certain conditions are satisfied .  protections for employees : s. 256 requires certain back pay awards granted as a result of the debtor 's violation of federal or state law to receive one of the highest payment priorities in a bankruptcy case .  in addition , s. 256 streamlines the appointment of an erisa administrator for an employee benefit plan , under certain circumstances , to minimize the disruption that results when an employer files for bankruptcy relief .  in light of the disaterous impact that bankruptcy cases like worldcom and enron have had on their employees , reforms that more than double current the monetary cap on wage and employee benefit claims entitled to priority under the bankruptcy code .  other provisions would protect retirees in cases where chapter 11 debtors mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself 1 minute .  mr. speaker , unfortunately what the gentlewoman from california ( ms. zoe lofgren )  said is not correct .  there is a means test that is contained in this bill , but 11 united states code , section 1307 which permits the conversion of a chapter 13 case to a chapter 7 case is not amended at all in any respect .  i would just like to read 11 u.s.c .  1307 ( a ) : `` a debtor may convert a case under this chapter to a case under chapter 7 of this title at any time .  any waiver of the right to convert under this subsection is unenforceable. '' so if chapter 13 is such a straight jacket , the way out is through the conversion as provided for in section 1307 .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself a minute and a half .  mr. speaker , once again the opponents of this legislation are not correct .  my friend , the gentleman from massachusetts , says that someone who is injured in iraq and comes home is not going to be protected from medical expenses .  the united states government has stood behind everybody who has a service-connected injury or disability and pays for the medical treatment out of taxpayers ' money because that is the right thing to do .  secondly , he says that this bill continues the millionaires ' exemption in the eight states that have unlimited exemption .  wrong .  it plugs that exemption .  and if this bill goes down , a corporate crook can build a multimillion dollar mansion on the intercostal waterway in florida and be able to shield that asset from bankruptcy .  what this bill does is it does plug that unlimited exemption and it plugs it in a way that was negotiated out in a bipartisan manner in the conference committee two congresses ago with a motion that was made in that conference committee by my senior senator , herb kohl , who is a democrat .  mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit .  
R	mr. speaker , the motion to recommit creates a blanket exemption from the bill 's needs-based test , and i do not think that that is necessary because it would exempt a wealthy debtor from the needs-based test solely based on the debtor 's military service .  people who fall behind the lines of the needs-based test will continue to have bankruptcy protection under chapter 7 as is provided in the current law .  the bill also contains an exception from the needs-based test for disabled veterans who incurred indebtedness while on active duty .  crs and even the new york times recognized that the servicemembers civil relief act of 2003 provides a broad spectrum of protection to servicemembers , their spouses and their dependents ; and the revised statute , according to the new york times , is clearer and more protective than the old one .  the times also recognized that the news was apparently slow in reaching those who would have to interpret and enforce the law , which apparently includes the people who are offering this motion to recommit .  let me summarize .  already there is in law , signed by president bush in 2003 , we have responded to the special financial burdens that members of the military may encounter .  crs has said the servicemembers civil relief act provides protection for servicemembers in the event their military service impedes their ability to meet financial obligations incurred before their entry into active military service , as well as during that service .  there is a cap on the interest rates of 6 percent .  it clarifies that the balance of interest for the period of the servicemember 's military service is to be forgiven by the lender .  there are protections against evictions from rental property or foreclosures on mortgaged property .  there are restrictions on cancellation of life insurance and more flexible options to allow servicemembers on active duty to terminate residential and automobile leases .  we do not need this motion to recommit .  congress has already passed a law that provides those types of protections .  the motion to recommit should be defeated , and the bill should be passed .  
R	mr. speaker , on that i demand the yeas and nays .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time .  listening to the debate that we have listened to from the other side , the sole argument seems to be that it only applies to a small amount of our population , the wealthiest among us .  we know that , but i have yet to hear anybody to justify , to give us a good reason to say this is a good and fair tax and here is why .  it seems to be that the argument is being centered around the punitive basis .  let us go after the rich guys .  let us go after them and do something .  i am in favor of the hulshof bill to repeal the death tax simply because it is the right thing to do .  the death tax is wrong .  to go in and tax almost half of someone 's estate because they have accumulated a lot and to make death an incident of taxation is wrong .  it is a wrong tax , and i can not imagine anybody getting up and justifying it , other than the fact it is a revenue stream to the federal government , but it is the wrong one .  
R	mr. speaker , i rise in support of h.r. 8 , the death tax repeal permanency act , although the base bill does not address the estate tax in the manner i believe to be most prudent .  in 2003 , congressman doug bereuter and i introduced the estate tax relief act , which would increase the estate tax exclusion to $ 10 million and lower the top rate to the level as the top income tax rate ( currently 35 percent ) .  i think this is a much better solution than total repeal .  because estate and gift taxes have had devastating effects on small businesses -- many of which are forced to liquidate assets simply to pay taxes ranging from 35 to 55 percent of the value of the business -- i think we need to provide significant relief in this area .  my preference , however , is to reduce estate taxes without entirely eliminating them .  in the last congress , i voted for today 's base bill because if it is not enacted the estate tax , which is being phased-out over a period between 2001 and 2010 , will return in 2011 with an exemption of just $ 675 , 000 and a top rate of 55 percent .  while my first choice would be to significantly increase the exclusion and lower the top rate , i believe full repeal is preferable to the return of this onerous tax .  
R	mr. chairman , i rise in support of s. 256 , the bankruptcy abuse prevention and consumer protection act .  it is a basic principle of commerce in our country that when a person makes an obligation to pay someone for a good or service , they do so .  we ought to address the fact that our nation had over 1.6 million bankruptcy filings last year , and an estimated $ 44 billion in debts are discharged annually .  when creditors are unable to collect money owed to them , we all pay the cost in the form of higher costs , higher interest rates and higher downpayments .  i want to be very clear that this legislation will not prevent those who have incurred oppressive indebtedness from filing .  it will apply a means test that weighs whether a debtor has enough disposable income to repay creditors .  if , after applying this test , the debtor has little or no disposable income , they will be able to file for straight bankruptcy just as they always have .  those who earn wages and have the ability to repay , however , will be required to file for chapter 13 bankruptcy , restructure their debt and repay a portion of it .  i have heard from a number of my constituents concerned about high credit card rates , predatory loan practices and identity theft .  i share their concern and believe that after passing this legislation today , we must redouble our efforts to pass legislation curbing predatory lending , and we must build on the legislation we passed during the last congress regarding identity theft .  this is comprehensive legislation and while supporting its passage , this body should pledge strong oversight and the willingness to review its effect on bankruptcy filers and the economy at large .  
D	mr. speaker , this bill shows the courage to boldly go where none have gone before , to levels of public debt and levels of trade deficits that no nation has ever tried , higher than any have dared .  we have a dollar that is dependent upon our fiscal markets , a trade deficit that grows every year ; and the result of this bill and its twin cousins and related siamese twins , the other parts of the republican tax and spend or borrow and spend policy , will be a declining dollar and a declining economy or a dollar that crashes and an economy that crashes .  and this courage is all summoned up on behalf of the one quarter of 1 percent of american families it is designed to help .  we require the men and women in uniform to risk the ultimate sacrifice ; and from our richest families , we say zero sacrifice under the estate tax .  shame .  
D	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman from north dakota for yielding me this time and perhaps for mentioning what i see as the only good part of this bill .  you see , i am a cpa and tax lawyer by training , and this bill is the full employment act for both my cpa friends and my tax lawyer friends .  republican after republican has come to that microphone and talked about the electrical tax , the sales tax , the telephone tax , the payroll tax , the income tax , the marriage tax , the cable tax and the fuel tax .  and what is their solution ?  to eliminate a tax that applies to only 1/4 of 1 percent of america 's families .  yes , that is right .  they want to keep the electrical tax , the sales tax , telephone tax , payroll tax , the income tax , marriage tax , cable tax and the fuel tax .  they want to vote for a bill that takes $ 290 billion out of the treasury in its first 4 plus years and about $ 70 billion a year thereafter and make it impossible for the federal government to ever give any relief for those other taxes .  it is a bill to shaft 99 and 3/4 percent of all american families .  but that does not stop there .  republican after republican has come up here and boasted how the passage of this bill will slash charitable giving .  so it is not just a loss to the federal treasury , it is a loss to our hospitals and a loss to our universities , who are strangely silent on this bill because they are afraid of angering 1/4 of 1 percent of the families in the united states who happen to be a huge chunk of their donors .  let us look at the substitute .  it is more fiscally responsible , costs about 1/4 as much , but it provides more tax relief for middle-class families .  let us look at this from the standpoint of a widow , a surviving spouse .  under current law and under the pomeroy substitute , no estate tax , no capital gains tax and little or no compliance work .  under their bill , more compliance work and sharp restrictions on the step up in basis .  so this bill is an attack on working families , an attack on the middle class , and an attack on widows .  they have lost their spouse , and now you want them to lose their step up in basis as well .  these are people who pay zero estate tax and get zero benefit from this bill .  they have lost a spouse , and that is the folks you go after .  $ 290 billion in the first 4 plus years .  it is part of an overall republican tax package .  i am on the international relations committee .  we are waging a war on terrorism .  we turn to our men and women in uniform and say , stand ready to make the ultimate sacrifice ; and we turn to the richest families in america and say , you should make a zero sacrifice .  now these republican tax policies have caused the president of the united states to call into question our intent and ability to pay u.s. government bonds .  it calls into question our ability to pay our bonds .  now , the president will not warn the chinese investors .  he wants them to buy the bonds , but he has warned every social security recipient that we may dishonor the u.s. government bonds held by the social security trustees .  this bill is part of an overall plan that keeps in effect the electrical tax , the sales tax , the telephone tax , the income tax , the payroll tax , the marriage tax , the cable tax , and the fuel tax .  and it is part of an overall plan that , well , i ought to write a commercial because there is a lot of public policy commercials out there , and i ought to write them for them .  allowing corporations to avoid american taxes just by renting a hotel room in the bahamas , $ 8 billion .  allowing millionaires to pay virtually nothing on dividend income , $ 80 billion .  eliminating the estate tax even on the richest estates , $ 290 billion .  telling our soldiers in the field that it is the billionaire families who are the ones who have sacrificed too much for america , priceless .  and the republi-card , accepted everywhere .  the very wealthy want their taxes released .  and do not forget the deficit express card , now with a new $ 12 trillion credit limit .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank my friend from washington for yielding this time .  mr. speaker , in the last 2 years , the economy has created over 3 million new jobs .  the unemployment rate is down .  our nation 's total output , or gross domestic product , is up .  home ownership is at a record high , and personal income has increased .  our economy is strong .  to ensure that we continue to enjoy prosperity , congress should support a pro-economic growth agenda that creates jobs and helps small businesses grow .  this includes reducing taxes .  our families and our country are better off when they keep more of what they earn .  one way to enable them to do that is to pass h.r. 8 , which permanently repeals the punitive death tax .  this tax often prevents parents from passing along their life 's work and savings to their children .  family farms , ranches and small businesses are forced to be sold to satisfy the death tax rates which can reach 55 percent .  no one should be taxed throughout their lifetime and then have their property retaxed at the time of their death .  it is the wrong tax at the wrong time on the wrong people .  
R	mr. speaker , it 's time for congress to enact meaningful bankruptcy reform .  unless we take action , people will continue to abuse the system by filing for bankruptcy as an easy out .  when people avoid their debts , someone still has to pay .  companies absorb the cost of unpaid debts by passing along these costs to consumers .  over a million people file for bankruptcy each year .  many of these filings are legitimate attempts by debtors to pay their debts and obtain a fresh start .  however , bankruptcy is too often used as a way to avoid responsibilities .  unnecessary bankruptcy filings continue to increase at dramatic rates .  often , individuals go on spending sprees for luxury goods and services just before filing for bankruptcy , knowing that they can wipe the slate clean and avoid paying for what they bought .  this is bad for consumers and bad for our economy .  when individuals avoid their debts when they could be paid off , the costs are passed on to america 's businesses and consumers .  we must ensure that debtors actually belong in bankruptcy and are not using the system to avoid their obligations .  this bill stops abuse by eliminating incentives in the current bankruptcy system that actually encourage consumer bankruptcy filings and abuse .  it requires those who can repay their debts to do so .  it also gives courts greater power to dismiss frivolous or abusive bankruptcy filings and punish lawyers who encourage these filings .  this bill also contains provisions i support to address those who abuse state homestead laws and attempt to shelter their wealth in multi-million dollar mansions .  it requires a debtor to own their homestead for at least 40 months before he or she can use state exemption law .  and , if a debtor has committed an intentional tort , a criminal act , or violated securities laws , their homestead exemption will be capped at $ 125 , 000 .  these provisions will close the loophole that currently allows debtors to abuse the homestead provision .  this legislation will encourage personal responsibility , protect consumers , and ensure that bankruptcy is used only as a last resort and is not abused by those who can afford to repay their debts .  
D	mr. speaker , i rise in strong opposition to s. 256 , legislation that will make it harder for individuals to eliminate their debts after liquidating most of their assets by filing bankruptcy .  thousands of women and their children are affected by the bankruptcy system each year .  this bill will only inflict additional hardship on over a million economically vulnerable women and their families .  in fact , women are the fastest growing group to file for bankruptcy .  more than 1 million women will find themselves in bankruptcy court this year , outnumbering men by about 150 , 000 .  women who lose a job , have a medical emergency , or go through divorce make up more than 90 percent of the women who file for bankruptcy .  this legislation 's means test provision would require even the poorest filers -- struggling single mothers , elderly women who are victims of scam artists -- to meet complicated filing requirements to access the bankruptcy system .  in addition , the bill would make it much harder for women to collect child support payments from men who file for bankruptcy because the bill gives credit card companies , finance companies , auto lenders and other commercial creditors rights to a greater share of the debtor 's income during and after bankruptcy .  this bill pulls the rug out from under economically vulnerable women and children .  it increases the rights of creditors while making it harder for single parents and others facing financial crises .  this harsh bankruptcy reform legislation will not help those families that are struggling to get by .  this bill will do nothing to reduce the number of bankruptcy filings or address the problem of record-high consumer debt .  it is a gift to the credit card and banking industries ; but one that will be paid for by those least able to afford it .  instead of giving a handout to credit card companies , we should ensure that americans losing their jobs or struggling with medical debt have a second chance for economic security .  that is what our bankruptcy laws are intended to provide .  this bill is terrible for consumers , working families and women , and i urge my colleagues to vote against it .  
D	mr. speaker , during rollcall vote no .  107 on motion to recommit with instructions ( s. 256 ) i was unavoidably detained .  had i been present , i would have voted `` yea . '' 
D	mr. speaker , during rollcall vote no .  108 on final passage ( s. 256 ) i was unavoidably detained .  had i been present , i would have voted `` nay . '' 
D	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. speaker , i guess it becomes my job to point out that the republicans are at it again .  another huge tax cut or break for the less than 1 percent of the richest americans while they turn their back and cut medicaid , refuse to recognize that social security is not in crisis but needs some adjustment , cut head start , cut programs for housing , cut programs for the environment , fail to provide the promised benefits to our 140 , 000 servicemen in iraq , turn their back on all that is american to give a few dollars to the very richest of americans .  now , not all republicans are that way .  i find that many of the republicans who have actually worked for a living at some point in their lives , and not just either inherited money or been at the trough of the government , actually oppose this bill .  warren buffett , the gates family , people who have done quite well think that as i do it is a stupid bill and will do nothing for our free enterprise system .  it will stifle creativity and leave us with a system where merit and ability mean nothing and heredity means everything .  $ 300 billion over the next 10 years and perhaps another $ 700 billion over the decade following that are going to be frittered away to a very small number of americans .  with that we could end this talk about privatizing social security that president bush is leading , and we could start shoring up the trust fund .  we could get rid of the doughnut hole in the poorly constructed medicare drug benefit .  we could fulfill the promise that the president and the republicans have ignored for funding no child left behind .  we could eliminate the proposed cuts to medicaid which will hurt the poorest children in this country .  and while we may help a few very rich children with an inheritance , we will cut hundreds of thousands of children 's medicaid benefits .  that could be prevented .  we could cover a large portion of the 45 million people who are without health insurance , i might add 8 million more than when president bush took office .  but republicans obviously do not care about social security or medicare or the uninsured or education or the children .  they only care about tax cuts for the very richest among us .  now , if you eliminate this , you are only going to help probably less than a couple thousand people a year , and they will arguably have by 2009 estates of over $ 7 million .  until now there has not been a family farmer or a small business who has been unable to pass the business on to the next generation .  i might add to my friend from missouri of his people in the lumber business , if their children can not get the first $ 7 million handed to them and then get a 50 percent down payment on the balance of the business and be given 10 years at less than 6 percent to pay off the balance of that , they are probably too dumb and would lose the business in no time at all anyway .  so what the current law allows is so generous , and there have been absolutely no instances , not one , of a family farmer or family business being lost , decimated or put on the auction block because of the estate tax .  in fact , 99.7 percent of all estates would be exempt from the estate tax if we just extend the tax as it applies in 2009 .  they can not show that it harms people .  they can only show that gives billions , $ 300 to almost $ 1 trillion over 20 years , to the very smallest , most select group of rich people in this country .  it is indeed a follow on of the republican mantra , give money to the rich , give it to them in huge amounts and cut back on education , cut back on health care , do not help the environment , cut back on support for our troops and cut back on improving america 's infrastructure , all in the name of helping the few rich who may be contributors to the republican party .  i urge that my colleagues vote `` no '' on the final bill .  i urge that my colleagues vote for the gentleman from north dakota 's ( mr. pomeroy )  who will offer a responsible substitute , which will at least keep the $ 300 billion from being squandered , and it will prevent this bill , which does nothing to help hardworking americans or small businesses , and i hope we can bring some sanity back to the financial code and to the economic future of this country by not passing this bill .  mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	mr. speaker , i yield myself enough time to remind the historians here that it was the republicans in the 1800s who established the original inheritance tax to prevent a nobility class from forming , an idle nobility class , in this country .  
D	mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	mr. speaker , i support this motion to recommit because it provides added financial protections for veterans , military personnel and their families who are enduring financial hardships as a direct result of serving this country .  additionally , this motion to recommit offers help to members of the reserves and national guard who all too often must leave behind their family jobs and businesses .  it provides protection not just during service but also for the 2 years after service when our veterans make the transition back to civilian life .  this measure will guarantee what the servicemembers relief act does not .  it will provide exemptions from the means test , financial assistance and time , something our servicemembers selflessly give to the nation and something we should give to them .  the servicemembers civil relief act does not provide substantial bankruptcy protections .  rather , it provides a simple , temporary 90-day delay in bankruptcy proceedings once a servicemember is released from active duty .  let us be clear .  no bankruptcy safe harbor or exemption exists for our citizen soldiers under the servicemembers civil relief act currently .  this motion is not an attempt to kill the bill .  it is simply a reaction to a real problem that has been highlighted in countless news stories , by the national military families association , disabled veterans of america , and individual servicemembers .  these are people experiencing real and difficult financial situations .  i support this motion to provide this narrow protection for those men and women who have served our country , and i urge my colleagues to do the same .  i thank my dear colleague for her efforts in this behalf .  
D	mr. speaker , in 1997 , jennifer dunn , a republican from washington , and i started this debate on the estate tax .  at that time the country was in much different shape financially than it is today .  at that time , we raised the issue for estate tax relief because i thought then it was punitive .  it had nothing to do with the theory that the gentleman from massachusetts ( mr. neal )  spoke so eloquently about , and that is to keep 3 percent or 1 percent of the people from owning 99 percent of our country .  we did not want to be like england where whoever got control of the land and money , and 1 , 450 still had it 26 generations later and people who were hardworking could not break through that ceiling because of the nobility that was enshrined in their tax code .  that is why we have an estate tax .  but we raised that issue , and i voted for the bill that is being proposed today , but i can no longer vote for it .  let me tell you why .  it is because , as i look in the faces of these young people , you are looking at a house , a senate and an administration that has embarked since 2001 on the most radical , irresponsible financial riverboat gamble that this country has ever seen .  there has been no political american leadership that has ever done what this group of people who currently hold the power of government here in washington have done to this country .  since april of 2001 , in your name and mine , this government has borrowed $ 1.2 trillion in hard money .  what that means to us is that we have transferred , at only 4 percent interest , $ 50 billion a year from programs like social security , like health care , like armor for our troops , from veterans , to health care , to education , all the things that will give the citizens of this country a chance , an opportunity to be whatever it is their god-given talents give them , we have transferred $ 50 billion a year from that to interest .  and you know what is worse ?  eighty-four percent of this $ 1.2 trillion has been borrowed from overseas .  we are now sending more money overseas .  eighty-four percent of this interest check is going overseas .  let me tell you something scary .  a former official of the people 's bank of china , the country 's central bank and now an economist in hong kong , was recently quoted as saying that the u.s. dollar is now at the mercy of asian governments .  do you know what we are doing ?  we are mortgaging our country to foreign interests who do not see the world as we see it .  it has got to stop , and it has got to stop sometime , and i for one am saying i want to stop it now .  in your name , we are borrowing at the rate of $ 13 , 300 a second .  this is staggering , mind numbing .  $ 48 million an hour .  since this debate started , in our names we have borrowed $ 48 million and given the bill to those little children sitting up there .  $ 1 billion a day .  do you know how much $ 1 billion is ?  if you take thousand-dollar bills and stack them up like that , to get to a million dollars it is a foot high ; to get to a billion dollars , it is as high as the empire state building ; and to get to a trillion dollars , which is what has been borrowed in the last 46 months in your name , it is a thousand times as high as the empire state building , one thousand dollar bills like this .  we are facing a financial armageddon .  what we have done has created a financial vulnerability vis-a-vis the rest of world that is every bit as big a security interest as anything else we are going to face in the future .  i just hope that someday soon that some sense will come to this place about how we are handling or mishandling your money .  
R	mr. speaker , in pertinent part , section 202 of s. 256 , the `` bankruptcy abuse prevention and consumer protection act of 2005 , '' amends section 524 of the bankruptcy code by making the discharge injunction inapplicable to certain acts by a creditor having a claim secured by a lien on real property that is the debtor 's principal residence , so long as the creditor satisfies certain criteria .  first , the creditor 's act must be in the ordinary course of business between the creditor and debtor .  second , such act is limited to seeking periodic payments associated with a valid security interest in lieu of pursuit of in rem relief to enforce the lien .  section 202 was included because congress recognized that there are many consumer debtors who , despite filing bankruptcy , desire to repay secured obligations in order to retain their principal residences .  under current law , however , some secured creditors stop sending monthly billing statements or payment coupons for fear of violating the discharge injunction .  section 202 is intended to reassure these secured creditors that if consumer debtors want to continue making voluntary payments so they can keep their principal residences , then secured creditors may take appropriate steps to facilitate such payment arrangements , such as continuing to send monthly billing statements or payment coupons .  moreover , despite the express reference in this provision to liens on real property , section 202 should not , by negative inference or implication , be construed as limiting any rights that may have developed through existing case law , or otherwise , that permit secured creditors to send , or consumer debtors to request and receive , monthly billing statements or payment coupons for claims secured by real or personal property .  see , e.g. , ramirez v. gmac ( in re ramirez ) , 280 b.r. 253 ( c.d .  cal .  2002 ) ; henry v. associates home equity services , inc ( in re henry ) , 266 b.r. 457 ( bankr .  c.d .  cal .  2002 ) .  
D	mr. speaker , i rise to register my opposition to the total repeal of the estate tax .  if we want to talk about values , as so many people did in the last couple of months leading up to this , let us talk about the value of supporting one 's family and supporting one 's community .  let us talk about the values of responsibility and fairness .  they dictate that everybody pay his or her or its corporate fair share .  millionaires and multinational corporations benefit the most from our taxes .  we talk about what our taxes go for .  there are dues that belong to society .  eighty percent of court cases are commercial in nature .  businesses , mostly large ones .  air traffic controllers , paid for by our taxes , they mostly support business travel back and forth .  our coast guard , our navy protecting our shipping lanes , bridges and highways , making products safe to go back and forth as well as people .  the securities and exchange commission is our tax money trying to make large corporations behave and treat each other well instead of cheating each other .  sometimes it actually works .  the fact of the matter is that this bill absolves the top three-tenths of 1 percent from their responsibility to pay their fair share .  and i say the top three-tenths of 1 percent because the democratic alternative would exclude the first $ 3.5 million , or $ 7 million for a couple .  so much for the argument of small farms and small businesses .  they would not pay a dime on the first $ 7 million and only pay a portion of anything above that .  the fact of the matter is that most of the money that is going to be taxed on that top three-tenths of 1 percent was not earned money .  that is money they got from tax-free investments .  it is money they got by appreciation , just the value of that property increasing over time .  they did not earn it .  to compensate for what these members of our society will not be paying as their fair share , small businesses , the people that go out and create payrolls , will have to pay more .  the families that go out and work every day for a living , they will have to pay more than their fair share .  and all the while this is going on , we are not even paying america 's bills .  this tax is going to be $ 290 billion off the top at a time when our debt is larger than it has ever been .  we are running annual deficits that are at historic proportions .  no family and no small business would ever operate this way .  mr. speaker , let me just close by saying they are robbing us of opportunity and prosperity and community by attacking our education and our health , our clean water , and our clean air .  all of this because they want to give america 's princes and princesses a little break at the top three-tenths of 1 percent .  let us let everybody pay their fair share .  
R	mr. speaker , i am cosponsor of the death tax repeal permanency act of 2005 because this tax is an unfair burden on american families .  the death tax puts many small businesses , those run predominantly by families , at a great financial disadvantage .  according to the small business administration , in 2001 in the dayton , ohio , metro area , which is in my district , nearly 62 , 000 people worked for businesses that employ less than 20 people .  three of my constituents , jenell ross ; her mother , norma ; and her brother rob , run a small business , ross motor cars in centerville , ohio .  when jenell 's father unexpectedly passed away in 1997 , the ross family received a tax bill for nearly half the value of their family business .  i would like to tell their story in jenell ross 's words .  she says , `` 30 years ago my father took the chance of a lifetime .  determined to achieve the american dream , he invested everything he had into ross motor cars .  like a lot of people , my father thought he would live forever .  `` he did n't .  `` when he died unexpectedly in 1997 , the overwhelming responsibility of keeping the family business afloat fell squarely '' to us .  we could never have prepared ourselves for the shock of receiving a tax bill nearly half the value of the dealership , where nearly 90 percent '' of the assets were `` tied up in nonliquid assets such as inventory , equipment , buildings , and land .  `` does the death tax impact family-run small businesses ?  yes .  my family is still experiencing its devastating effects firsthand , '' nearly 8 years later .  it is time to repeal the death tax once and for all , and i urge my fellow constituents and members to support the bill .  
D	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time .  mr. speaker , those of us who started this process 6 years or so ago in the good faith belief that there were problems with the bankruptcy system , in the sense that people were gaming the system , and felt that there needed to be genuine reform can not help but be disappointed today because , in the process , we have lost sight of the objective of reforming to do away with the sinister influences and the advantageous corruption that is going on in the system .  i have never seen a bill that has violated more principles throughout this process .  the first one was that the consumers and the lenders got together and decided that , because the lenders were not sure that they could do bankruptcy reform without reaching a compromise and the consumer groups realized that they might not be able to stop bankruptcy reform , they set up this system called the means test , which effectively exempted from the whole bankruptcy reform system those who fall below the means test threshold .  the result is that individuals who fall below the means test threshold can continue with impunity to game the system without any kind of responsibility , and those who fall above the threshold get subjected to a set of arbitrary rules that , even if they are not gaming the system , they are taken advantage of .  so we have lost sight of that .  the second thing is we have built in a set of perverse incentives for easy credit now .  for people who fall below the means test , there is really no disincentive for them to go out and get as much credit as they can .  and for people above the means test there is no incentive for lenders to be responsible in their lending practices , because they know now they have this system that is going to protect them from people that they have made irresponsible loans to .  the third problem is that , as we have gone through this process , the more we have bought into this means test philosophy and debated this , we now get to a point at the end of the process where it has corrupted even our democratic process .  because we are here on the floor with 30 minutes of debate on our side to tell the public the problems with this bill .  this is irresponsible legislating at its worst , and i encourage my colleagues to reject this bill and vote no .  
R	mr. speaker , i want to express my strong support for h.r. 8 , the death tax repeal permanency act of 2005 .  i have supported this measure in the past and have introduced similar legislation to make the death tax repeal permanent .  i believe it is important that we accomplish the goal of passing this in the house and the senate and seeing this bill enacted into law .  the death tax needs to die .  along with the marriage penalty , the death tax is perhaps the most disgraceful tax levied by the federal government and it should be repealed immediately .  the death tax is double taxation .  small business owners and family farmers pay taxes throughout their lifetime , then at the time of death they are assessed another tax on the value of the property on which they have already paid taxes .  this is unfair , unjust and an inefficient burden on our economy .  i have spoken in the past about a constituent of mine , danny sexton of kissimmee , fl and owner of kissimmee florist .  he , like millions of other americans , has experienced the sad realities of the death tax .  he joined me several years ago in washington to highlight the adverse impact the death tax had on his family business .  mr. sexton , who comes from a family of florists , inherited his uncle 's flower shop and was faced with paying almost $ 160 , 000 in estate taxes .  this forced him to have to liquidate all of the assets , layoff workers and take out a loan just to pay the death tax .  he also had to establish a line of credit just to keep the operation running .  danny sexton is the reason we need to appeal the death tax .  the death tax is n't a tax on just the rich , it is a tax that hurts family owned businesses -- family owned businesses that are the backbone of this great nation .  it also caused several average workers to lose their jobs .  family owned businesses provide and create millions of jobs for american workers .  the people who worked in mr. sexton 's florist were not rich , but they lost their jobs because of the death tax .  in a recent survey conducted by the national federation of independent businesses , 89 percent of small business owners favored permanent repeal of the death tax .  why ?  because these small business owners know this tax may mean the death of their business for future generations .  according to the center for the study of taxation , more than 70 percent of family businesses do not survive the second generation and 87 percent do not make it to the third generation .  family owned and operated businesses deserve the right to be inherited by the next generation without the blow of the death tax .  in current law , the death tax is phased-out , completely repealed in 2010 .  but that is not good enough because in 2011 , the tax reemerges in full force .  that means taxpayers must plan for three different scenarios when passing along their family business -- pre- 2010 when the exemption levels are gradually increasing and the top rate gradually decreasing ; 2010 when the tax is completely repealed ; or 2011 when the tax reemerges .  this is complicated , confusing and hard to plan for -- unless a small business owner knows for certain when his or her death will occur .  when we make this tax repeal permanent , taxpayers will have the ability to make long-term financial plans with certainty and will have the opportunity to pass on their hard earned family businesses and farms to future generations .  it will also ensure that those who work for these small businesses are able to keep their jobs .  i urge my colleagues to vote for h.r. 8 , the death tax repeal permanency act of 2005 .  
R	mr. speaker , for years , honest but unfortunate consumers have had the ability to plead their case to come under bankruptcy protection and have their reasonable and valid debts discharged .  the way the system is supposed to work , the bankruptcy court evaluates various factors including income , assets and debt to determine what debts can be paid and how consumers can get back on their feet .  the bill before us preserves that right for those individuals who simply get in over their heads and have no other way out unfortunately , some dishonest individuals have taken advantage of our bankruptcy laws by hiding assets , racking up debt in anticipation of filing for bankruptcy , using bankruptcy as a financial planning tool , and walking away from that which they owe .  this hurts our economy because it forces retailers and businesses to simply raise the prices of goods and services for honest americans .  all americans end up paying the costs for those who have gamed the bankruptcy laws .  i support s. 256 , the bankruptcy abuse prevention and consumer protection act of 2005 .  i am a cosponsor of the house version of this bill .  this common sense legislation preserves the right to file bankruptcy for those who truly can not repay their debts while ensuring that those who do have the ability to repay a portion of their debts do so .  s. 256 provides the same kinds of bankruptcy reforms the house has approved twice before .  it restores the principles of fairness and personal responsibility to our bankruptcy system and protects the rights of consumers .  s. 256 also requires creditors to help prevent credit card abuse through new disclosures and educational provisions .  this is a good bill for average american consumers , for american businesses , and our economy as a whole .  
R	mr. speaker , i rise today as a cosponsor of h.r. 8 to express my strong support for this important legislation to permanently repeal the estate or `` death '' tax .  the estate tax is one of the most unpopular , destructive taxes collected by the federal government .  it forces many small businesses and farms to dissolve , undermines incentives for work , savings , and investment , and leads to unnecessary development of environmentally sensitive land .  by permanently repealing the estate tax , we would be eliminating a cruel tax that devalues the hard work and confiscates the savings of some of our most productive citizens .  as we all know , the estate tax is scheduled to be totally repealed on january 1 , 2010 ; unfortunately , this repeal will sunset on december 31 , 2010 .  at that point , unless the congress acts , the estate tax will revert to the 2001 level .  as no one i know can accurately guess which year they might pass on to the hereafter , only one year of complete relief of the estate tax is not only cynical -- it 's bad policy .  the uncertainty of not knowing whether or not the death tax will really be repealed , makes it difficult for american taxpayers to make plans for their futures , their spouses ' futures , and the futures of their children .  additionally , the tax increase that would result if congress fails to act would be entirely unfair to many of our constituents .  on the one hand , i am pleased that the house is once again taking action today to rid our tax code of this punitive measure .  but we 've done this several times in the past and each time it has gotten bogged down in the other body .  let 's hope we do n't have to meet again to do what should have been done years ago .  let 's do the right thing today .  let 's finally and irrevocably repeal the death tax .  
R	mr. speaker , i rise today to express my strong support of the death tax repeal permanency act of 2005 .  as a cosponsor of this important legislation , i think it is absurd for the federal government to continue punishing the families through double-taxation .  rather than taxing people when they die , we should be encouraging families to save for the future through hard-work and sound financial planning .  the death tax is one of the most burdensome and counterproductive of all taxes .  small businesses create two-thirds of all jobs in the united states , and 40 percent of gdp in the united states is generated by small businesses .  when the owner of a small family business passes away , this tax causes families and small business owners severe financial hardship , often to the point that the business must be liquidated .  it is offensive that the government taxes someone all their life then taxes them one last time when they die .  families should never have to visit the irs and the funeral home on the same day .  a permanent repeal is good for small businesses , family farmers , and the next generation of entrepreneurs .  mr. speaker , i urge my colleagues to vote for the repeal of the death tax .  
R	mr. speaker , i rise today in support of the bankruptcy abuse prevention and consumer protection act of 2005 .  i came to congress to promote the ideals of freedom , security and prosperity .  embodied within these principles is the duty of the american people to take responsibility for their actions -- including control of one 's personal finances and investments -- without undue influence from the federal government .  under current law , bankruptcy protection has increasingly become a first stop rather than a last resort .  our credit markets have been undermined on a daily basis because of the abuse of the existing laws .  all too often , people run to the shelter of bankruptcy to escape the consequences of their actions , all to the detriment of the rest of society .  that is fundamentally wrong .  mr. speaker , the bankruptcy abuse prevention and consumer protection act reforms existing bankruptcy law to stem the rise in bankruptcy abuse while maintaining its protections for those who really need them .  the act places compassionate , coherent , and common-sense reforms on the current system .  it ensures that frivolous costs are no longer unfairly passed on to american families .  mr. speaker , as a supporter of the bankruptcy abuse prevention and consumer protection act , i encourage my colleagues to vote for this well-balanced measure that will protect those individuals who need a fresh start while cracking down on abuse of the system .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman for yielding me time .  i thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue .  i think it is important that we spend a moment or two and talk about how we got here , why do we have a death tax and what is its consequence ; what is the fundamental we are talking about .  the death tax began in 1916 in order to fund world war i , a noble cause but a cause that has long since passed .  it remained through the 1920s and 1930s under the rationale that we should prevent the accumulation of wealth , an issue more than addressed with our current anti-trust laws .  the death tax has become a harmful relic of previous times .  it survives through the inertia of government and now has the consequence of punishing hard work and success .  it harms families , and it kills small businesses .  families should not have to visit the undertaker and the tax collector on the very same day .  the death tax is fundamentally unfair and violates what should be our principle of freedom and liberty and the imperative of personal property rights .  freedom and liberty demand that hard-working americans be able to leave their children and their grandchildren the results of their diligence and their success and not have washington get a windfall .  i urge all of my colleagues to act positively today on behalf of all americans and let the death tax die for good .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman from washington ( mr. hastings )  for yielding me this time .  mr. speaker , i rise today in support of this rule and h.r. 8 .  i applaud the efforts of the leadership and the gentleman from missouri in bringing forward h.r. 8 to finally bury the death tax once and for all .  one thing i have learned in the short time i have sat here is that the democrats really look at the person whom this bill would affect , and , by the way , i do not think any of them are watching this on tv right now because they are all probably at work , but they are looking at the person whom this bill would affect as someone who got up early , worked hard all his life , looked after his family , built infrastructure , saved money , put capital back into this system , provided jobs , benefits , health care for people , and the democrats look at this individual as a gift who keeps on giving .  one of the things our country needs is individuals who are willing to work hard and save their money .  it is the basis of our economy and the american dream .  this country is a wonderful land of opportunity .  anyone can work hard and be whatever they want to be in this country .  yet our tax system directly discourages savings by limiting contributions to iras and taxing dividends .  when one works hard and saves , they should be rewarded , not punished .  the current death tax punishes people for saving their own money , for fulfilling the american dream .  tax cuts do not cost the u.s. government money .  this is something that i think is misunderstood up here .  cutting taxes does not cost the government money .  it allows people who earn that money to keep more of it in their pocket .  this congress must recognize that tax cuts spur economic growth .  we have seen this in the reagan tax cuts that led to the boom of the 1990s and in this president 's tax cuts that have brought us out of the recession that this country experienced after 9/11 .  as a small business owner , i know firsthand how hard one has to work to build a business .  and most times the assets of a family business are not in cash , or easily so .  when a family business is hit with an estate tax , it often requires the selling of a large amount of inventory or other assets in order to pay the debt .  that is not right .  that hurts families who want to continue the legacy of their loved ones who have passed away .  why do we want to harm or punish or exploit those who work their hardest to create an inheritance for their loved ones ?  the death tax has made crooks out of honest people because they have to search for all kinds of ways to avoid paying the tax .  and the reason they do not want to pay this tax is because they hate to see everything that someone that they loved and deeply cared about who spent their whole life building is taken away by the government .  small businesses should not be run while looking over one 's shoulder to make sure the tax man is not about to get them .  small business owners must be able to focus on their business .  more than 70 percent of small family businesses do not last beyond the second generation , and the estate tax plays a large part in that .  having someone pay half of their assets to the government is absolutely wrong no matter what is being paid .  we all know that people can manage their own money much better than the government .  one of the things i hate more than anything is a double tax .  when the government takes its bite out of the apple , it should not get a second bite .  yet the death tax takes an even bigger bite out of the money that has already been taxed .  economic studies have shown that the cost of trying to comply or avoid the death tax consumes as much out of the economy as is generated by the death tax itself .  the death tax also hits those who can not afford a lawyer or a cpa to help them .  if their assets are not in cash , as in most family businesses they are not , they have to make a huge burden and sacrifice that they are not ready for by having to get somebody else to advise them about how to take care of their families and their children .  and in spite of all this , the death tax does not even generate that much revenue or `` windfall profit '' for the government , yes , a `` windfall profit '' for the government , while placing this huge burden on the families of this country .  it is not right .  the idea of the tax coming back in 2011 is amazing .  it just does not make sense , and people can not make any long-term financial plans .  getting rid of the death tax will simplify our nation 's laws and ease the burden on our country .  if it takes a cpa or a lawyer to figure out what one is trying to do and what burdens the government has put on them , then it is too much of a burden .  we need to do everything we can to lessen that burden .  repealing the death tax is the right thing to do .  although i was not in congress when the phase-out of the death tax began , i am thrilled to be here today to cosponsor and vote for it to be completely eliminated .  and i urge all of my colleagues to do the same .  
R	mr. speaker , i strongly support h.r. 8 , the death tax repeal permanency act of 2005 , and encourage my colleagues to pass this important legislation .  this vital legislation will permanently repeal the estate tax , a tax that is unjust , inefficient , and harmful to small businesses , the backbone of our economy .  repeal of the death tax will create a system that is more equitable and more productive for our economy .  the death tax is a burden on our economy that costs the country between 170 , 000 and 250 , 000 jobs every year .  in louisiana , our family-owned farms have been faced with decreasing profitability and in many instances the death tax is an additional burden that they can not carry ; this tax is a leading cause of the dissolution for thousands of family-run businesses across the country .  it also diverts resources from investment in capital , slowing research and development at a time when our country is facing growing competition around the world .  we can not afford to continue discouraging productivity and innovation .  furthermore , the death tax is inefficient .  since the 1930 's , revenue from the tax has fallen steadily as a percentage of total federal revenue .  compliance costs each year can be almost as high as the tax itself , around $ 22 billion in 2003 ; thus every dollar raised by the death tax is $ 2 that could have been invested in capital and new jobs .  the economic damage ofthe death tax is reason enough for its repeal , but it is also fundamentally unjust .  the rate of taxation is as high as 47 % , and this is in addition to the taxes that were already paid on the assets subject to this tax .  the death tax also discourages hard work and savings and instead encourages large-scale consumption .  at a time when we should and need to be encouraging individuals to save for their future , we can not continue to send this mixed message .  by repealing the death tax we will create a tax policy that is more efficient , more equitable and more productive for our economy .  i urge congress to act today to permanently repeal the death tax and ensure that our future generations will be able to carry on the heritage of our forefathers .  
R	mr. speaker , today i voice my strong support for the death tax repeal permanency act of 2005 .  it is imperative we pass this very important legislation .  the death tax is an unreasonable and unfair burden on thousands of american families , small businesses , and family farms .  the death tax is the largest threat to the vitality of family-owned businesses and farms because most of their owners have the entire value of their business or farm in their estate .  the federal government currently receives nearly half of an estate when the owner passes .  as a result , more than two-thirds of family businesses do not survive the second generation and nearly 90 percent do not make it to the third generation .  so much for the american dream .  rather than encouraging people to build their own livelihoods , the death tax discourages hard work and savings .  according to the heritage foundation , the death tax costs our country up to 250 , 000 jobs each year .  by permanently abolishing this tax , we could add more than 100 , 000 jobs per year .  as my colleague , representative sam johnson of texas , said : americans receive a birth certificate when they are born , a marriage license when they are wed , and a tax bill when they die .  this is a disgrace .  i encourage my colleagues to vote `` yes '' for the death tax repeal permanency act of 2005 .  
R	mr. speaker , we have heard a lot of rhetoric here today , and some of it a bit disingenuous .  i think it is a bit disingenuous to say in a loud tone , demanding an answer to some rhetorical question , and then demand , well , i hear none , when all of us here are observing the rules and not interrupting .  it is a bit interesting to hear people talk about red herrings , and i like hearing from people across the aisle that they want to talk about real facts .  so let me talk about real facts .  this , my friends , is a music box .  it plays amazing grace .  i would wind it up and play it now if the rules allowed that .  it belonged to my great aunt lillie .  she was land rich .  over a hundred years their family accumulated land , farm and ranch .  i bought this music box at an irs auction where the irs forced the sale of everything she owned .  they accumulated about 2 , 500 acres of farm and ranch land .  she died in july of 1986 , and shortly thereafter land was dumped on the market .  times were rough , and the value of the land that was around $ 2 , 000 an acre when she died went to $ 600 or $ 700 an acre .  the irs was actually very gracious .  they gave a couple of extensions or so .  they allowed another appraisal , but it was around $ 2 , 000 an acre when she died .  the irs required the sale of every acre of land that they owned .  they sold every item out of her home .  if anybody in the family wanted anything , we had to show up at the auction and buy it .  i bought this keepsake to remember my great aunt lillie , who had been so gracious and kind and a great farm woman and a great gentlewoman .  so if you want to talk about the death tax in real facts , here it is .  the death tax provides no grace , amazing or otherwise .  it is a socialist notion , and it needs to go away .  
R	mr. speaker , today i rise in support of permanently repealing the death tax .  i would like to thank the gentleman from missouri for his leadership on this issue and his good timing , for in 2 days the tax man cometh .  as i look at these young people in the gallery today , i say to them , this bill is about you .  it is about the youth in this country .  for too long , the federal government has been taxing working americans , not once , not twice , but three times , on their hard-earned money .  when they earn it , the government takes an income tax .  when they spend it , the government takes a sales tax .  and finally , even when they die , the government takes a tax from the grave .  in addition to being bad policy , the death tax is morally wrong .  it confiscates private property and is an unbearable cost to small businesses , ranchers and farmers , which is precisely why the farm bureau supports this bill .  i could tell you many stories about families that were forced to borrow large sums of money or sell off or parcel out their farms or businesses , dividing their families .  i could tell you about the berdolls from austin , texas , in my district who , after paying off a 30-year mortgage , spent 20 more years paying this unfair tax burden .  they literally paid for their farm twice .  the names may change , but the story is the same .  it is time we removed this financial burden from the backs of those pursuing the american dream .  we must guarantee that people do not have to suffer the same hardships as the berdolls .  i urge my colleagues to support this important measure .  
R	mr. speaker , i demand a recorded vote .  
R	mr. speaker , by direction of the committee on rules , i call up house resolution 283 and ask for its immediate consideration .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  we have had a number of our colleagues make observations , just as the gentleman from oregon did , about the importance of not only the debate that takes place here in the house but also about our desire to make homeland security even better , more robust , more dynamic , aiming at the threat .  we heard the gentleman from california ( mr. dreier )  talk very eloquently about the need for border control , for us to make sure that those people who might be terrorists or may be criminals entering this country .  i am sure we will hear a debate about cargo , cargo ships , thousands of containers that come to this country every day , the commerce of this country that is affected .  we know that we talked yesterday in the committee on rules about the canadian border and how the canadian border needs the attention that they not only deserve but also with the flow of goods and services with the economies that are affected and products and services that are denied when the backlogs occur .  each of these has been a part of the arguments , the debates , the discussions that the gentleman from california ( mr. cox )  has taken into account , has made sure that he has taken them to the homeland security department , has spoken with the administration .  it just makes me very proud today to see our members who are able to cogently come up with not only good answers and better decision-making processes but an abiding faith in what we are doing here today .  i am proud that this debate , some 5 hours of debate that will take place today about this very important subject where members of congress are able to come down and really identify their specific suggestions that they have .  i think this process works .  i think the committee on rules was wise in what it did .  i think the gentleman from california knew when he put together this rule with our leadership what it would look like .  it is working today .  mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , we spoke earlier about how members provided information back and forth not only to the gentleman from california ( mr. cox )  and the homeland security department but also about how we were able to have a committee on rules meeting yesterday with thoughtful ideas that were presented yesterday .  our next speaker was a part of those thoughtful ideas .  he not only sat through hours of testimony , quizzing members about their questions and comments , things that would make things better , but also a few ideas himself .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. speaker , as the gentleman has noted , there will be 5 hours of debate today .  there will be a democrat substitute that will be included , some 200-plus pages that will allow not only full debate under these 5 hours but an opportunity for members to come down , just as the gentleman from massachusetts has done , to provide each member with information about how important this bill is .  and i am really proud of the time that we have .  the committee on rules did a great job .  
R	mr. speaker , i have no further requests for time , and i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. speaker , today we have had a great debate .  a few people showed up and expressed some concern about what they had , and i would like to address that so that the members are aware .  the gentleman from massachusetts ( mr. markey )  and the gentleman from georgia ( mr. barrow )  did come before the committee on rules .  the committee on rules did not put it in the bill , but it is not in the democrat substitute either , so the democrat leadership chose not to include that in their substitute .  we also had some discussion about air cargo .  for those members who are interested , air cargo will be in the substitute ; it will be in section 519 .  republicans addressed the issue .  we have doubled the number of air cargo inspectors that would be at the airports to make sure that we are looking at the cargo .  today has been a good debate , an opportunity for members to come forth and speak about the important things about this bill .  the gentleman from california ( mr. cox )  has our admiration .  he has done a great job .  the committee on rules i believe did a fair job .  i would also at this time like to thank the white house and the liaisons that the white house provided to us , brian conklin for his great leadership , chris frech for his hard work with us , and certainly their superstar at the white house , elan elinjg , who took time to make sure that members were updated , not only about the position of the administration , but about how they could work closely with members of congress .  so i think today has been another successful opportunity for us to begin the 5 hours of debate that will take place today where every member will have an opportunity to come down and express themselves and where we will have a democrat substitute that will be over 200 pages where they are able to express the things which they believe are best .  members of congress will be able to vote and a decision can be made today .  mr. speaker , i am proud of this process .  
D	mr. speaker , i object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present .  
D	mr. speaker , i rise in support of h.r. 810 , the stem cell research enhancement act of 2005 .  stem-cell research holds tremendous promise for advances in health care for all americans .  stem-cell research may one day lead to treatments for parkinson 's , alzheimer 's , arthritis , cancer , diabetes , multiple sclerosis , spinal-cord injuries , lou gehrig 's disease , strokes , severe burns and many more diseases and injuries .  however , mr. speaker , nearly 4 years ago , the president made an arbitrary and shortsighted decision to limit federally funded embryonic stem-cell research to stem-cell lines that already existed .  at that time , on august 9 , 2001 , the president promised 78 stem-cell lines would be available to federal researchers , yet almost 4 years later , there are at most , only 22 lines available .  even worse , many of these lines are contaminated with animal cells that make them unusable for human therapeutic study .  mr. speaker , the time has arrived for congress to unshackle our researchers and scientists and allow them to expand the number of stem cell lines that are eligible for federally funded research .  indeed , mr. speaker , our own top scientists and officials at the national institutes of health , nih , have stated that the president 's 2001 limitations have caused us to fall behind in this research field .  the nih should be leading this cutting-edge research , yet it is in jeopardy of failing in this role should the president 's policy be allowed to continue .  some states , such as california , are attempting to fill the void left by the lack of federal funding .  however , mr. speaker , as the director of the nih has warned , this could lead to a patchwork of stem-cell policies , with different laws and regulations which could defeat the type of collaborative research nih is chartered to carry out .  mr. speaker , h.r. 810 would simply allow federal funding for research on embryonic stem-cell lines regardless of the date on which they were derived .  this means researchers and scientists would be eligible to utilize their federal funds for research on a new stem-cell line as long as it met the strict ethical guidelines contained in the bill .  those rules restrict stem cell lines to embryos that have been created originally for fertility purposes , and that are no longer needed for fertility .  second , the bill requires that the embryo have no further other use and be intended for destruction .  also , there must be written consent for donation of the embryo from the individuals for whom the embryo was created .  finally , the bill calls for the director of nih to issue guidelines to ensure that federally funded researchers adhere to ethical standards .  mr. speaker , the stem cell research enhancement act of 2005 is needed to ensure that the full promise of embryonic stem-cell research is fulfilled .  h.r. 810 allows research to take place in a safe , structured , and ethical manner .  while all stem-cell research is important , the unique ability of embryonic stem cells to give rise to any tissue or cell in the body that makes these stem cells critically important to medical research .  therefore , i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and lift the president 's restrictions that now obstruct effective federally funded embryonic stem-cell research .  
R	mr. speaker , i rise today in strong opposition to h.r. 810 .  this bill , which we have already heard today , would reverse the embryonic stem cell policy instituted by the president of the united states in 2001 , and i believe it is very misguided , in my opinion .  i wish to thank the majority leader , the gentleman from texas ( mr. delay )  , and the gentleman from florida ( mr. weldon )  for their work on this legislation against h.r. 810 .  they have already outlined many of the reasons why the bill should be defeated , but i would like to share some additional thoughts .  first , let me say that good people can disagree on this issue .  however , what we are discussing today is the federal funding of the embryonic stem cell .  according to the statement of administration policy this morning , the administration strongly opposes passage of h.r. 810 .  the bill would compel all american taxpayers to pay for research that relies on the intentional destruction of human embryos to obtain stem cells , overturning the president 's policy that supports research without promoting ongoing destruction .  there are other vast financial resources available to fund this controversial issue .  therefore , i urge my colleagues to vote against and not allow embryos to be killed for federal funding research that is ethically and scientifically uncertain .  
R	mr. speaker , reclaiming my time , i rise today to oppose public funding for the destruction of human embryos .  there is actually a very simple reason for that , and that is because you and i were once embryos .  now , an embryo may seem like some scientific or laboratory term , but , in fact , the embryo contains the unique information that defines a person .  all you add is food and climate control and some time , and the embryo becomes you or me .  now , there are people who want to use public money to destroy embryos , and they talk about this bill as being a good first step .  what happens if we run the clock to step two or step three ?  my own daughter wrote a little story , and i will read it , about step three : `` i lived with 40 others in a compound supervised by cool , efficient orderlies .  instead of playing , i stood pondering a troubling dream from the night before .  it was of a loving father giving his child a name .  i have always been just 52561b .  `` i started imagining what it would be like to be named when the lab technician called me down the sterile white hall to my monthly checkup .  i was given the usual clear injection and scanned .  the medic flipped through the images which showed my organs and wrote , `healthy , still usable ' across the file .  `` several weeks later , i heard footsteps outside my cell and low voices .  the door unlocked and i was led again into the clinic and placed on the stainless table , but the injection this time was amber colored and i immediately sensed that something was wrong .  numbness started spreading across my body , great agony , no breathing , and the table was lifted and i slid down a chute into a large , steel box with waste paper and garbage from the lunch room .  `` my body now thrashed uncontrollably , but as everything grew dark , there was a bright figure who seemed to protect me .  he looked at me with such love and said , `i have given you the name tesia , which means `` loved of god. '' ' `` i awoke to see a wrinkled face with twinkling dark eyes framed by white hair .  he must have seen my questioning expression .  he explained , `you were a clone being held as a source for body parts , but when a recipient dies , the clone is considered useless and is given a lethal injection .  i managed to get to you before the poison finished its work. ' `` i was stunned .  after a pause , he said , `what shall i call you ?  ' at first i was startled until i remembered .  i said , `tesia. '' ' mr. speaker , this building was built by our founders on pillars , but not just pillars of marble .  one pillar was the conviction that god grants life as an inalienable right , and they fought so that pillar would not be toppled by tyrants .  and our sons and daughters fight so that pillar will not be toppled by terrorists .  we must vote today so that that pillar will not be toppled by technology that is run amok .  oppose public funding which destroys little you 's and me 's , and oppose this harvest of destruction .  
D	mr. speaker , i am fortunate to represent the university of wisconsin , madison , where dr .  jamie thompson and his team were the first to derive and culture human embryonic stem cells in a lab .  these cells can be described as the parent cells of all tissues in the body .  embryonic stem cells open the possibility of dramatic new medical treatments , transplantation therapies , and cures .  but at 9 p.m .  on august 9 , 2001 , the hope and promise of this embryonic stem cell research was greatly curtailed .  president bush declared that researchers who received federal funding could work only with embryonic stem cell lines created before that date and time .  there were supposed to be 78 lines that were eligible for federally funded research .  however , due to age , old technologies , contamination , only 22 are useful for research today .  mr. speaker , why are we tying the hands of our scientists who receive nih grants or other federal dollars to support their research ?  why are we curtailing scientific progress in america while scientists in other countries rapidly seize the opportunity inherent in advancing this research ?  h.r. 810 creates strong new safeguards and guidelines concerning research on human embryonic stem cells .  strict criteria , including written informed consent for donation , must be met before federal researchers can derive and culture new stem cell lines .  some members on the other side of this debate say their constituents are opposed to their federal tax dollars being used on this groundbreaking science .  well , i have constituents as well , like young jessie alswager of madison , wisconsin .  jessie has juvenile diabetes , and every year he comes to washington to lobby for this research to move us closer to a cure .  jessie is only 8 ; so i do not think he pays taxes yet ; but his mom , michelle , sure does .  and michelle , like millions of other americans who could be helped by this science , very much want their tax dollars spent on stem cell research .  i urge support of the castle-degette bill .  
R	mr. speaker , this issue is more than facts and figures .  for me it is personal .  it is about my children , madison , jeb and ross barrett .  it is about my nieces and my nephews , hayden and english and jason and andrew .  they are not just names , they are living , breathing human beings .  they are people i care about , they are people i love .  it is my family .  and they began life as an embryo .  let us be clear , embryonic stem cell research is completely legal .  what we are talking about today is whether taxpayer dollars should be used to destroy potential life , and , for me , life must supersede all other considerations , especially for the purpose of medical experimentation .  life is so precious , mr. speaker , and as long as i am a united states congressman , i will do everything i can to protect it .  
R	mr. speaker , we have just heard an impassioned plea to proceed with embryonic stem cell research .  tomorrow we are going to vote on a bill that would expedite embryonic stem cell research .  i have here the latest issue of time magazine .  it just arrived in our office , may 23 , and the lead article in it says `` why bush 's ban could be reversed. '' it is talking about stem cell research .  in view of the interest all across america and in view of the fact that tomorrow we are going to be voting on a bill , i thought it might be well this evening to spend a few minutes putting this debate in context .  what are stem cells ?  this is a new term to many americans .  our first chart is a depiction of the development of early embryos and then all of the tissues in the body which develop from this embryo .  the ultimate stem cell here is the zygote itself .  the zygote is produced by the union of the egg from the mother and the sperm from the father .  a stem cell is a cell which has the capability of differentiating into a number of other cells .  of course , that is the hope of embryonic stem cell research , that we might induce a cell to develop into a tissue , an organ or cells which will be useful in treating diseases .  this is a very abbreviated depiction of the early development of the embryo because it skips the morula stage , and we will come back to that in a few moments because that is the stage where most of the attention is focused now .  this goes from the zygote through the morula and finally , to the blastula and then to the gastrula .  here we see in the gastrula the development of what we call the germ layers .  i guess you would say that a cell from each of these three germ layers , a cell from the endoderm , a cell from the mesoderm or a cell from the ectoderm , are all stem cells because they are destined to become a lot of different tissues and organs in the body .  from the ectoderm develops our nervous system and the skin .  from the mesoderm develops most of the mass of the body , all of the bones and all of the muscles , the heart , the red blood cells and so forth .  and then the endoderm , although widely dispersed in the body represents less mass in the body because it is the lining of the lung and the digestive tract .  my chart shows the germ cells , the sperm in the male and the egg in the female .  now there are cells in all of these that one could say were stem cells .  tissue , and blood is a tissue , the tissue which has the most obvious stem cell that students were taught at least 50 years ago when i first was studying these things , is the stem cell in the bone marrow from which a number of different blood cells develop .  when you are working with adult stem cells , if you want something other than the organs from which this cell could differentiate , then you need to de-differentiate the cell .  in other words , you need to convince the cell that it is not exactly what it is as a result of the development process , that it returns to its original undifferentiated , or relatively undifferentiated state , and then it can make other tissues .  the embryonic stem cells philosophically certainly hold the most promise because they are cells from which all of the tissues and organs of the body develop .  there is the rationale then that these embryonic stem cells hold the promise of producing anything and everything that might be needed for fighting diseases .  there is enormous theoretical potential from working with stem cells .  they are useful in treating diseases that result from tissue or organ deficiencies .  we need to differentiate these diseases that result from the action of pathogens .  there is a very large list of diseases that theoretically might be treated by stem cell application .  diabetes is one of those .  it , by the way , represents the largest cost of all the diseases in this country .  this is probably the one that in my experience is the most heart wrenching because i have seen these little children come to my office .  many times during the day and frequently at night they have to prick their finger , their hand , their ear lobe , something in their body to get a drop of blood , and now we have new instruments that require a pretty small drop of blood , and then this new almost miracle instrumentation analyzes that blood to see what the glucose content is so that they know how to set that pump .  many of them have embedded in their side a little hockey puck size pump that pumps insulin .  this of all the diseases , mr. speaker , is the one that perhaps most obviously might lend itself to cure through stem cell research .  giving insulin to a diabetic does not cure the disease .  it simply delays the inevitable .  the person whether they are young or old will go on to have circulatory problems .  they may lose their eyesight .  circulation in their legs may be so bad that their toes become gangrenous and have to be removed .  when you see these little children come through your office suffering with this disease , your heart really goes out to them and you want to do everything that you possibly can to make sure that they have every potential for a healthy life .  and they will not live so long , they will not live so well as the average person in spite of all the miracles of medicine today because insulin does not cure diabetes .  but if through embryonic or adult , for that matter , if you could do it , stem cell research , if you could develop islet of langerhan cells , you could then put them anywhere in the body .  in our bodies , they reside in the pancreas .  i am not sure why because what they do and what the pancreas does are two very different things .  the pancreas secretes a large number of enzymes for digestion in the small intestine and the islet of langerhan cells just happen to be resident there .  they could be anywhere .  they could be in your tongue , they could be in your toe , they could be in your ear lobe .  they could be anywhere as long as there is a blood supply there to pick up the insulin that is made by these islet cells .  there is a long list of diseases : multiple sclerosis , lateral sclerosis , lou gehrig 's disease .  i have personal familiarity with this because my grandmother died of this a number of years ago , and i remember as a little boy standing by her bedside as she deteriorated and finally the only way that she could communicate with us was by blinking her eyes .  she could not move anything else .  she had no other way to communicate with us .  there is a hope , realizable , who knows , until we conduct the research and do the medical experimentation , but there is a hope that one might develop from stem cells tissues that could be injected into people with multiple sclerosis or lateral sclerosis .  sclerosis , by the way , means a scarring .  what happens is that there is a scarring that inhibits the function of these nerves .  alzheimer 's disease , that is frequently mentioned .  that is a particularly tragic disease .  although it was not specifically diagnosed in my mother because she had other ailments that were easier to diagnose , she lived to be 92 and i am sure that she had alzheimer 's because she had many of the symptoms .  it was really tragic to watch a woman who was very bright and vital lose her ability to remember , lose a sense of proportion , to be calling , roscoe , roscoe .  i would say , i 'm here .  she said , oh , you 're not roscoe because my father was roscoe , sr .  and she was way back 50 years earlier in her memory .  there is a hope that stem cell research could help cure diseases like this .  i have here a very large number of autoimmune diseases .  there are 63 of them here .  i have mentioned a couple of them .  autoimmune diseases are diseases where the body fails to recognize itself , that is , the parts of the body that have to do with recognizing foreign invaders and assimilating them , ejecting them , killing them .  very early in our embryonic development , we have a very special kind of life cell which we call t cells .  very early in embryonic development , they are imprinted with who you are .  there are 6.5 billion of us in the world and these t cells are smart enough to recognize a difference .  there may be somebody out there close to you , but nobody out there quite like you ; and you try to take their body organ and put it in you , these t cells are going to recognize it as foreign and move to reject it .  sometimes for reasons we do not understand , these immune reactions in the body get confused , and they attack the body itself .  we have a large number .  lupus was probably the first widely recognized of these diseases .  what has happened is that when the body is attacked , the specific tissues of the body are attacked , they degenerate and become not useful .  there is some evidence that the body develops an ability to recognize its own ; and so the hope is that after this has happened , if you could replace the damaged tissues , that the person gets returned to normal function .  there is enormous potential from use of stem cells , whether they are embryonic or adult , to cure many , many diseases .  the argument today is about whether it should be adult stem cells or whether it should be embryonic stem cells .  we have been working with adult stem cells , mr. speaker , for over 3 decades , and so there have been a fair number of applications to medicine .  you will hear the figure 58 .  we have been working with embryonic stem cells a little over 6 years .  there just has not been time to make those applications , but the fact that there are presently no applications to medicine of embryonic stem cell work does not mean that there will not be and it does not mean that those applications might not be more efficacious than adult stem cell applications .  indeed , if you will talk to the researchers and the experts in this area , they will all tell you to a man and to a woman that the potential for embryonic stem cell application to medicine should be greater than adult stem cell application just because embryonic stem cells , they are called totipotent , they can produce anything and everything that is in the body .  the adult stem cells have already been differentiated , at least to some extent ; and so they are limited in their potential application .  there is another very interesting potential that i do not hear often discussed of embryonic stem cells .  fifty years ago when i was studying and teaching in this area , there was an experiment where the researcher went into a mother black mouse and took a little patch of skin in the uterus from one of her little black babies and then he took that little patch of skin , and he went into the uterus of a white mouse with her white babies , and he cut a little patch of skin out of the white mouse and put in that little patch of black skin and when the white mouse was born with that patch of black skin , it did not reject it .  this gives the promise , mr. speaker , that there may be less rejection of tissues and organs developed from embryonic stem cells than from adult stem cells .  i do not know whether this was a host or donor phenomenon .  both were embryos .  all we know is that when the black skin was sewed onto the little embryonic mouse that there was no rejection .  if you tried to do that after they were born , i do not know if we have determined at precisely what time they lose that ability , it certainly would have been rejected .  the debate that we are going to vote on tomorrow and the debate which was the subject of the special order just before i spoke has to do with whether or not we can effect the needed cures in medicine from adult stem cells or whether we need to move to embryonic stem cells to make this happen .  early in this debate , i had a personal involvement which was kind of an interesting one .  in a former life , i got a doctorate in human physiology .  i taught medical school .  i did medical research .  i went out to nih in 2001 , before the president made his executive order .  it was an information meeting at nih where the scientists working in this field were briefing , they were largely staff members from the hill .  i think i was the only member there .  it occurred to me that you ought to be able to take cells from an early embryo without hurting the embryo , because nature has been doing that forever as far as we know .  that is what happens in identical twinning .  i would like to look at the next chart .  this is two zygotes .  this is not identical twinning .  i just wanted to contrast this with identical twinning .  this is where we have fraternal twins .  they are so-called wombmates .  they could be two boys , two girls , one of each .  they are conceived at the same time .  the mother that ordinarily sloughs one ovum a month this month sloughed two ovums and the sperm , and there are a whole lot of those , millions of them , they found both of them and they fertilized both of them and the uterus was receptive so they both were implanted in the uterus .  this simply shows how they present at birth , depending upon how they implanted .  if they are implanted far apart , they present one way at birth .  if they are implanted very close together , they present another way at birth .  the next chart shows twins from monozygotic twins , that is , from a single zygote , from a single egg .  this presentation looks very much like the dizygotic , that is from two eggs , dizygotic twins that implanted in the uterus very close together .  knowing that in identical twinning , regardless at what stage it occurs and it can occur all the way from the two-cell stage clear up to the inner cell mass and there are several stages between these two , but no matter where it occurs , the embryo has lost half of its cells and both parts go on to produce a perfectly healthy baby .  so i reasoned that it should be possible to take cells from an early embryo without hurting the early embryo and i asked the researchers at nih , was that possible .  they said , yes , of course that is possible .  but with all the embryos out there that could be simply destroyed to get the stem cells , nobody had determined how easy this was to do .  but they said that it certainly was doable .  a little bit later , and this was again before the president gave his executive order , i met the president at an event and i told him very briefly that i had met with nih , and there was this possibility that we could take cells from an early embryo without harming the embryo .  he asked karl rove to follow up on that .  several days later , karl rove called me , mr. speaker , and he said , roscoe , i went to nih and i told them what you told the president , and they told me they can not do that .  i said , karl , there is some problem here .  either they misunderstood your question or something because these are the same people that go into a single cell and take out the nucleus and put another nucleus in the cell .  of course they can go into a relatively large embryo and take out a cell or two .  he went back to talk with them again and called me back and said , they are telling me the same thing .  and so the president came out with his executive order which said that federal funds could be used in research only on the cell lines that had been developed from embryos that had been killed in the process of developing them , that no new cell lines could begin with embryos that had to be killed .  this is only with federal money , of course .  the private sector can do whatever it wishes because there is no law prohibiting the use of embryos .  my concern , mr. speaker , is that we in congress ought to be a player in this , and now we are standing on the sidelines .  
R	mr. speaker , i appreciate my colleague 's coming and entering into this discussion .  before leaving this little experience with nih , i will , mr. speaker , submit for the record a letter which i received today from dr .  battey , who is the spokesman for embryonic stem cell at nih , and what the letter says is , and i will come back to it in a few moments to read a couple parts from it , that what we are proposing to do is certainly possible ; that there is no medical or scientific impediment to doing this .  i just wanted to put to bed the suggestion that nih says what we are doing can not be done in spite of the fact that that is what karl rove thought they said .  in my office just a few months ago , nih kind of sheepishly admitted that there was some misunderstanding in conversation because they had never said that we could not go into an early embryo and take a cell .  what they had said , which is true , which is why i am proposing this research , was that we have never developed a stem cell line from that early an embryo .  ordinarily , we develop a stem cell line from the inner mass cell stage of the embryo .  but the earlier we get the stem cell , the more totipotent it ought to be and the more efficacious it ought to be in treating the diseases .  i have here , mr. speaker , a little diagram which shows the ontogeny , the development of the embryo .  it begins , of course , with the egg that comes from the mother , the oocyte , and then the sperm , and it shows only four or five there .  there will be millions there , i assure my colleagues .  and there is really a miracle that occurs here because as soon as one of them penetrates that egg , there is a big barrier put up so that there is no other candidate .  it would be quite disastrous if two of them penetrated that egg because that would create an embryo which would certainly die .  and then the egg , called a zygote , goes on to develop , and it is two cells .  and it may split here to make two babies , by the way , identical twins .  and then the four-cell and then the eight-cell stage .  it is at the eight-cell stage , and i am jumping a little ahead here , it is at the eight-cell stage in a petri dish .  this is what happens in the body .  if this kind of thing happens , they can fertilize it in a petri dish .  it is at this eight-cell stage in more than 1 , 000 times now in clinics .  it started in england .  it is now in this country .  they have gone into the eight-cell stage and taken out one cell .  they might get two .  and they then do a preimplantation genetic diagnosis on that .  in other words , they determine whether or not there are any genetic defects like down 's disease , for instance , in which case they would not want to implant that embryo .  they do this for the benefit of their baby because one would not want , if they had a choice , to bring a child into the world that was going to have a less than optimum quality of life because they had a genetic defect .  this is not genetic engineering .  genetic engineering is when they change the genetics .  all they are doing here is seeing what genetics are there , and if there is no deficiency in the genetics , they implant the six or seven cells that remain , and more than 1 , 000 times they have had a normal baby .  all of this happened in the intervening years between 2001 and now .  this may have been going on when i talked to the president and when i talked to nih .  i did not know that it was going on , but just a few months ago , this report came out , and now i spent the other day , for a half-hour , probably , talking with two investigators here in virginia who are doing this .  i just want to spend a couple of moments talking about the debate .  the debate is between the use of discarded embryos that the proponents , and that is what the bill is tomorrow , say are going to be thrown away anyhow and why do we not get some good from them by developing stem cell lines from them since they are going to be discarded anyhow ?  the argument on the other side is twofold .  first of all , it is not certain they are going to be discarded because they can be adopted .  what is it ?  operation snowflake where parents can adopt one of these embryos and have them implanted in a mother other than the one from whom the ovum was taken .  so it is not certain that they are going to be discarded .  the other challenge to this is that this is a life .  in the proper environment , this is a human being .  it is an embryo .  put it in the mother 's womb , and it will become a very distinct human being , unlike any other out of the 6.5 billion people in the world .  and there are those who feel that it is immoral .  the president is among them , and he has said this , that it is immoral to take one life so that we might help another .  the good news is , as the gentleman from georgia ( mr. gingrey )  said , we do not have to do that because we can take cells from an early embryo without hurting the embryo .  by the way , umbilical cord blood stem cells are not an alternative to embryonic stem cells .  just a little quote here .  this is from a scientist at the johns hopkins university school of medicine , one of the best medical schools in the world : `` as a physician-scientist who has done research involving umbilical cord blood stem cells for over 20 years , i am frequently surprised by the thought from nonscientists that cord blood stem cells may provide an alternative to embryonic stem cells for research .  this is simply wrong , '' he says .  do they have a place in treating ?  yes , they do .  but they are not a substitute for embryonic stem cells , and he makes that very plain .  opponents of embryonic stem cell research suggested that 58 diseases have been successfully treated using adult stem cells .  that is true .  i asked nih , is that true that we had 58 treatments from adult stem cells and none from embryonic stem cells ?  they said yes , that is true .  i said , why is that true ?  that is true because we have had more than 3 decades ' experience with adult stem cells , and just a little over 6 years ' experience with embryonic stem cells .  there simply has not been time .  all of the 58 listed , all of them , are represented by organizations that support stem cell research .  so what this says is that all of those physicians that are involved with these 58 applications of adult stem cells , all of them support stem cell research .  the argument on the other side is that it is immoral , that we should not take one life to support another life ; and in making those claims , they state the following : this kills human embryos .  it does .  you may not think that is a problem .  you may not see this little bit of life that holds the miracle of chromosomes and against that will develop the whole unique individual , not like any other .  out of 6.5 billion in the world , you may not see that as human life , but it clearly is .  it kills a human embryo .  you may be okay with that , you may not be , but a great number of people are not okay with that .  they argue that h.r. 810 , which is the bill we will be voting on tomorrow , is an empty promise because the embryonic stem cells have not treated a single human disease , and that is true .  we just gave the reason for it : they have not been worked with long enough to know whether they can treat a disease or not .  h.r. 810 does not have 400 , 000 discarded embryos to use , that is true ; and the statement is made that if you used these 400 , 000 embryos , you would only get 275 stem cell lines , and that is because only 2.8 percent of them have been donated for research .  that gets you down to 11 , 000 , not 400 , 000 .  only 65 percent of those will survive the thawing .  they are frozen .  this is not an event that is not traumatic .  it is very traumatic to the embryos .  a third of them do not survive the freezing and rethawing .  twenty-five percent of those that are still alive after they thaw , only 25 percent will go on through this development stage , through the blastula , gastrula and so forth , so they can be implanted .  then , even if it has gone that far , in one trial only one out of 18 attempts produced a stem cell line , and in another trial only three out of 40 produced a stem cell line .  so that now gets you down to about 275 .  yes , we have not developed perfection yet in these techniques ; but 275 stem cell lines is more than 10 times more than all the stem cell lines we have now , which , by the way , i think are almost all in this country contaminated with mouse feeder cells .  i see that we have been joined by my colleague from nebraska .  
R	mr. speaker , reclaiming my time , i thank the gentleman very much .  
R	mr. speaker , reclaiming my time , i thank the gentleman .  i have here a very recent report , `` alternative sources of human pluripotent stem cells , '' a white paper by the president 's council on bioethics , and the next chart shows page 25 from this .  the highlighted part says : `` it may be some time before stem cells can be reliably derived from single cells , '' the process we have been talking about , `` extracted from early embryos and in ways that do no harm to the embryo , '' thus biopsy .  `` but the initial success of the verlinsky group 's efforts at least reaches the possibility that embryonic stem cells could be derived from single blastomas removed from early human embryos without apparently harming them. '' then there is an asterisk , and if you go to the bottom of the page it says : `` a similar idea was proposed by representative roscoe bartlett of maryland as far back as 2001 before the president gave his executive order. '' there are four potential sources listed here .  this source is number two .  they do a very good job of discussing this in the body of the text .  they talk about parents going for pre-implantation genetic diagnosis .  they talk about the possibility that you could develop from the cell or cells taken a repair kit .  this is a fascinating potential .  this is why we are collecting and freezing umbilical cord blood , because we hope that through the life of that person , there might be some opportunity to use stem cells .  they are not embryonic , they have limited application , but maybe , just maybe , we could produce something that would help that person later on with a disease .  but in this case , if they did preimplantation genetic diagnosis and if they developed a repair kit from that , then all that we would ask for is that a few surplus cells from the repair kit could be made available for a new stem cell line .  but that is not even what our research , our paper , our bill asks for .  what our bill asks for is simply federal money to do research on animals , on nonhuman primates , that is , the great apes , which genetically are remarkably similar to humans , if it works there , it probably would work in humans , to determine the efficacy and the safeness of doing this .  unfortunately , if all that you read was their recommendations , you would be disappointed , because they never therein mention that the parents have made an ethical decision to make sure they do not have a baby with a genetic defect , the parents who made a decision to establish a repair kit so that their baby at any time during their life could have available compatible tissue to fix a medical problem .  they simply state in their recommendation section that they consider it unethical to go to an embryo and take a cell out of it just to establish a stem cell lot .  it must be that a different person wrote the recommendations at the end as compared to the person or persons that wrote the text in the front , because they certainly should have mentioned the parents ' decision to develop a repair kit , the parents ' decision to make sure that their baby did not have a defect .  these are decisions that parents make , i think , ethically to the benefit of their baby and for all that we would hope in the future .  and , again , our bill deals only with animal experimentation to determine the efficacy and the reliability of doing this .  the next chart shows another development chart , and i would just like to reemphasize : now , imagine this is not in the mother ; this is an infant dibulum , in the ovary and the fallopian tube here .  imagine that this is in a petri dish and not in the mother , and we fertilized the egg , and it has now developed to the eight-cell stage , and we can take a cell from that stage and do a preimplantation genetic diagnosis .  maybe , as the authors of the white paper said , you could develop a stem cell line from that .  we do not know .  they simply have not tried .  it has been too easy to take and kill embryos to get stem cell lines from them .  there is one other ethical argument that maybe is a problem , mr. speaker .  they address this in the president 's white paper .  they do not think it is a problem .  when you read that white paper you will see that they are bending over backwards to satisfy all of the concerns that even the most concerned prolife person could have .  they do not believe that you could develop an embryo from a single cell .  but if we waited a little later , and i have asked the researchers , the medical people who are doing this preimplantation and genetic diagnosis , if they could wait until the inner cell mass stage , if they could wait until the inner cell mass stage to take the cell .  now we avoid even that potential ethical argument , because we already have a differentiation that has occurred .  there are now two kinds of cells in what we call the embryo .  there is the inner cell mass , which will become the baby ; and then there is the rest of the trophoblast which will become the decidua .  the decidua is the amnion and chorion .  now , you can not have a baby without amnion and chorion ; it can not grow .  so if you take cells only from the inner cell mass , they could never become an embryo because these cells have lost all of their ability to produce the decidua , but they retain all of the ability to produce the cells of the body , the great variety of cells in the body .  i am prolife .  i have an impeccable , 100 percent prolife voting record .  i would not be here on the floor today talking about a possible solution to this debate if i did not think that this was perfectly ethical and probably perfectly doable .  i hope , mr. speaker , that a number of my colleagues will sign on to our bill .  we are going to hold this until about noon tomorrow , because we would like to get as many prolife signers as possible .  if the other bill reaches the president 's desk , no matter what he decides , some people are not going to be happy .  if he vetoes the bill , as he has said he would , then all of those americans , and i believe it is a majority , as there will be a majority tomorrow that vote for h.r. 810 , will wonder why it is not okay to take these embryos that hardly look like a baby , just eight cells , to take these embryos , and they are going to be discarded anyhow .  and given the two arguments , they may not be discarded , they may be adopted , and at the end of the day , you are taking a life .  if you think it is okay to take one life to help another , that is okay , but a lot of people do not think that is okay .  on the other hand , if he lets it become law , then he is going to offend all of those prolife people who really see this as life .  what i hope , mr. speaker , is that my bill can be on the president 's desk when he is faced with the unhappy choice that he will have with this bill , so that he can now say , gee , i have a bill which supports what i want , and that is embryonic stem cell research without harming an embryo .  we are not ready yet to work with humans .  this bill addresses only animal experimentation .  but as we saw earlier , mr. speaker , from this chart that we had from that page of the white paper , let me put that back up because i think it makes the point , it may be some time .  that is why we have researchers and that is why we have money from nih , because it may be some time before stem cell lots can be reliably derived from single cells .  they believe that it is possible to do that .  it may take some time , taken from early embryos in ways that do not harm the embryo .  as we have pointed out , they will be taken to benefit the embryo , to do preimplantation genetic diagnosis and to develop a repair kit for the embryo .  but the initial success of the verlinsky group 's efforts at least raises the future possibility that pluripotent stem cells could be derived from single-blast embryos removed from early human embryos without apparently harming them .  indeed , if it is taken for preimplantation genetic diagnosis and to establish a repair kit , not only are they not harmed , they are benefited by it .  mr. speaker , i know that all america will be watching this debate ; they just voted $ 3 billion in alaska to pursue this .  i believe we can pursue all of the potential miracles that could come from embryonic stem cell research and applications to medicine without harming embryos , and i urge an early vote and adoption of this bill .  mr. speaker , i submit the following for the record : and human services , washington , dc , may 23 , 2005 .  dear mr .  bartlett : i am pleased that drs .  allen spiegel and story landis were able to meet with you , mr. otis and mr. aitken during your visit to the national institutes of health ( nih ) last month to discuss ways to derive human embryonic stem cells ( hescs ) .  drs .  spiegel and landis were serving as acting co-chairs of the nih stem cell task force during my leave of absence from this position .  earlier this month , i returned to chair the task force .  nih shares your enthusiasm on the therapeutic potentials of hesc research and thank you for your continued support of this field .  drs .  spiegel and landis briefed me about your april 26th meeting .  i am also aware that you have had previous meetings with nih officials , including myself , lana skirboll and richard tasca , on this topic .  you propose the possibility of using a cell ( or two ) removed from the 8-cell stage human embryo undergoing pre implantation genetic diagnosis ( pgd ) to : 1 ) create a `` personal repair kit '' made up of cells removed from the embryo and stored for future use ; and 2 ) for deriving human embryonic stem cell lines .  you suggested that creating hesc lines in this manner would avoid ethical questions surrounding the fate of a human embryo .  live births resulting from embryos which undergo pgd and are subsequently implanted seem to suggest that this procedure does not harm the embryo , however , there are some reports that a percentage of embryos do not survive this procedure .  in addition , long-term studies would be needed to determine whether this procedure produces subtle or later-developing injury to children born following pgd .  also , it is not known if the single cell removed from the 8-cell stage human embryo has the capacity to become an embryo if cultured in the appropriate environment .  nih is not aware of any published scientific data that has confirmed the establishment of hesc lines from a single cell removed from an 8-cell stage embryo .  we are aware of the published research of dr .  yury verlinsky in the reproductive genetics institute in chicago that showed that a hesc line can be derived by culturing a human morula-staged embryo ( reproductive biomedicine online , 2004 vo .  9 , no.6 , 623-629 , verlinsky , strelchenko , et al ) .  it is also worth noting , however , that in these experiments , the entire morula was plated and used to derive the hesc lines .  the human morula is generally composed of 10-30 cells and is the stage that immediately precedes the formation of the blastocyst .  at the april 26th meeting , nih agreed that such experiments might be pursued in animals , including non-human primates .  that is , animal experiments could be conducted to determine whether it is possible to derive hescs from a single cell of the 8-cell or morula stage embryo .  to date , to the best of our knowledge no such derivations have been successful .  nih also does not know whether these experiments have been tried and failed in animals and/or humans and , therefore , have not been reported in the literature .  nih agreed to explore whether there have been any attempts to use single cells from the 8-cell or morula stage of an animal embryo to start embryonic stem cell lines by consulting with scientists that are currently conducting embryo research .  from these discussions , these scientists believe it is worth attempting experiments using a single cell from an early stage embryo or cells from a morula of a non-human primate to establish an embryonic stem cell line .  of note , a recent 2003 paper from canada shows that when single human blastomeres are cultured from early cleavage stage embryos , before the morula stage , that there is an increased incidence of chromosomal abnormalities .  even with hescs derived from the inner cell mass of the human blastocyst , the odds of starting a hesc line from a single cell are long , perhaps one in 20 tries .  thus , the odds of being able to start with a single cell from an 8-celled or morula staged embryo are equally challenging .  this would make it difficult to accomplish the goal of establishing `` repair kits '' and hesc lines from any single pgd embryo .  ( fertil steril , 2003 june , 79 ( 6 ) : 1304-11 , bielanska , et al ) .  it is possible , however , that improvements in technologies for deriving and culturing hescs may improve these odds .  nih concludes that the possibility of establishing a stem cell line from an 8-cell or morula stage embryo can only be determined with additional research .  nih would welcome receiving an investigator-initiated grant application on this topic using animal embryos .  the human embryo research ban would preclude the use of funds appropriated under the labor/hhs appropriations act for pursuing this research with human embryos .  as with all grant applications , the proposal must be deemed meritorious for funding by peer review and then will be awarded research funds if sufficient funds are available .  it also bears keeping in mind that it may take years to determine the answer .  at the april 26th meeting , you had mentioned that twins can develop when the inner cell mass splits in the blastocyst and forms two embryos enclosed in a common trophoblast .  you asked if cells from the inner cell mass could be safely removed without harming the embryo .  in animal studies , it has been shown that the blastocyst can be pierced to remove cells of the inner cell mass and the embryo appears to retain its original form but it is not known whether the embryo will result the birth of a healthy baby .  since this experiment in human embryos at either the morula or the blastocyst stage would require evaluations of not only normal birth but also unknown longterm risks to the person even into adulthood , it would have to be considered a very high risk and ethically questionable endeavor .  because of the risk of harm , this research would also be ineligible for federal funding .  you had also asked nih about the latest stage in development that an embryo can be artificially implanted into the womb .  we know that infertility clinics transfer embryos at the blastocyst stage ( approximately day 5 in human embryo development ) as well as at earlier stages .  finally , i am providing an additional resource that was discussed at the april meeting .  i have enclosed a copy of a recently released white paper developed by the president 's council on bioethics ( pcb ) on alternative sources of human pluripotent stern cells .  in this white paper , the pcb raised many ethical , scientific and practical concerns about alternate sources for deriving human pluripotent stem cells without harming the embryo .  your proposal is specifically discussed in this report .  i hope this information is helpful .  sincerely , james f. battey , jr. , enclosure .  
R	madam speaker , there have been a number of articles in the recent press relative to stem cell research , with particular reference to embryonic stem cell research .  i thought it might be well in starting this little discussion to take a look at what we mean by stem cells .  i have here a chart which shows in very abbreviated form the development of an early embryo .  it starts out with the zygote , which is the fertilized egg ; and then it skips a couple of stages of development , and it goes through the blastocyst , and then it goes to the gastrula .  by the time the embryo gets to the gastrula stage , the cells have already differentiated to the place that we have three different kinds of somatic stem cells .  this is the ectoderm , and the mesoderm , and the endoderm , and then those very specialized cells , which in the female will be the germ cells in the ovary , the ova , and in the male will be the millions and millions of sperm that are in the gonads of the male .  if we look back , madam speaker , at these stem cells that are present here in the gastrula , where we have these three , as we call germ layers , we see the ectoderm can further differentiate into skin and nervous system and some of the pigment cells in our body ; and then the mesoderm , the middle layer , that differentiates into what is most of us by mass and weight , cardiac muscle , our big skeletal muscles , the bone , the smooth muscle , all of our blood , and the blood is an organ , it happens to be a liquid organ that is dispersed through the body ; and then the endoderm .  this is much more limited in volume and in variety , but still very important .  the pancreatic cells , the thyroid cells , the lining of the gut , the lining of the lung and so forth .  it might be worth just a moment , madam speaker , to take a look at our next chart , which kind of puts this in context .  we started out with the zygote , which is the fertilized egg here , and we ended up with the inner cell mass with these three germ layers .  what we show here are all the stages that were omitted in that first chart .  this is one-half , as the little diagram here in the upper left shows , of the reproductive tract of a female .  it shows the ovary on one side and the fallopian tube , with the funnel-like opening here called the infundibulum .  then it shows the fallopian tube on down to the uterus itself .  what it shows , madam speaker , is that fertilization takes place well up in the fallopian tube , and that begins day one .  and then as the egg slowly moves down the tube , it splits first into two cells , then four cells , and then eight cells , and then the larger variety of cells , and finally where you have the inner cell mass and then to the gastrula .  there are two kinds of stem cells , adult stem cells , and those are derivatives of the cells that we showed in the previous chart .  for instance , in the humans we have adult stem cells in our bone marrow .  these are cells which are differentiated to the point that they will produce a limited variety of cells , but still undifferentiated to an extent because these stem cells in the bone marrow can produce red blood cells and polymorphonuclear leukocytes , part of the white blood cells , and the thrombocytes , those are the cells , the platelets as we call them , that are associated with clotting .  and there are a number of adult stem cells similar to that that still retain some of the capability for producing more than just one kind of cell .  we have been working with adult stem cells medically now for more than 3 decades , and there have been a number of medical applications , treatment of humans that have been made with adult stem cells .  but just because they are what they are , madam speaker , a great number of people believe that there should be more potential from the embryonic stem cells simply because they can produce any and all of the tissues of the body .  since we have been working with embryonic stem cells for now just a little over 6 years , we have not had the opportunities for medical applications we have had in adult stem cells , but this does not dim the hopes of the scientific community and the medical community that ultimately there may be more and better applications of embryonic stem cells to treatment of diseases than adult stem cells , simply because of what they are , puripotent cells retaining the ability to produce any and all of the tissues of the body .  it is possible , madam speaker , that this characteristic , which makes them so potentially attractive and exciting , may be uncontrollable .  they may be so bent on dividing that we can not control their division .  they may end up producing tumors and cancer-like growths in the organism in which you put them .  but if that can be controlled , the medical community and the researchers associated with it believe there is potential for enormous applications to medicine of embryonic stem cell research .  we have now had 58 applications of adult stem cells in helping to treat some of the diseases .  what are the diseases that could be treated with stem cells ?  ordinarily , one thinks that the greatest potential for the use of stem cells would result from use in diseases from tissue deficiency rather than diseases that result from some organism , although if there is an infection in the body and a tissue is damaged , there is the hope that it might be replaced with stem cell application .  there are a number of diseases that the scientific community and the general public believe might be amenable to treatment with stem cells , particularly embryonic stem cells .  diabetes is one of those .  this is the most costly disease in our country .  it costs more to treat the diabetics in our country than any other single disease .  i have these come through my office .  particularly heartrending are the little children that come there , 5 and 6 years old some of them , such brittle juvenile diabetics that they have an implanted pump and they have to prick their finger or some part of their body a number of times a day to monitor the glucose level so that just the right amount of insulin can be injected to control this .  this insulin is produced by cells called island of langerhan cells .  dr .  langerhan was the german scientist that described them .  and they look like little eyelets because they are simply distributed through the tissue of the pancreas .  the pancreas is a very large gland at the very beginning of the small intestine that secretes all of the different kinds of digestive enzymes so that fats , carbohydrates , and proteins all are digested using the enzymes secreted by the pancreas .  i have no idea why nature placed the islets of langerhans in the pancreas .  they could be placed anywhere .  with these stem cell applications if we could create islet tissue , they could be placed in the person .  it could be placed in the groin , under their arm , under the skin , anywhere .  it does not have to be in the pancreas .  this islet tissue could then make insulin which would cure diabetes .  when you give insulin to the diabetic , it delays progression of the disease , but it does not cure it .  a person with juvenile diabetes faces the prospect that they probably will have a shortened life , problems with their vision as the vascular bed in the back of the eye breaks down , and they may have problems with circulation in their extremities , particularly in the feet where there is some difficulty getting blood back uphill to the heart .  as many people in this country know through relatives and friends , this results frequently in sores that do not heal and results in gangrene , so the toes or a foot may need to be taken off .  diabetes is one of the diseases that is very attractive as a potential for use of stem cells , because if we could just produce islet tissue , we could cure diabetes , the most expensive disease that we have .  another disease is multiple sclerosis , and if impaired cells could be replaced through stem cell therapy , then the person could walk again .  lou gehrig 's disease , i remember my grandmother was tripping and falling , and they did not know why .  it took them quite awhile back , this was a number of years ago , to determine she had lou gehrig 's disease .  i remember as a teenager going to her bedside .  she was maintained in the home .  she slowly deteriorated , losing first one muscle function and then another .  finally , at the end , the only muscle function she had remaining was the ability to blink her eyes .  it was once for yes and two for no , as i remember .  she could not swallow and had indicated she did not want to be force fed and ultimately she died from starvation with this disease .  well , anybody who has a friend or a relative that has gone through that kind of experience has to be enthusiastic about the potential for stem cell therapy .  this was a number of years ago , but if it were tomorrow or the day after tomorrow figuratively , maybe there could be stem cell therapy for my grandmother , and she would not have to have died at the relatively young age she died at .  alzheimer 's disease is another one .  president reagan died from alzheimer 's disease .  victims do not even recognize their favorite loved ones , have no memory and may wander outside and wander off .  there is a whole category of autoimmune diseases .  i have a paper which lists 63 of the autoimmune diseases .  by that , i mean a disease where the body gets confused as to what is the body and what is not the body .  when we are developing as embryos in our mother 's womb , there are certain cells in our circulatory system called t-cells located in the lymphatic tissue , and the t-cells are imprinted with who we are because once we get out of the mother 's womb , we are going to be in a hostile environment , exposed to bacteria and viruses , and so it is important that the body knows what it is so the defense mechanisms in the body can be marshaled to eject the intruder .  these t-cells identify what is you and what is not you , and they alert some of the specialized cells in our white blood cell system so they are attracted to the site , and they eject , they may consume , they eject the intruder .  there are 63 distinct autoimmune diseases .  for some reason , the body gets confused and the autoimmune system gets confused and starts attacking your joints , for instance .  we know that disease as arthritis .  i remember my first real introduction to this big list of autoimmune diseases was a secretary i had , a very vibrant young lady whose life was really , really changed because she had lupus .  there are many americans who have family or friends who have lupus , and lupus was one of the first autoimmune diseases that was discovered .  there is a controversy going on over the potential for embryonic stem cell medical applications and adult stem cell medical applications .  we have been working for more than 3 decades with adult stem cells , and our very able medical scientific community has been able to develop a number of applications that can cure or at least lessen the severity of disease using adult stem cells .  since we have been working with embryonic stem cells for only a brief period of time , we do not have any direct applications to medicine of embryonic stem cell therapy , but that does not dim the enthusiasm of the medical community because they believe that the potential there ought to be greater .  but the real problem here is that up until this time the only way that we can get embryonic stem cells is to destroy the embryo .  the scientists go into the inner cell mass stage .  that is this stage here , day five .  of course , what we are doing now in the laboratory is not done in the uterus .  all of this is done in a petri dish .  the in vitro is in glass .  in vivo means life .  the embryo is destroyed at the inner cell mass stage , and cells are taken to produce a stem cell line .  about 4 years ago , this produced a real dilemma for the president who , like all of us , has family and friends who have one or more of these diseases that could be potentially ameliorated or cured by embryonic stem cell application .  yet the president knew the only way we were presently getting embryonic stem cell lines was by destroying embryos .  he , as i am , is a strong pro-life advocate and the president had a problem with taking one life because that embryo produced in the laboratory in surplus and in vitro fertilization had the potential when implanted in a receptive mother to become a baby and the president 's problem was that he had a moral problem with taking one life with the hope of helping another .  while the president was wrestling with this problem and what to do about it , there was a briefing at the national institutes of health for members of the congress and for their staff .  i went out there to that briefing .  as the next chart shows , when we were talking about the potential for embryonic stem cell lines , i remembered my training of more than 50 years ago when i got my doctorate at the university of maryland and had a course in advanced embryology and then went on to teach medical school for 4 years and postgraduate medicine doing basic research at the national institutes of health .  i remembered what everybody knows , because they had the course in advanced embryology it was in my mind , that whenever we have identical twins what has really happened is that half of the cells have been taken from the early embryo .  the half that is taken becomes a perfectly normal baby , and the half that is left becomes a perfectly normal baby .  madam speaker , one is a clone .  when one thinks about cloning , remember that mother nature or god , to whomever you want to subscribe it , has been cloning for a very long time .  now these early embryos can split either at the two-cell stage or at the inner cell mass stage or anywhere in between , presumably .  we know at least at those two extremes because we can tell by how they present at birth when they split .  if they share an amnion , they split at the two cell stage .  if they have separate amnions , they probably split at the inner cell mass stage .  so knowing that half of the cells could be taken away from an early embryo without harming the embryo , unless you think identical twins are somehow deficient , and i have talked with a number of identical twins , and i have not talked with any of them who thought they were less a person or deficient because half of the cells were taken away to produce the other identical twin .  it occurred to me that you ought to be able to take cells from an early embryo without hurting the embryo to develop a stem cell line from that early embryo .  i mentioned this to the researchers at nih , and they said , yes , that is theoretically possible to do that .  just after that , i was at an event and the president was there and when i went through the line , i mentioned my visit at nih and the response that they had given to my question .  a few days later , i had a call from carl rove and the president had turned the pursuit of this suggestion over to carl rove .  carl told me that he talked to the people at nih , and they tell me what you have suggested is not possible .  carl , i said either they are funning you or they misunderstand you , because these are the same people that can take a single cell and take the nucleus out of that cell and put another nucleus in it .  that is what they did with dolly the sheep and the large number of clones that have been produced since then .  i said , of course , if they can take the nucleus out of a cell and put another nucleus in it , they can certainly take a cell or two out of what is a relatively big embryo .  so he went back and asked them again and then called back and said they are still telling me they can not do that .  so a few days later , the president came out with his executive order .  madam speaker , you may remember this was kind of a decision like solomon might have made .  obviously , from the potential efficacy of embryonic stem cell research and medical applications , it is very desirable that we do that .  on the other hand , if the only way to get embryonic stem cells is by destroying an embryo , then you are left with the quandary of , is it really acceptable to destroy one life with the hope that you are going to help another ?  so the president came to a decision that i think represented great wisdom .  he recognized that a number of embryos had already been killed , destroyed to establish stem cell lines , and since you can not turn back the hands of time to change that , these embryos were gone , the stem cell lines were there , and so the president , recognizing the potential for embryonic stem cell research , and being concerned that you should not take one life with the hope of helping another , wisely i think , said we could spend federal dollars on any exploration we chose with the existing stem cells lines , and he thought there were about 60 .  there have never been 60 , but he was told there were something like 60 stem cell lines , and federal dollars could be used for research on those lines , but no federal dollars could be used for developing or destroying any additional embryos for stem cell lines .  this was about 4 years ago , and as we knew , the scientific community knew , as i knew because of my background , these stem cell lines would eventually run out .  stem cell lines , like people , age .  for reasons that we may not understand , they do not last forever .  those stem cell lines , madam speaker , are running out .  we now have , i think the accepted figure is 22 stem cell lines left , and all of these are contaminated with mouse feeder cells .  this is the result of a technique which is used to facilitate the replication of these cells in the tissue culture , and they are now all contaminated with mouse feeder cells so that although they are perfectly good for research and a lot of research is being done , they are not good for medical application because you would not want to put the cells contaminated with mouse feeder cells in a human .  so what now ?  one of the potential solutions to this problem is included in h.r. 810 , the castle-degette bill ; and the argument made in this bill is that there are about 400 , 000 surplus embryos out there from in vitro fertilization .  you see , to make sure that the doctor is going to have a good embryo or two or three to implant in a mother , because they do not all take , he will produce more embryos than he will probably need .  then he will look at them under the microscope and pick the strongest looking of those embryos and may put two or three or so in the mother .  one of our members , the rohrabachers , are now the proud parents of triplets from in vitro fertilization .  all of them grew and so they are now the proud parents of these very happy and healthy little babies .  since there are 400 , 000 surplus embryos out there that are frozen , the argument is , and this is the argument of the bill , that since these embryos , at least many of these embryos , realistically most of these embryos will ultimately be discarded , they will not stay frozen for 49 years there , they will not last forever , and by and by they will be discarded , and so the argument is , why should medicine not benefit from cells , from embryos that are going to be discarded anyhow ?  that to many people is a compelling argument .  it was a compelling argument to a majority of people in the house , and now they are considering this bill in the senate .  but to those in the pro-life community , there is another way of looking at these embryos .  i am at the microscope and there is an embryo under the microscope there .  that embryo could become a snowflake baby .  more than 100 times parents who do not have an ovum , can not get pregnant any other way , have adopted these surplus embryos and we have more than 100 of what we call snowflake babies .  the embryo that i am looking at under the microscope might be adopted and that could be any one of the 400 , 000 embryos , and it might be the next albert einstein .  how could i destroy an embryo that might be adopted and might be the next albert einstein ?  so this is the argument on the other side , which is why the great debate over h.r. 810 .  as a result of a series of discussions with the white house and with a number of the interested groups , we have developed a bill which is called h.r. 3144 , the respect for life pluripotent stem cell act of 2005 .  madam speaker , i will make this short bill a part of the record .  be it enacted by the senate and house of representatives of the united states of america in congress assembled , & lt ; p & gt ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; section 1. short title. & lt ; p & gt ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; this act may be cited as the `` respect for life pluripotent stem cell act of 2005 '' . & lt ; p & gt ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; sec .  2. findings. & lt ; p & gt ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; the congress finds as follows : & lt ; p & gt ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; ( 1 ) stem cells may be derived from various sources , including adult tissue , umbilical cord blood , and living human embryos .  the use of cells from embryos has drawn great interest in the scientific community but also raises very serious ethical concerns for many americans , because as practiced today it requires the destruction of human embryos to obtain their cells .  ( 2 ) the president 's council on bioethics in its may 2005 white paper : `` alternative sources of pluripotent stem cells , '' describes several potential methods to derive stem cells like those now derived through the destruction of embryos , but which would not involve doing harm to embryos .  some methods propose to involve embryos in ways that do not harm them , while others propose to reprogram adult cells to produce cells with the capabilities of embryonic stem cells without producing or involving embryos at all. & lt ; p & gt ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; ( 3 ) such proposals should be thoroughly tested in animal models before being applied to humans , to establish that they do not involve creating or harming human embryos. & lt ; p & gt ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; ( 4 ) several scientific reports also suggest that some subclasses of adult stem cells ( derived from postnatal tissues , umbilical cord blood and placenta ) show a flexibility comparable to that of stem cells now derived through the destruction of embryos. & lt ; p & gt ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; ( 5 ) american scientists should be encouraged to pursue all ethical avenues of stem cell research and to explore morally uncontroversial alternatives to research requiring the destruction of human embryos. & lt ; p & gt ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; sec .  3. derivation of stem cells without harming embryos ; research through national institutes of health. & lt ; p & gt ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; part b of title iv of the public health service act ( 42 u.s.c 284 ) is amended by adding at the end the following : & lt ; p & gt ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; '' sec .  409j. basic and applied research on derivation and use of pluripotent stem cells without harming embryos. & lt ; p & gt ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; `` ( a ) definitions. -- in this section , the following definitions apply : & lt ; p & gt ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; `` ( 1 ) human embryo. -- the term `human embryo ' includes any organism , not protected as a human subject under 45 cfr 46 as of the date of the enactment of the respect for life pluripotent stem cell act of 2005 , that is derived by fertilization , parthenogenesis , cloning , or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells. & lt ; p & gt ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; `` ( 2 ) pluripotent stem cell. -- the term `pluripotent stem cell ' means a cell that can in principle be differentiated to produce all or almost all the cell types of the human body , and therefore has the same functional capacity as an embryonic stem cell , regardless of whether it has the same origin. & lt ; p & gt ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; `` ( b ) in general. -- with respect to producing stem cell lines for important biomedical research , the director of nih shall , through the appropriate national research institutes , provide for the conduct and support of basic and applied research in isolating , deriving and using pluripotent stem cells without creating or harming human embryos .  such research may include -- & lt ; p & gt ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; `` ( 1 ) research in animals to develop and test techniques for deriving cells from embryos without doing harm to those embryos ; & lt ; p & gt ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; `` ( 2 ) research to develop and test techniques for producing human pluripotent stem cells without creating or making use of embryos ; and & lt ; p & gt ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; `` ( 3 ) research to isolate , develop and test pluripotent stem cells from postnatal tissues , umbilical cord blood , and placenta. & lt ; p & gt ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; `` ( c ) prohibitions regarding harm to human embryos. -- research under subsection ( b ) may not include any research that -- & lt ; p & gt ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; `` ( 1 ) involves the use of human embryos ; or & lt ; p & gt ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; `` ( 2 ) involves the use of stem cells not otherwise eligible for funding by the national institutes of health ; or & lt ; p & gt ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; `` ( 3 ) involves the use of any stem cell to create or to attempt to create a human embryo , or & lt ; p & gt ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; `` ( 4 ) poses a significant risk of creating a human embryo by any means .  `` ( d ) authorization of appropriations. -- for the purpose of carrying out this section , there are authorized to be appropriated $ 15 , 000 , 000 in fiscal year 2006 , and such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2007 through 2010 .  such authorization is in addition to other authorizations of appropriations that are available for such purpose. '' . & lt ; p & gt ; madam speaker , the gentleman from georgia ( mr. gingrey )  has joined us .  i would like to yield to him before i go through the history of how we got to this bill and the people we talked to and exactly what is in the bill .  i thank the gentleman for joining us .  
R	madam speaker , reclaiming my time , i want to thank my colleague very much for his comments .  he is very generous .  i did not come to the congress , and that was 13 years ago , until i was 66 years old ; and i am very fortunate to have some prior life experiences that have permitted me to understand some opportunities here in the congress that might not have been so obvious to others who did not have this background .  after the president came down with his executive order , i continued to meet with the folks at nih , and i subsequently learned , by the way , i need to come back to that problem with karl rove and his discussion with the nih people , and this was a typical example of failed communications .  and so often we think that we are carrying on a dialogue and we are really carrying on simultaneous monologues .  however it happened , what the nih people were telling karl rove was that they were not sure that they could make a stem cell line from an embryo that early .  that is true .  that is why in our bill we advocate animal model research rather than beginning with humans .  but there is no reason we should not be able to do that .  now , as a matter of fact , a russian scientist working in this country , verlinsky , says he has , in fact , done that .  i have met a number of times with people from nih .  on july 20 of last year , for instance , we had an extended meeting in my office with representatives from nih , with representatives from health and human services , and with representatives from the white house .  and then , madam speaker , a very interesting thing happened while we were having this series of meetings with the nih and hhs and the white house and with the outside groups .  there appeared in the literature a paper , a very interesting paper , on preimplantation genetic diagnosis .  and what these medical people were doing , and this was in england , the first paper came from a clinic in england , what they were doing was going into the eight-cell stage and taking a cell or two out to do a preimplantation genetic diagnosis to see if the baby would have a genetic defect .  and if there was no genetic defect , they implanted the remaining seven cells , sometimes six cells .  and more than 600 times that went on to produce a perfectly normal baby .  that is now being done in this country just outside washington , in virginia .  a few weeks ago i spent probably a half hour or more on the phone with two of the medical scientists there who were involved in this research .  there is one potential ethical problem here , although the president 's council on bioethics thinks it is not a problem .  i would like to avoid , madam speaker , even the possibility of a problem .  and that problem is that the cell that we take from that embryo might , under the right circumstances , become an embryo itself .  the members of the president 's , and i have the white paper here i am going to refer to in just a moment , council on bioethics think that that is not feasible .  but , madam speaker , if we were to wait just a little later to take the cell to the inner cell mass , and i probably ought to put that chart of the uterus back up here so that i can point to what i am referring to here , in the laboratory they are going at the eight-cell stage and taking a cell or two out and doing a preimplantation genetic diagnosis .  if there is no genetic defect , they implant the remaining cells , and more than 1 , 000 times worldwide now , they have had a normal baby born .  the argument is that that cell they take out under the right circumstances is pluripotent , totipotent at that stage probably , and could produce another embryo .  to avoid that , if we just wait until the inner cell mass stage , which is the stage from which the embryonic stem cell lines are now developed when they destroy the embryo , there is no reason they can not go into this inner cell mass and through the trophoblast and they could take out several cells then because there are a lot of cells there .  by that time we already have some differentiation .  the cells in the inner cell mass are going to produce the baby .  the three germ layers that we talked about at the very beginning and the cells in the trophoblast are going to produce the decidua .  the decidua is the amnion and chorion , the tissues that support the baby , and we can see those starting to develop down here in day 8 and 9 when the embryo has attached itself to the wall of the uterus and the uterus grows and produces some tissues and there is a growth of this decidua here and we have the placenta , these big opposing vascular bags through which food and oxygen and co 2 and hormones and so forth are exchanged between the baby and the mother .  by the way , madam speaker , this is a pretty hazardous journey ; and we do not know the exact percentage , but maybe less than half of all of the ova here that get fertilized actually implant in the uterus .  as a matter of fact , one of the techniques for preventing conception is an iud .  they simply place a foreign object here in the uterus , and the uterus reacts to the presence of that foreign by not permitting the fertilized egg , the embryo , to implant there .  
R	madam speaker , reclaiming my time , i thank the gentleman very much for that contribution .  while we are carrying on these discussions with the white house and nih and hhs and with the outside groups , the president 's council on bioethics submits a white paper ; and in this white paper they go over four potential techniques that might produce pluripotent stem cells , which is another way of saying the equivalent of embryonic stem cells , without destroying or harming an embryo .  and what our bill does , madam speaker , is simply ask nih to please explore these potentials , first of all , in animal models ; and the bill gives them $ 15 million to begin this exploration .  i just wanted to spend just a moment talking about the four things that are in here because it may be of interest to a number of people .  the first is called pluripotent stem cells derived from organismically dead embryos .  well , this says that all these embryos i had mentioned earlier , all these embryos will not live .  and when an embryo is moribund , it is not going to divide anymore , then it is the equivalent of a brain dead person and there should be no problem taking cells from it like they would take organs from a brain dead person .  one might have a little question about the vitality of the cell they take from that embryo , but at least ethically if the embryo is dead or moribund , the equivalent of a brain dead person , they could take an embryo from it .  the second procedure , and the next chart shows a little clip from that , is one in which , down at the bottom here , it says `` a similar idea was proposed by representative roscoe bartlett. '' this was my recommendation in 2001 .  and this simply says they go into an early embryo , as i have mentioned , and take out a cell without hurting the embryo because mother nature or god , whoever people think makes identical twins , has been doing this for a very long time .  our bill simply asks the nih to do this in animal models to make sure that it is safe and efficacious .  a third technique is called pluripotent stem cells derived from biological artifacts .  this is an interesting one .  and what the proposal there is that they take an ovum and they take the nucleus out of the ovum and then they take an altered nucleus out of a somatic cell .  you alter the nucleus so that you have turned off some of the genes , and then you put that nucleus inside the egg .  now , why would you do that ?  because in the cytoplasm of the egg outside the nucleus of the egg , there are some factors which turn on and turn off genes and kind of control what happens inside the nucleus .  so now they have turned off some genes so this thing will divide ; that will never be a baby because they have kind of messed up the genetics .  well , if they can never be a baby , then maybe ethically you can take stem cells from it , and this is something that really needs to be explored .  these several techniques are all open for investigation .  oh , the fourth one of these is pluripotent stem cells by differentiation .  i mentioned the differentiation of cells .  that is when they decide that they are going to be just this or that , and all the cells they produce after that are just that kind of cell .  now , sometimes , you can take a cell and kind of put it in an environment where you have confused it , you have shocked it , you have done something to it , so it forgets what it was supposed to be , and it starts making cells , tissues that it would not ordinarily make in that stage of differentiation .  so what our bill does is to permit the research , particularly on two of these , the nucleus transfer and the taking of cells from the early blastomere .  our bill has received input from the white house , from the conference of catholic bishops , from right the life communities , so there is a broad spectrum of individuals and organizations out there that are supportive of what we are doing .  in the few moments left , madam speaker , i would like to note that there have been a plethora of articles very recently about this , and i would like to submit these for the record .  they are not very long , and i will insert them into the record .  here is national geographic , july 2005 .  stem cells , a big article , very good article on stem cells there .  here is a letter of may of this year from dr .  battey who is the chief spokesman for stem cell research at the national institutes of health who is quite supportive of our bill and what we propose to do , and here is a very interesting op-ed piece written by richard doerflinger who represents the catholic bishops .  by the way , i need to give credit where credit is due .  it was richard doerflinger who made the great suggestion that the first thing you do with that cell you take from the early embryo is to create a repair kit so that all during the life of that person , they will have frozen the ability to produce a new liver if they need it , islets of langerhans , spinal cord cells , whatever they need .  there is a great op-ed piece by richard doerflinger who explains his support for our bill .  he says , representative tuesday , july 12 , associated press , lawmakers wary of backup stem cell bill .  for those who would like to see just the castle-degette bill passed , our bill , and the president , by the way , says that if that other bill gets to his desk , he will veto it .  for those of us who believe that we really ought to research stem cells , we really look forward to a bill which the president can support .  stem cell legislation is at risk , july 9 , washington post .  gop probes nondestructive cell research , washington ap , june 29 .  and then just today , in congressional quarterly , congress considers numerous stem cell bills .  it mentions our bill in the house , and that bill frist is expected to draft a related bill in the senate .  i am very pleased , madam speaker , that my background has permitted me to understand some of the potential here , my experience with my grandmother , with these little diabetic kids , my profound pro-life commitment .  i am very pleased that i was able to propose a potential solution that i think meets the morals and the demands of both sides of this issue .  madam speaker , i ask unanimous consent to insert the following articles : and human services , bethesda , maryland , may 23 , 2005 .  dear mr .  bartlett : i am pleased that drs .  allen spiegel and story landis were able to meet with you , mr. otis and mr. aitken during your visit to the national institutes of health ( nih ) last month to discuss ways to derive human embryonic stem cells ( hescs ) .  drs .  spiegel and landis were serving as acting co-chairs of the nih stem cell task force during my leave of absence from this position .  earlier this month , i returned to chair the task force .  nih shares your enthusiasm on the therapeutic potentials of hesc research and thank you for your continued support of this field .  drs .  spiegel and landis briefed me about your april 26th meeting .  i am also aware that you have had previous meetings with nih officials , including myself , lana skirboll and richard tasca , on this topic .  you propose the possibility of using a cell ( or two ) removed from the 8-cell stage human embryo undergoing preimplantation genetic diagnosis ( pgd ) to : ( 1 ) create a `` personal repair kit '' made up of cells removed from the embryo and stored for future use ; and ( 2 ) for deriving human embryonic stem cell lines .  you suggested that creating hesc lines in this manner would avoid ethical questions surrounding the fate of a human embryo .  live births resulting from embryos which undergo pgd and are subsequently implanted seem to suggest that this procedure does not harm the embryo , however , there are some reports that a percentage of embryos do not survive this procedure .  in addition , long-term studies would be needed to determine whether this procedure produces subtle or later-developing injury to children nih is not aware of any published scientific data that has confirmed the establishment of hesc lines from a single cell removed from an 8-cell stage embryo .  we are aware of the published research of dr .  yury verlinsky in the reproductive genetics institute in chicago that showed that a hesc line can be derived by culturing a human morula-staged embryo ( reproductive biomedicine online , 2004 vo .  9 , no .  6 , 623-629 , verlinsky , strelchenko , et al ) .  it is also worth noting , however , that in these experiments , the entire morula was plated and used to derive the hesc lines .  the human morula is generally composed of 10-30 cells and is the stage that immediately precedes the formation of the blastocyst .  at the april 26th meeting , nih agreed that such experiments might be pursued in animals , including non-human primates .  that is , animal experiments could be conducted to determine whether it is possible to derive hescs from a single cell of the 8-cell or morula stage embryo .  to date , to the best of our knowledge no such derivations have been successful .  nih also does not know whether these experiments have been tried and failed in animals and/or humans and , therefore , have not been reported in the literature .  nih agreed to explore whether there have been any attempts to use single cells from the 8-cell or morula stage of an animal embryo to start embryonic stem cell lines by consulting with scientists that are currently conducting embryo research .  from these discussions , these scientists believe it is worth attempting experiments using a single cell from an early stage embryo or cells from a morula of a non-human primate to establish an embryonic stem cell line .  of note , a recent 2003 paper from canada shows that when single human blastomeres are cultured from early cleavage stage embryos , before the morula stage , that there is an increased incidence of chromosomal abnormalities .  even with hescs derived from the inner cell mass of the human blastocyst , the odds of starting a hesc line from a single cell are long , perhaps one in 20 tries .  thus , the odds of being able to start with a single cell from an 8-celled or morula staged embryo are equally challenging .  this would make it difficult to accomplish the goal of establishing `` repair kits '' and hesc lines from any single pgd embryo .  ( fertil steril , 2003 june , 79 ( 6 ) : 1304-11 , bielanska , et al ) .  it is possible , however , that improvements in technologies for deriving and culturing hescs may improve these odds .  nih concludes that the possibility of establishing a stem cell line from an 8-cell or morula stage embryo can only be determined with additional research .  nih would welcome receiving an investigator-initiated grant application on this topic using animal embryos .  the human embryo research ban would preclude the use of funds appropriated under the labor/hhs appropriations act for pursuing this research with human embryos .  as with all grant applications , the proposal must be deemed meritorious for funding by peer review and then will be awarded research funds if sufficient funds are available .  it also bears keeping in mind that it may take years to determine the answer .  at the april 26th meeting , you had mentioned that twins can develop when the inner cell mass splits in the blastocyst and forms two embryos enclosed in a common trophoblast .  you asked if cells from the inner cell mass could be safely removed without harming the embryo .  in animal studies , it has been shown that the blastocyst can be pierced to remove cells of the inner cell mass and the embryo appears to retain its original form but it is not known whether the embryo will result in the birth of a healthy baby .  since this experiment in human embryos at either the morula or the blastocyst stage would require evaluations of not only normal birth but also unknown long term risks to the person even into adulthood , it would have to be considered a very high risk and ethically questionable endeavor .  because of the risk of harm , this research would also be ineligible for federal funding .  you had also asked nih about the latest stage in development that an embryo can be artificially implanted into the womb .  we know that infertility clinics transfer embryos at the blastocyst stage ( approximately day 5 in human embryo development ) as well as at earlier stages .  finally , i am providing an additional resource that was discussed at the april meeting .  i have enclosed a copy of a recently released white paper developed by the president 's council on bioethics ( pcb ) on alternative sources of human pluripotent stem cells .  in this white paper , the pcb raised many ethical , scientific and practical concerns about alternate sources for deriving human pluripotent stem cells without harming the embryo .  your proposal is specifically discussed in this report .  i hope this information is helpful .  sincerely , & lt ; center & gt ; james f. battey , jr. , m.d. , ph.d. , & lt ; /center & gt ; & lt ; center & gt ; & lt ; em & gt ; chairman , nih stem cell task force and director , national institute on deafness and other communication disorders. & lt ; /em & gt ; gop probes non-destructive cell research washington ( ap ) . -- embryonic stem cell research that does n't destroy budding human life ?  right now , it 's possible only in theory , or on animals .  but those alternatives to the most promising stem cell science are enough to win the attention of anti-abortion republicans and president bush .  senate majority leader bill frist and other gop lawmakers are considering legislation drawn from a report in may by bush 's council on bioethics , which studied research that might carry medical promise but is in its infancy .  in some cases , the research is ethically objectionable , the panel wrote .  nonetheless , it said four types of studies `` deserve the nation 's careful and serious consideration. '' bush was receptive to funding the theoretical approaches rather than medically more promising research that destroys embryo , three lawmakers who have discussed the subject with him told the associated press .  `` there was a sense around the table that if we could discover a way to extract the stem cells without destroying the embryo , that that was something that nearly everyone could support , '' said representative david dreier , r-calif. , who discussed the option with bush at a white house meeting earlier this month .  `` the president was very enthusiastic about that .  he clearly supported it. '' another possible compromise , being drafted by representative roscoe bartlett , r-md. , a biological engineer , would send $ 15 million to the national institutes of health for stem cell research on animal embryos , according to a draft obtained by the ap .  `` congressman bartlett sought and received technical assistance from the administration to ensure that the bill that he is working on would be consistent with the president 's principles and goals , '' said lisa wright , bartlett 's spokeswoman .  bush has repeatedly said he would veto a bill the house passed last month backing standard embryonic stem cell research and any similar version by the senate , which is expected to turn to the issue in july .  `` we 'll probably consider a number of bills , '' frist told the ap .  senator rick santorum , r-pa. , who also attended the meeting with bush , said he may try to amend one of congress ' must-pass spending bills to provide federal money for specific studies outlined in the bioethics council 's report .  senator gordon smith , r-ore. , said that in his own talk with bush , he found the president `` looking for a way to stay within his ethical boundaries. '' almost two-thirds of americans say they support embryonic stem cell research and a majority of people say they would like to see fewer restrictions on taxpayer funding for those studies , according to recent polling .  the proposal may free senators from a tight spot between bush 's veto threat and public pressure for embryonic stem cell research , which has shown promise in the search for cures for parkinson 's , alzheimer 's and other diseases .  but it also would spend millions of dollars on studies whose value is speculative .  some of the techniques have not even been attempted in animals .  frist , who is a heart and lung transplant surgeon , told the ap at least three of the processes on the bioethics council 's list met his criteria for funding embryonic stem cell research .  `` all of the research you have there stops short of the creation of an embryo for experimental purposes , and short of destruction of an embryo for experimental purposes , '' he said .  `` that is the direction i think we should explore. '' those are the same boundaries set out by bush , who in a 2001 executive order prohibited federal funding of any research using human embryonic stem cells harvested after aug .  9 of that year .  senator tom harkin , d-iowa , a chief supporter of traditional embryonic stem cell research , shrugged at the notion of an alternative .  `` most of these ideas are nothing but theories .  they have n't been tested , '' he said wednesday .  the processes studied by the council could theoretically develop embryonic stem cell lines -- which can develop into any cell in the body -- without harming the embryo .  they would : -- derive stem cells from technically dead embryos .  when embryos frozen during in-vitro fertilization are thawed , some never resume dividing and thus are discarded .  no one knows whether scientists could find healthy stem cells inside an embryo already so damaged that it would n't grow , or coax them to live when transferred out of that embryo .  -- extract stem cells from two-day-old embryos using a non-lethal biopsy technique .  until now , most stem cells have been culled from embryos that contain 100 or so cells .  however , in vitro fertilization clinics frequently extract one cell , called a blastomere , from a younger , eight-celled embryo to perform genetic testing -- to tell , for instance , whether some embryos will have a disease like cystic fibrosis .  this testing does n't destroy the embryo , so women can choose to have only healthy ones implanted .  according to one report , more than 1 , 000 healthy children have been born after blastomere testing .  the questions are whether enough stem cells could be culled from a single blastomere to be worthwhile , and which embryos would be used .  & lt ; p & gt ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; & amp ; nbsp ; -- develop stem cells derived from specially engineered tissue .  one such technique is called `` altered nuclear transfer , '' essentially cloning in a way that grows only tissue , not an actual embryo .  this process has n't been attempted yet .  -- turning back the clock on older cells so they again become `` pluripotent , '' the scientific term for the ability to turn into any tissue .  scientists already are trying to do this to some degree through `` adult stem cell '' research , such as turning blood-making cells into cells that produce liver or muscle tissues .  it 's not clear whether older cells can be returned to an embryonic state. & lt ; center & gt ; & lt ; pre & gt ; -- & lt ; /pre & gt ; & lt ; /center & gt ; lawmakers wary of backup stem cell bill washington ( ap ) . -- president bush and his conservative senate allies are trying to peel votes from a stem cell bill by offering alternative legislation that would instead fund promising but unproven studies , several senators said tuesday .  `` i 'm all for these alternative sources , ( but ) not as a substitute , not as some way of stopping what we 're about to do , '' said tom harkin , d-iowa , senate sponsor of a bill already passed by the house that would end bush 's 2001 ban on federal funding for new human embryonic stem cell studies .  several scientists testifying tuesday before the labor , health and human services appropriations subcommittee agreed that harkin 's bill , cosponsored by panel chairman arlen specter , r-pa. , should be passed before even their own research receives federal funding .  `` it 's a no-brainer , '' said robert lanza , one of the scientists working on a process by which embryonic stem cells are derived without destroying life .  `` i do not think we should keep the scientific community or the patient community waiting. '' another scientist at the table , william b. hurlbut of stanford university , said vital science that could someday lead to cures of diseases like alzheimer 's and parkinson 's must have the engine of public consensus behind it .  a member of the president 's council on bioethics , hurlbut noted that large sections of the public believe human embryonic stem cell research is immoral because it destroys the embryo , which many , including bush and some congressional conservatives , consider a budding human life .  government , he said , should set `` a coherent moral platform to guide our science. '' but staring down a self-imposed aug .  1 deadline for voting on the legislation , senate negotiators were no closer tuesday to agreeing on a list of bills to debate on the senate floor .  still swirling were talks over a six-bill package of legislation , including the harkin-specter measure , and others that would fund alternative methods or ban certain stem cell and cloning techniques altogether .  specter , a cancer patient also helming the fight over supreme court nominations , said he was growing impatient with the delay and made clear that his bill is the first priority .  `` if we can pass the house bill , specter-harkin , that is the most important bill to be enacted , '' specter said as he gaveled open the labor , health and human services subcommittee hearing .  testifying were james battey , chairman of the national institutes of health stem cell task force , and lanza , who has done research into deriving stem cells from a single animal cell without destroying the embryo .  the house approved the harkin-specter bill , 238-194 , on may 24 .  that is far less than the two-thirds support that would be needed to override a veto bush has threatened , and it was unclear that either house of congress had the two-thirds vote necessary to override a veto .  the bill numbers are h.r. 810 and s. 471 .  stem cells without embryos ?  the battle lines of the stem cell debate have become familiar .  in one corner we have embryonic stem cells , obtained by destroying one-week-old human embryos .  the cells are `` pluripotent , '' capable of producing all the 210 cell types in the human body .  in the other corner are stem cells obtained harmlessly from adult tissues , umbilical cord blood and placentas .  these pose no ethical problem , but supposedly are more limited .  herein lies the alleged tension between science and ethics .  we can cure devastating diseases , or respect embryonic human life , but not both .  that dichotomy has always been misleading .  embryonic stem cells are far from curing any disease , while adult and umbilical cord blood stem cells have helped many thousands of patients .  yet scientists still claim that cells obtained by destroying early human life have special advantages that can not be duplicated .  this claim is about to be tested .  just before congress 's july 4 recess , representative roscoe bartlett ( r-md ) introduced the `` respect for life pluripotent stem cell act. '' it instructs the national institutes of health to fund research in obtaining `` pluripotent '' stem cells without creating or harming human embryos .  mr. bartlett  knows whereof he speaks .  he holds a ph.d .  in physiology , and bases his proposal on a report by the president 's council on bioethics and the latest research findings .  his bill outlines two ways to get pluripotent stem cells without harming embryos .  one is to remove the cells from embryos without harming or destroying them .  the bill would fund such efforts in animal embryos , to see if this can be safe enough to consider doing in humans .  the other approach would produce embryo-like stem cells without creating embryos at all .  a dozen studies now indicate that umbilical cord blood and adult tissues contain stem cells that may be as versatile as embryonic stem cells .  in addition , cutting-edge research suggests that adult cells can be `` reprogrammed '' in several ways into pluripotent stem cells .  one avenue is dubbed `` ant-oar '' -- altered nuclear transfer by oocyte assisted reprogramming .  `` nuclear transfer '' is the cloning method that made dolly the sheep .  the nucleus of a body cell is combined with an egg deprived of its own nucleus .  signals in the egg activate a much wider range of genes in that nucleus , so it no longer directs one specialized type of cell but begins the development of a whole new organism .  what if the egg and the body cell were altered in advance so that , from the beginning , the result is not a one-celled embryo , but a pluripotent stem cell like those now obtained by destroying embryos ?  there are good scientific reasons to believe this can be done .  and many catholic scientists and ethicists have declared that it can and should be explored ( see www.eppc.org/news/newsid.2375/news x & lt ; center & gt ; detail .  asp ) .  & lt ; /center & gt ; it would be good news indeed if modern science ends up resolving some moral dilemmas that an irresponsible use of science has created .  representative bartlett and his colleagues are helping to demonstrate what has always been true : science and ethics were meant to be allies , not enemies .  stem cell legislation is at risk promising but still unproven new approaches to creating human embryonic stem cells have suddenly jeopardized what once appeared to be certain senate passage of a bill to loosen president bush 's four-year-old restrictions on human embryo research .  the techniques are enticing to many conservative activists and scientists because they could yield medically valuable human embryonic stem cells without the creation or destruction embryos .  embryonic stem cells are coveted because they have the capacity to become virtually every kind of body tissue and perhaps repair ailing organs , but they are controversial because days-old human embryos must be destroyed to retrieve them .  `` the new science that may involve embryo research but not require destruction of an embryo is tremendously exciting , '' senate majority leader bill frist ( r-tenn. ) said recently .  `` it would get you outside of the boundaries of the ethical constraints. '' but because the value of these new scientific methods remains speculative , they have complicated the political calculus in the highly partisan senate , which could take up the issue as early as next week .  proponents of embryonic stem cell research are divided over how strongly to promote the new work because of fears it will undermine efforts to expand federal funding of conventional embryo research , which they say has better odds of success .  but some opponents of embryo research are uncomfortable with the emerging alternatives , too .  that is because they involve cells that closely resemble human embryos , raising novel questions about what , exactly , is a human life .  the science poses a strategic dilemma for both groups : should they support newly circulating legislation that would fund the new methods or try to defeat what some decry as a trojan horse ?  `` this is something that could be very valuable if it works , no doubt about it , '' stanford university stem cell researcher irving weissman said of the new work .  `` but do n't tell me we should stop doing [ embryo ] research until we find out , because people 's lives are at stake. '' in may , the house easily passed bipartisan legislation allowing federally funded scientists to study stem cells derived from some of the thousands of human embryos destined for disposal at fertility clinics -- a significant expansion of the bush policy .  until this week , senators arlen specter ( r-pa. ) and orrin g. hatch ( r-utah ) expressed confidence that they had more than enough votes to pass the same bill in the senate , despite threats of a presidential veto .  last week , however , opponents began circulating a competing bill that shifts attention toward the more distant but ethically more palatable new procedures .  the house version , sponsored by representative roscoe g. bartlett ( r-md. ) , was written with assistance from the white house , a bartlett spokeswoman said .  the administration is eager for bush to sign legislation supportive of at least some types of stem cell research , according to several lobbyists close to the congressional negotiations .  signing such a bill could take some of the sting out of a veto that is sure to infuriate patient groups and could rile a majority of americans , who tell pollsters they back expanded funding of embryonic stem cell research .  during the fourth of july recess , many senate republicans struggled with the question of whether the new legislation should be brought to the floor as a substitute for the house-passed bill or as a competing bill -- and if both were to come up , then how to vote on each .  at least a handful of senators have hinted in recent days that they may transfer their vote to the new bill , hill sources said -- among them hatch , johnny isakson ( r-ga. ) and kay bailey hutchison ( r-tex. ) .  the issue will get its first formal airings at a senate subcommittee hearing tuesday and at a hill media event on wednesday at which pro-research celebrities michael j. fox and dana reeve , widow of `` superman '' star christopher reeve , will call for an immediate loosening of bush 's policy .  some supporters of the research say they would be happy if both bills passed .  but for some of the more ardent advocates of an immediate expansion of the bush policy , bartlett 's alternative legislation is a diversion .  `` do n't stop embryonic stem cell research now , hoping there will be some other way to do it in the future , '' senator tom harkin ( d-iowa ) said in an interview .  `` these alternative methods of deriving stem cells -- we do n't know whether they 'll work .  the one thing we do know how to do is derive embryonic stem cells. '' the new techniques fall into two major categories .  in one , a single cell is removed from a days-old embryo created for fertility purposes and coaxed to become a self-replicating colony of stem cells , leaving the remainder of the embryo to develop normally .  the technique shows great promise , according to researchers at advanced cell technology inc .  in worcester , mass. , who pioneered it .  but critics have raised the possibility that individual cells removed from such young embryos may have the biological potential to become embryos themselves , which would mean their destruction or cultivation as colonies could still raise ethical issues .  bush 's council on bioethics also expressed concerns recently that such a technique may subtly harm an embryo , even if it does not kill it .  `` you may get a human being , but you may not get the same human being , '' said william b. hurlbut , a stanford professor and a council member .  `` you might find that late in life , there are some strange differences between those people and others. '' hurlbut is the leading proponent of a different approach , which he calls altered nuclear transfer , or ant .  it involves the creation of an embryo -- or what hurlbut says is something akin to an embryo -- that lacks a gene necessary for the development of a placenta .  because a placenta is required for an embryo to implant in a woman 's womb , the altered embryo would be genetically incapable of becoming a fetus or a baby .  for many , that would obviate ethical concerns about destroying it to get its stem cells .  researchers have tried the technique in mice with some success , but its usefulness as a source of human stem cells remains hypothetical .  some , such as weissman , think the difficulties inherent in making such a system work are being overlooked by hurlbut , who is a physician but not a research scientist .  `` i 've been telling bill , `why do n't you go work in a lab this summer ?  why not see how easy or hard it really is ?  ' `` said weissman .  he said he has no problem with the funding of such research as long as it does not interfere with increased funding for existing programs of embryo research .  practical or not , ant has gained a quickly widening circle of support .  the roman catholic archbishop of san francisco , william j. levada , has written a letter to bush assuring the president of his support .  but other conservative leaders have mixed views on whether it makes sense to pursue the new alternative therapies or to focus single-mindedly on defeating any expansion of the current policy .  `` i have significant concerns about all the alternatives , '' said david prentice , senior fellow for life sciences at the family research council , which he said does not yet have a formal position on the science .  jessica echard , executive director of the eagle forum , the public policy organization founded by phyllis schlafly , said her group opposes `` middle ground '' legislation that pursues alternative methods for producing embryonic stem cells .  `` most scientists will say it 's never enough , '' she said .  `` we will be giving ground to more and more unethical research . '' 
R	mr. speaker , i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill ( h.r. 2520 ) to provide for the collection and maintenance of human cord blood stem cells for the treatment of patients and research , and to amend the public health service act to authorize the c.w .  bill young cell transplantation program .  
R	mr. speaker , i ask unanimous consent that all members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. speaker , i rise in strong support of h.r. 2520 , the stem cell therapeutic and research act of 2005 , legislation i have cosponsored along with the honorable gentleman from new jersey ( mr. smith )  , who is in the chamber .  this would expand the number of stem cell options available to americans suffering from life-threatening diseases .  every year , nearly two-thirds of the approximately 200 , 000 patients in need of a bone marrow transplant will not find a marrow donor match within their families .  these patients must rely on the help of strangers to donate bone marrow for a transplant .  to assist these patients , congress established the national bone marrow registry to quickly match donors to patients .  through this program , congress made a significant investment to connect patients with a rich source of stem cells that offer immediate clinical benefits .  with scientific advances , congress must now make changes to reflect new therapeutic options .  cord blood units have been shown to be a suitable alternative to adult bone marrow for the treatment of many diseases , including sickle cell anemia .  this is an especially important advancement for those americans who have desperately searched for a marrow donor but could not find a match with even the help of the national bone marrow registry .  as another rich source of stem cells , a cord blood transplant is another chance at life for many of these patients .  the bill before us today builds on the critical investments we have made over the past 2 decades with the national bone marrow registry and retools this design into a new , more comprehensive stem cell transplantation program , which will include not only bone marrow but also cord blood units .  through a competitive contracting process , this new program will allow transplant doctors and patients to access information about cord blood units and bone marrow donors , at the same time , and i want to emphasize at the same time , through a single point of access .  this new program does not create a preference for either cord blood or bone marrow .  instead , it will provide comprehensive information about both sources of stem cells to doctors and patients and allow them to make the most clinically appropriate choice .  i want to recognize the gentleman from florida ( mr. young )  at this time .  it was the gentleman from florida 's ( mr. young )  drive , when he was chairman of the committee on appropriations , and his steadfast support for the idea of a national registry for bone marrow that led to the program 's creation .  the gentleman from florida 's ( mr. young )  lifesaving work is evident again today in the program 's new design and goals .  i am pleased that congress is recognizing his dedication by naming this new program the c.w .  bill young cell transplantation program .  i do not see the gentleman from florida ( mr. young )  in the chamber , but at the appropriate time when he does arrive , i hope that the body will give him a standing ovation for his work in this area .  the capacity to search for cord blood units through a national network of cord blood banks will help facilitate cord blood transplants .  we also need to expand the inventory of cord blood units so that more transplants can occur .  the bill before us today authorizes a new grant program to provide subsidies to cord blood stem cell banks to expand the inventory of high-quality cord blood units that will be included in the new , expanded cell transplantation program .  i think that number is 150 , 000 units , which is a significant increase .  in addition to expanding the number of cord blood units available for clinical use to save lives today , the bill would also expand the number of cord blood units available for research .  research on adult stem cells holds the potential to develop new cures for many diseases , as well as to expand our knowledge of how human beings develop and the body works .  i would also like to make a personal aside here .  my wife and i are expecting a child in september , and we are working with the cord blood people as we speak so that my son , and it is going to be a little boy and we are going to name him jack ryan , that we are going to save his cord blood so that some day in the future , if he needs it , it will be available .  so in this case i can honestly say , in addition to sponsoring the bill , i am beginning to practice what i am preaching today .  it is not enough to connect patients with lifesaving donors .  we also need to better understand how these patients fair when they receive the transplants .  the bill would authorize research on the clinical outcomes of patients who are recipients of a stem cell therapeutic product , including bone marrow , cord blood , and other such products , from a biologically unrelated donor .  it is my hope that this additional research will trigger new scientific breakthroughs to enhance and advance human life .  this is an important bill that merited many hours of negotiation , demanded the willingness of all those involved to put the interest of their patients first .  i would like to thank the bill 's primary sponsor , the honorable gentleman from new jersey ( mr. smith )  .  i would also like to thank the gentleman from florida ( mr. young )  ; the house leadership , including the honorable gentleman from texas ( mr. delay )  ; congressional black caucus ; the gentleman from michigan ( mr. dingell )  , the ranking democrat on the committee ; the gentleman from ohio ( mr. brown )  , the subcommittee ranking member who is here to speak on the bill ; and all of the staff who have labored on this bill .  particularly , i would like to thank cheryl jaeger , on my left , of my committee staff , for all of her efforts .  she has been tireless in the last several months working on this bill .  in the last few weeks , she has been able to forge a compromise that ultimately was acceptable to all the advocates of both bone marrow and cord blood .  we will continue to improve the legislation that moves forward so that pregnant women are informed of all of their options with respect to cord blood donation and the programmatic activities of the cell transplantation program are clarified .  mr. speaker , at the appropriate time , i would urge all of my colleagues to support this bill .  it is good legislation , well thought out , and deserving of majority support .  the stem cell therapeutic and research act of 2005 establishes a foundation for improving access to lifesaving cellular therapy transplants the national marrow donor program ( nmdp ) is pleased that the sponsors of the stem cell therapeutic and research act of 2005 have taken a positive step forward toward expanding the long-standing congressional commitment to cellular transplant therapies by introducing legislation to continue federal support for bone marrow , peripheral blood , and umbilical cord blood transplantation and research .  through the legislation introduced today , they acknowledge the important role congress has played and must continue to play in ensuring that the more than 14 , 000 americans in need of these types of transplants have access to them .  the bill calls for federal dollars to increase the number of umbilical cord blood units available for transplant and research .  currently , there are 42 , 000 units available through the existing national bone marrow donor registry ( national registry ) , which also lists more than 9 million adult donors worldwide .  with additional umbilical cord blood units added to this registry , more americans who would otherwise not be able to locate a suitably matched adult donor will be able to find hope through a cord blood transplant .  the nmdp estimates that with access to the existing adult donors and units , the addition of 150 , 000 cord blood units listed through the existing registry will provide a match for approximately 95 percent of americans .  by designating the existing national registry as the c.w .  bill young cell transplantation program , the sponsors have acknowledged representative young 's unwavering commitment to the national registry and its growth .  in 1986 , representative young 's vision of a single integrated national bone marrow donor registry became a reality .  since that time , the national registry has facilitated more than 21 , 000 unrelated transplants involving cord blood , bone marrow , and peripheral blood .  it now includes more than 5 million u.s. adult volunteer donors and has links to another 4 million worldwide .  as evidence supporting cord blood as a source of the same cells found in bone marrow and peripheral blood has grown , the national registry , operated by the nmdp , has expanded the expansion of the program will benefit patients most if they are able to access the new sources of cells easily and efficiently .  the nmdp supports the intent of the sponsors to provide patients and physicians with access to cord blood , bone marrow , and peripheral blood stem cells through a single point of access .  to ensure the continued expansion of cord blood transplants , it is important that patients and physicians can search for all of these sources through a single registry , compare each source of cells for transplant quickly and efficiently , and obtain the cells once the search process is finished .  one-stop-shopping to obtain information and logistical support is a critical component of the success of transplantation regardless of whether adult donors or cord blood units are used .  the bill although this bill is a step in the right direction , it is critically important that the program also have the authority to establish criteria and standards that provide transplant physicians with the assurances they need to be confident that when they compare various cord blood units and/or adult donors , they have the same type of information about each unit or donor .  in addition , the nmdp urges members to recognize that transplant patients may encounter other barriers to accessing cellular therapy transplants .  the need for assistance in addressing barriers to access should be extended to all recipients of transplants under this program , regardless of cell source .  physicians and patients must be able to receive all of the services necessary for a successful the nmdp applauds the sponsors for undertaking this important public health initiative .  through their leadership , thousands of americans who might otherwise die will have access to lifesaving bone marrow , peripheral blood stem cell , and cord blood transplants .  statement of administration policy -- may 24 , 2005 the administration strongly supports house passage of h.r. 2520 , which would facilitate the use of umbilical-cord-blood stem cells in biomedical research and in the treatment of disease .  cord-blood stem cells , collected from the placenta and umbilical cord after birth without doing harm to mother or child , have been used in the treatment of thousands of patients suffering from more than 60 different diseases , including leukemia , fanconi anemia , sickle cell disease , and thalassemia .  researchers also believe cord-blood stem cells may have the capacity to be differentiated into other cell types , making them useful in the exploration of ethical stem cell therapies for regenerative medicine .  h.r. 2520 would increase the publicly available inventory of cord-blood stem cells by enabling the department of health and human services ( hhs ) to contract with cord-blood banks to assist them in the collection and maintenance of 150 , 000 cord-blood stem cell units .  this would make matched cells available to treat more than 90 percent of patients in need .  the bill would also link all participating cord-blood banks to a search network operated under contract with hhs , allowing physicians to search for matches for their patients quickly and effectively in one place .  the bill also would reauthorize a similar program already in place for aiding the use of adult bone marrow in medical care .  there is now $ 19 million available to implement the cord blood cell bank the administration also applauds the bill 's effort to facilitate research into the potential of cord-blood stem cells to advance regenerative medicine in an ethical way .  some research indicates that cord blood cells may have the ability to be differentiated into other cell types , in ways similar to embryonic stem cells , and so present similar potential uses but without raising the ethical problems involved in the intentional destruction of human embryos .  the administration encourages efforts to seek ethical ways to pursue stem cell research , and believes that -- with the appropriate combination of responsible policies and innovative scientific techniques -- this field of research can advance without violating important ethical boundaries .  h.r. 2520 is an important step in that direction .  mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , i ask unanimous consent that debate on this motion be extended by 20 minutes , equally divided between myself and the gentleman from ohio ( mr. brown )  .  
R	mr. speaker , i have three willing speakers now and more on the way .  
R	mr. speaker , i have one speaker remaining , and i will close .  
R	mr. speaker , how much time remains ?  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself the balance of my time , and i want to thank the majority leader and the speaker for bringing these two bills to the floor today .  the first vote we will have is on the cord blood and bone marrow bill , h.r. 2520 .  this bill , by itself , is an extremely important advance for those of us that believe you can use medical research ethically to help find cures for existing disease and enhance human life both now and in the future .  i am , obviously , as one of the original sponsors of the bill , going to vote for it and encourage all the members on both sides of the aisle to vote for its .  it is a good piece of legislation and , by itself , is a major advancement in the state of the art that we have today .  the next debate that we will have is on the castle-degette bill which is another form of stem cell research , embryonic stem cell .  that issue is much more controversial , but on its own merit that bill itself deserves a serious debate .  and while it is not yet time to debate that bill , at that time i will announce that i will vote for that bill also .  so i hope we can do first things first .  let us pass in a strong bipartisan fashion the smith-barton-young adult cord blood bone marrow bill , and then go on to the next issue .  
R	mr. speaker , pursuant to the order of the house of monday , may 23 , 2005 , i call up the bill ( h.r. 810 ) to amend the public health service act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research , and ask for its immediate consideration .  
R	mr. speaker , i ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from texas ( mr. delay )  be given 45 minutes of the debate time on the pending bill .  
R	mr. speaker , i ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from delaware ( mr. castle )  be allowed to control 20 minutes of the remaining 45 minutes that i currently have control over .  
R	mr. speaker , i ask unanimous consent that all members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on the pending bill .  
R	mr. speaker , i have a prepared statement i am going to put into the record on this bill , h.r. 810 , but i am going to actually speak from the heart because i think that this is a very important issue .  most of the issues that come before this body , there is an automatic position on .  it may be the republican position , the democrat position , the texas position , or it could be the committee position .  and we come to the floor and we , almost by rote , say what is the particular position , and that is the way we vote .  but every now and then an issue comes up that is really an issue of conscience .  it is an issue that deserves to be thoughtfully considered , debated , and decided on its own merit .  now , there are many members today that believe this particular issue is an issue that they feel so strongly about , on either side , that this is an easy issue for them , it is an automatic issue .  they are going to be for it or against it for very valid reasons .  but there are some of us , and i am in that camp today , that believe it is not an easy issue .  i come to the floor as a 100 percent lifetime voting member on prolife issues , minus one vote , in over 21 years .  on all the votes that the prolife coalition at the state and federal levels have scored as scorable votes , my record until this year was 100 percent , and i voted the wrong way on one issue so far this year from the prolife position .  so that is not a bad record , 100 percent minus one .  and after this vote today , i am going to be 100 percent minus two .  why is that ?  well , part of it is personal and part of it deals with tragedies in my family in the past .  my father died of complications of diabetes at the age of 71 .  my brother , jon kevin barton , died of liver cancer at the age of 44 .  my first granddaughter , bryn barton , died in the womb 2 days before delivery with complications of the umbilical cord , which had become crimped , and she was actually born dead .  maybe the research we are debating today could not have helped any of those diseases or could not have helped my granddaughter , but maybe it could .  i am also going to vote for castle-degette because of the future , not just the past .  my wife terri and i are expecting a baby in september , jack kevin barton , named after her late father and my late brother , jon kevin barton .  he may come into this world with some disease .  hopefully not .  i have three children that are already alive , brad , alison , and kristin .  i have two stepchildren , lindsay and cullen .  i have three grandchildren that are living , blake , brent and bailey barton .  maybe they will live healthy , productive lives and they will never need some therapeutic breakthrough , but maybe they will .  maybe they will .  now , we just voted for an expansion of cord blood and bone marrow research , which is a very , very good deal , and it deals with adult stem cells .  and maybe the breakthrough is going to come in adult stem cells .  i hope it does .  i would love it .  but maybe , just maybe , it is going to come because of embryonic stem cells .  now , the president adopted a position in early 2001 that said the existing stem cell lines then in existence could be federally funded for research .  they thought there were about 78 lines .  it turned out that there were 22 they are using , there are 16 that are frozen , and there may be one or two more that might be used .  but in any event , none of those lines that are currently allowed to be used for research purposes at the federal level have been shown to have that breakthrough stem cell .  there are 200 adult cells in the body .  the hope of stem cell research , whether it is adult or embryonic , is that we will find that one perfect cell that can be replicated into any of the other cells .  it is assumed , and it is an assumption , not a fact , that the plasticity of the embryonic cell is better and that there is a greater likelihood , although the research has only been done for the last 7 or 8 years , that there is a likelihood there might be a greater potential .  and i want to emphasize might be .  so where i come down is , let us look at all the avenues .  we just voted for smith-barton-young .  let us also vote for castle-degette and look at all of our resources .  that is why i am going to vote `` yes. '' mr. speaker , i rise to manage the time of debate on h.r. 810 , legislation designed to expand the number of sources of embryonic stem cell lines that may be the subject of federally funded research .  the bill is straightforward , yet the policy concerns surrounding this bill are anything but black and white .  before i yield time to my colleagues , i want to clarify a few of the following facts .  what the sponsors of this bill are trying to do is create enough lines of embryonic stem cells to allow basic scientific research to move forward .  many scientists believe that once we can identify a perfect , undifferentiated stem call , it will lead to significant scientific breakthroughs and the discovery of cures for many diseases .  currently , there are approximately 22 lines of embryonic stem cells that are available for federally funded research .  this number is far below the estimated number of stem cell lines that were thought to exist in august of 2001 , when the president announced his stem cell policy .  when president bush announced that federal research dollars could be used for the first time on then existing stem cells , it was believed that there were at least 60 viable lines of stem cells that could be used for this research .  for a variety of reasons , not all of these potential lines are now available for research .  we will also eventually need additional embryonic stem cell lines to make further scientific advances .  in recent conversations with leading stem cell researchers , they indicated to me that all lines of embryonic stem cells eventually become exhausted .  in order to produce clinical therapies , it is likely that researchers will also need more embryonic stem cell lines , of different genetic variations , than are presently eligible to receive federal support .  in addition , the majority of the existing embryonic stem cell lines eligible for federal support use mouse feeder cells , which will make it nearly impossible for these embryonic stem cell lines to be adopted in clinical use .  for all of these reasons , researchers believe that the current number of embryonic stem cell lines will have to be increased .  it is difficult to take an ideologically pure position on this issue .  president bush recognized this on august 9 , 2001 .  on recognizing the profound potential benefits of embryonic stem cell research , president bush permitted for the first time federal taxpayer dollars to be spent on embryonic stem cell research .  for my entire career in congress , i have been a staunch defender of the culture of life and opposed all forms of abortion .  at the same time , i believe we have an obligation to improve existing lives and do what we can to make them better in the future .  today , on this difficult issue , members will need to vote their consciences .  my decision to support this bill was a difficult one , which i came to only after much personal struggle and reflection .  my decision was shaped , in part , by the painful experiences of my own family .  we lost my brother jon in 2000 , at the age of 44 , after a long struggle with liver cancer .  my father died after suffering from complications resulting from diabetes .  let me tell you for a moment about my brother , jon .  he was younger than me .  he and his wife , jennifer , had two children , jake and jace .  he was a state district judge in texas .  they told jon he had liver cancer when he was just 41 years old .  we tried everything and , in fact , his cancer went into remission .  the next year , it came back .  jon died in just three months short of his 44th birthday .  i offered to give him part of my liver , but the doctors said he was too far-gone and it would n't work .  that was five years ago .  jake is now 15 , and jace is 12 .  every time i see them and their mom , i think of jon and wonder what stem cell research could have done for our family .  i can not know the truth with absolute certainty , but my heart says that my brother and my father might be with me today if their doctors had access to treatments from stem cell research .  their lives were precious to me and to our family .  i come to my decision on this vote because i believe in life , and in the future .  if a vote today can save other families from losing brothers and fathers , my conscience will not permit any other decision .  i fully understand that some will say i am just wrong , or blinded by personal emotion .  many who disagree with me are my friends , and i completely respect their views and their advice .  they are good people , and good people with the same facts sometimes come to different conclusions .  now , a few others will say that death is simply a part of life .  no , it is not .  i do not believe that we can ever accept that proposition without setting out on an extraordinary and dangerous path .  life is to be cherished and extended , and death is to be fought and never accepted .  my father and my brother died because illnesses took them .  if i can do something to cure illness and thwart death for other families , i will because i must .  scientists believe that expanded embryonic stem cell research holds the potential to find cures for diseases like cancer or diabetes .  it is my hope that supporting this bill will mean that many other american families will never have to endure the suffering and loss that my family went through .  i believe that my obligation is to help advance science to make human life better now and in the future , in a manner that is consistent with judeo-christian ethics .  as we move forward with debate on this bill , my only request is that my colleagues try to respect one another and the deeply held beliefs on both sides of this very complex issue .  mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , i am prepared to recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania ( mr. pitts )  if the gentleman from texas ( mr. delay )  also wants to recognize him at this time .  
R	mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself the balance of my time .  mr. speaker , first of all , i want to thank the majority leader , the gentleman from texas ( mr. delay )  , for the tenor of the debate today and for granting extended time and making sure all points of view have been heard on this important issue .  although i am going to vote for castle/degette , i do not necessarily speak as an advocate for its passage as much as i want to speak about why i have decided to vote for it .  i respect members on both sides of this issue .  i made sure that members of the committee i chair , the committee on energy and commerce , regardless of their position , had an opportunity to speak and put their comments on the record .  i come at this as a 100 percent pro-life , lifetime , voting member of congress .  as i said earlier , this will be my second vote this year where i have not adopted the pro-life position .  so i am not quite 100 percent any more , but i would think that 99.8 percent over 21 years qualifies me as a pro-life congressman .  i have also voted numerous times for our defense bill , where we have voted hundreds of billions of dollars to defend our nation and put our young men and women at risk , some of them that might have to give up their lives .  i have voted for many bills for our law enforcement officials , where again they may have to give up their lives to protect the common good .  now , you might say , yes , but in those instances they were adults and they had free will and they voluntarily made a choice that they might have to sacrifice their lives .  well , i accept and support that an embryo is a life .  i agree with the gentleman from new jersey ( mr. ferguson )  that we were all embryos once .  i understand that .  and , obviously , at 7 days or 14 days , embryos do not have consciousness .  they do not have free will .  they do not have the neuro cells or brain cells to make a decision whether they want to voluntarily make a sacrifice .  i understand that .  but i would say this : if they did , out of the 400 , 000 that we think may be in existence , if you narrow that down to the 2.8 percent that the gentleman from texas ( mr. delay )  talked about that are probably not going to be used for reproductive purposes , if they did , would not some of them , knowing the stakes , volunteer ?  it only takes one , the right one , that magic silver bullet embryo that creates that magic stem cell that can be replicated into any of the 200 cell lines that make up the human body .  if i had that opportunity , might i not take advantage of it ?  somebody would .  and since they can not , because they do not have consciousness , under a traditional law in this united states of america we give custody to the parents .  a parent will make a decision at some point in time , or a family member will make a decision at some point in time that perhaps they do not want to put up for adoption , which is the decision i would make .  why not ?  in addition to the cord blood bill that we have just passed , why not make it possible for some of these under the conditions in the castle/degette bill for some to be used for research purposes .  it does not take many .  i respect those who say , no , you can not do it at all .  but i also say given a choice , let us err on the side of opportunity .  that is why i am going to vote `` yes . '' 
R	mr. speaker , a `` yes '' vote today is a vote for progress , for reason and for sound research .  mr. speaker , it is conservative to conserve , and this bill utilizes stem cells that have already been discarded , discarded because in most cases those who undergo in-vitro fertilization have excess fertilized cells available .  their only choice today has been for freezer storage , putting them up for adoption or discarding them , yes , into hospital medical waste .  now we will add a fourth option , and that is to allow these embryos to be used for scientific research , to find cures for diseases that have afflicted americans , a large portion of americans , that threaten the lives of young people .  this is not about life , this is about saving life , and it is important that the congress make this statement for a brighter future for many , many americans .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank the chairman for yielding me this time .  mr. speaker , i rise in strong support of h.r. 810 .  science has advanced rapidly since the president announced his stem cell research policy .  these cells were just identified less than 10 years ago and , already , the technology is progressing by leaps and bounds .  the 22 lines currently available under the president 's policy were developed using outdated techniques and have been contaminated , possibly skewing the outcome of experiments .  given the promise that stem cells hold , it is time to drop the limit on current stem cell lines and allow researchers to do what they do best .  it is tragic to let these cells go to waste when they could help to relieve so much suffering .  it is time to let researchers go where the science leads them , not where politicians dictate .  in order to explore all of the possibilities , scientists must have access to all three kinds of stem cells : adult , embryonic , and those from the umbilical cord blood .  that is why i plan to vote for h.r. 810 and the smith bill as well .  the two are not in opposition ; they are complementary .  mr. speaker , i am proud to support h.r. 810 and for the sake of the millions suffering from diseases , i ask my colleagues to do the same .  
R	mr. speaker , i want to thank our chairman , and also thank the leader .  you know , i believe that everybody engaged in this debate today means well , and this is one of those great debates that we have on this floor .  it is full of passion .  but this is not a debate about passion .  it is not a debate about style .  this is a debate about substance .  and the substance of this debate is life , clear and simple .  you know , there is a fact on this , also , i think we ought to look at .  while we do not know where embryonic stem cell research might lead us , we do know that engaging in this form of research would require ending a human life for the purpose of experimentation .  and that is something that i do not think any of us want to sanction .  and in my opinion , we would be giving away our humanity , our sense of ethics , for the mere hope , the mere hope that this form of research would someday yield results .  meanwhile , h.r. 810 , the bill that is under discussion diverts funds from research that has proven results , from research that does not require us to look the other way while human life is purposely ended .  adult stem cell research has made great leaps .  we have heard about that today .  cord blood research has made great strides .  we have heard about that also today .  and we hear that by using islet cells from living donors or adult brain cells instead of embryos , there is a potential to cure diabetes .  i think we should all vote `` no '' on h.r. 810 .  we should stop and look at the substance of the debate .  
D	mr. speaker , i appreciate the gentleman 's courtesy of yielding me this time .  i have been touched by the personal stories that we have heard here today .  i think people are genuinely speaking from the heart .  but the issue remains that we have embryonic stem cells that are either going to be thrown away for largely theological reasons , or they will be used for research to save lives .  this research is going to take place in the united states and around the world .  the question is , how rapidly ?  the question is whether the united states government 's official policy will remain frozen in place , or whether we will exert the same type of leadership that we have exerted in other areas of research , technology , and dealing with human health .  for the sake of life , for the sake of health , for the sake of our families , i hope that this legislation passes , that we will be able to make sure that the federal government exerts its appropriate role in making sure that we have the resources , the direction , and the control to do this successfully .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank the chairman for yielding me this time and for his leadership and the leadership of others on this debate today .  this debate is defined in so many ways by the conscience of each member ; and as each member comes to the floor , as each member speaks , i think my colleagues can see that this debate uniquely is based on their own view of this and their deeply founded view of this .  in fact , the whip 's office is not real busy today , because we are not whipping this vote .  i do not think my friends on the other side are whipping this vote either .  why would that be ?  why would we have a vote on a bill like this that , based on the debate , is so important that we would not be trying to persuade members ?  because we feel on both sides of this aisle , apparently , today that this is a matter of real conscience .  this is a matter where people can deeply disagree .  this is a matter about the very definition of life itself .  because of that , i am firmly on the side of those who believe it is not time yet to federally fund this particular kind of research .  there is private sector funding available .  some states like the state of california recently decided they would fund this in a significant way .  other states have decided they would totally outlaw research .  so this is clearly an issue where the country is divided .  the ethics of this issue , as the gentlewoman from ohio ( ms. kaptur )  suggested earlier , are not as clear as they should be .  the future ownership and use of this research is not as clear as it needs to be .  the first principle of bioethics should be : first , do no harm .  we are not at the point in this issue where we can firmly say we are not doing harm .  we are at the point when we can say that all of those concerns that this research is not possible if we do not fund it with federal funding are just not right .  this research is possible .  i do not agree with it myself , but i particularly do not agree that we should take the tax money of millions and millions of taxpayers who believe this is absolutely wrong and pay for this research in that way .  i urge a `` no '' vote on this bill , mr. speaker .  
R	mr. speaker , every invention , each new scientific concept , every technical advance in the history of mankind has been challenged and analyzed and debated , and properly so .  change makes us uncomfortable , forces us to design new paradigms ; but in the final analysis , it is man 's fundamental obligation to use science for the betterment of mankind .  in this instance , we are called upon to heal diseases that have plagued and bewildered us for centuries .  it would be unconscionable and irresponsible should we fail to live up to our obligation in this critical matter .  the moral and ethical question is this , do we destroy embryos , simply discard them , embryos that will never be implanted in a womb but which can advance stem cell research to cure historic illnesses ?  the answer is , no , we should move forward with important scientific research , forward movement which will be enhanced in a measured way by passage of the measure before us .  
R	mr. speaker , i rise in strong support of h.r. 810 .  i would like to thank the chairman for all of his work in bringing this bill to the floor , and i would like to thank my leadership for allowing a vote on this important legislation .  as representatives , we are in the unique position to frequently meet with a wide cross-section of people , many of whom are suffering from debilitating diseases , injuries , and ailments .  these millions of patients , as well as their loved ones , have a clear message for policymakers : we support this research and we need their help .  opponents of this bill have argued that we should not use federal funds to pay for embryonic stem cell research .  i respectfully disagree .  the issue at hand is allowing for more pristine stem cell lines to be eligible for research .  scientists and researchers throughout the united states are constantly reminding us that the focus needs to be on the quality of the stem cell lines available which are eligible for federal research .  i would also like to state that there is no funding for the derivation of the lines and the lines must be ethically in accordance with the principles the president has laid out in his policy .  we are undoubtedly slowing research progress by forbidding researchers from using federal funds to conduct research .  former first lady nancy reagan has said about embryonic stem cell research : `` science has presented us with a hope called stem cell research , which may provide our scientists with many answers that for so long have been beyond our grasp .  i just do n't see how we can turn our backs on this .  we have lost so much time already .  i just really ca n't bear to lose any more. '' we all know that the impetus for nancy reagan was the battle that her husband , president ronald reagan , fought with alzheimer 's disease .  the former first lady is not alone .  over 4.5 million americans are affected by alzheimer 's .  i am encouraged by scientists ' claims that embryonic stem cells will allow for more research on alzheimer 's , including the possibility that they may be used to grow new brain cells to replace the brain tissue destroyed by the disease .  dana reeves , the widow of actor and activist christopher reeves , sat with me less than 2 months ago and shared her family 's devastating story .  the potential for turning the hope for spinal cord injury into reality is evident , and i believe that by passing this legislation we can clear the way for research to move forward .  dana and nancy are just two of the more visible faces of public figures who have asked for this research .  mr. speaker , i implore my colleagues to please support this legislation , h.r. 810 .  
D	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  today , mr. speaker , we will consider two bills that have significant bearing on the future of medicine and medical research in our country .  i want to thank the gentleman from new jersey ( mr. smith )  and the gentleman from texas ( mr. barton )  for their work on the first of these bills .  the smith-barton legislation reauthorizes the national bone marrow donor program and adds a new national cord blood registry .  cord blood and bone marrow have several therapeutic uses in common : first and foremost , the treatment of blood diseases .  coordinating these two registries makes sense for patients , for doctors , and for the public health .  with this kind of coordinated program , there will be a single entry point for transplant doctors and their patients to locate available cord blood units .  this bill also increases outreach and education efforts so that we can amass the most diverse possible reserves of cord blood .  it improves data keeping and distribution so that necessary blood gets to patients as quickly and as accurately as possible .  in addition to the therapeutic uses of cord blood , this bill makes cord blood stem cells available for research purposes .  there is clearly therapeutic potential in the use of cord blood and adult stem cells .  some of the most important research in this area is taking place in ohio , in northeast ohio , where i call home , at the national center for regenerative medicine , a partnership of case western reserve university hospitals , and the cleveland clinic in cleveland .  i mentioned we will be considering two bills today that have significant bearing on the future of medicine .  and it is in the research area that the distinctions between these two bills takes on the greatest significance .  smith-barton focuses on cord-blood and adult stem cell research .  in the castle-degette bipartisan bill , it focuses on embryonic stem cell research .  that is a critical distinction , and the house needs to acknowledge that .  cord-blood and adult stem cell research are not substitutes for embryonic stem cell research .  they are not alternative avenues to the same medical outcomes .  each type of research holds unique potential .  for example , while adult stem cells represent an important advance in the treatment of blood disorders , these cells simply do not occur in every tissue in the body .  because there are no adult stem cells , for example , in the pancreas , the potential of adult stem cells to develop into therapies for a disease like diabetes is very limited .  that is one example of many .  embryonic stem cell , on the other hand , can grow into any type of cell in the body , making potential use of these far more diverse and far more valuable .  we should not minimize the importance of cord-blood and adult stem cell research , but by the same token , we should n't mislead the public into believing that if smith-barton passes , the castle-degette bill is unnecessary , because surely it is not .  it is irresponsible and even dangerous for members of this body to distort the value of one form of research in order to stifle another promising avenue of research .  we in this congress have a responsibility to support medical research and to foster its development , as the committee of the gentleman from texas ( mr. barton )  committee has done well over time .  millions of lives have been saved and improved because of the brilliant research conducted in this country .  we also have a responsibility to speak honestly about that research and its potential .  both sides of this debate owe it to the public to draw clear lines between the beliefs we hold and the facts that hold , regardless of what we believe .  the fact is that cord-blood research , adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research are not interchangeable .  the fact is , if we invest in all three types of research , we may finally be able to find cures for debilitating illnesses , cures that are currently beyond our reach .  the fact is , if the u.s. withholds funding for embryonic stem cell research , that research will continue , just at a significantly slower pace .  people that you and i know , they may be friends , they may be family members , they may be professional colleagues , will suffer and die from potentially curable illnesses while we wait for the rest of the world to fill our shoes .  researchers in other nations , researchers in private institutions in this country , are pursuing embryonic stem cell research because they know that it is possible to accomplish this research in an ethical manner .  embryonic stem cell research does not and need not increase the number of embryos that are destroyed .  instead , it decreases the number of embryos that are destroyed in vain .  we will have an opportunity today to pass two pieces of legislation , both are important , that will deliver hope to patients whose futures depend on new answers to life and death medical questions .  our nation can not pick and choose between cord-blood research and adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research if we want to answer all these questions , unless we want to offer hope to some and sympathy to others .  mr. speaker , i urge members to vote in favor of both the smith-barton bill and the castle-degette bill .  doing so will show that what you know and what you believe intersects at the point where medical progress is harnessed to alleviate untold human suffering .  mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	mr. speaker , could the chair inform both sides how much time is remaining ?  
D	mr. speaker , how many speakers does the gentleman from texas ( mr. barton )  have remaining and , mr. speaker , who has the right to close ?  
D	mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. speaker , we wonder , as most medical scientists wonder , why not both kinds of research .  we in no way want to restrict it to just one or the other like my friends on the other side of the aisle .  mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	mr. speaker , how much time remains ?  
D	mr. speaker , i have two remaining speakers .  
D	mr. speaker , i yield myself 1- 1/4 minutes .  mr. speaker , i would like to share the words from the president who seems to have sent a different message than my friends on the other side of the aisle .  president bush said , `` most scientists believe that research on embryonic stem cells offers the most promise because these cells have the potential to develop in all of the tissues in the body. '' i hear my friends on the other side of the aisle argue that we really only need cord blood stem cell research , that that will lead us to all that we need .  and the president said about that , that `` no adult stem cell has been shown in culture to be pluripotent. '' and he said , `` embryonic stem cells have the potential to develop into all or nearly all of the tissues in the body. '' i then hear my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about research , that this is going to lead to so much more research .  yet at the same time we have seen no increase , flat-lined spending , budgeting on the national institutes of health , something that many of us , the gentlewoman from colorado ( ms. degette )  and many of the rest of us , have thought we should increase spending on , medical research all across the board in all kinds of medical research .  yes , in order to make room for the president 's tax cuts that have gone overwhelmingly to the wealthiest in our country , we have simply cut medical research and not done what we should as a nation do overall in medical research .  so when i hear my friends talk on this , i do not quite get how this will expand medical research while closing out one whole avenue of medical research and , at the same time , cutting spending on what we should be doing to move our country ahead .  
R	mr. speaker , i come from florida , and a lot of people think that only retirees and seniors live in florida , but i want to put a face on a couple that was very successful with in vitro fertilization .  they are 47 years old .  they had a daughter born as a result of in vitro fertilization .  the child was born with multiple heart problems and had to have three surgeries before she was 2 years old .  this couple believes that far more good can come from donating the remaining embryos for research .  they have decided not to have any more children .  and ultimately what we have not heard here is what the american people want .  this is a couple that wants to be able to donate the embryos , which certainly they can do now , but they also want to have federal research dollars go toward this .  this really is all about where taxpayer dollars go .  and when you look at the huge book of pork that comes out every single year , when we go back home and say to our constituents , would you rather have some of this money going to , for example , some foreign countries that regularly turn their backs on us , or would you like to see some significant research done from embryonic stem cells that would be disposed of , the majority of our constituents are clearly going to say , use the money for significant research .  we have to remember that this is not an either/or .  certainly the umbilical cord research is a great science .  we need to move forward with that as well as the embryonic stem cell research .  remember , for this couple and her husband deciding to donate those embryos , they believe they will be saving other children 's lives .  they believe they will be helping an aunt who has early-stage alzheimer 's .  they believe they will be able to help spinal cord injury victims .  that is what this research holds the potential for .  no , we do not have the cures yet ; but unless we go forward , we never will .  i fully support the castle/degette bill , and hope other members do , too .  mr. speaker , i rise today in strong support of h.r. 810 , the stem cell research enhancement act of 2005 .  i stand with 200 of america 's most respected research organizations in support of this bill .  i would like to especially thank congressmen castle and degette for their tireless efforts on behalf of the millions of people who may benefit from enhanced stem cell research .  i would also like to thank speaker hastert and leader delay for the debate today and for giving the 200+ cosponsors of this legislation a vote on the house floor .  i rise today as a mother , as a concerned grandparent , and as someone who is worried that the untapped potential of stem cell research may be falling by the wayside .  in my congressional district on the gulf coast of florida , i have had the pleasure of meeting holly , a 47-year-old mother of two .  like many americans , holly and her husband had trouble getting pregnant , and their first daughter was born through in vitro fertilization .  her daughter was born with a congenital heart condition , and had three surgeries before her second birthday .  as with most in vitro fertilization procedures , holly and her husband had several embryos left over after the procedure .  they chose to keep the remaining embryos frozen .  this couple was then blessed by a second miracle daughter who was conceived without in vitro fertilization the happy couple decided not to have any more children , and had to make a choice about what to do with their frozen embryos .  holly and her husband are well aware of operation snowflake and the adoption options for their embryos .  but , like many other parents , they would rather donate their embryos for research to help prevent heart disease -- like their daughter was born with -- or cure cancer , alzheimer 's disease or parkinson 's .  for holly and her husband , they decided that donating their embryos for medical research would be their best chance to save other children 's lives .  increasing stem cell research could find potential cures for many diseases that affect so many american families .  put another way , the issue of embryos and their ability to be used for stem cell research is kind of like a flashlight .  until you put the batteries in , a flashlight will not produce light .  likewise , only when an embryo is implanted in a uterus to grow , can life be sustained .  embryos sitting frozen in a clinic help no one .  the embryo does not grow in the frozen state , so human life is not being created and nurtured .  in addition , when the couple stops paying the daily fees to store the embryos , unless they have the medical donation option , their remaining embryos will be disposed of as medical waste .  that would be tragic .  holly and her husband know this fact .  they know that without the nurturing and love that a woman 's body provides , these embryos will be wasted .  science tells us that after as short a time as eight years , these frozen embryos will begin to deteriorate , and lose their viability for implantation .  mr. speaker , these embryos are too important to linger in a frozen test tube or to see discarded without helping mankind .  additionally , i have yet to hear in this entire debate what opponents of h.r. 810 would do with those embryos that are not adopted , and eventually go to waste in a cryogenic freezer .  would they want those embryos to be thrown out as medical waste , or instead help provide the basis for life-affirming scientific research ?  holly and her husband know that the great potential and promise of stem cell research will not move forward without their donated embryos and their support .  however , it is their respect for the culture of life that has brought them to this decision .  they have weighed the choices available to them , and rather than donating the embryo for adoption , have chosen to let their embryos potentially save millions of lives .  thousands of people around the country have made similar decisions to support life-affirming and life-enhancing research .  h.r. 810 will give hope where hope does not exist .  passage of this bill today will let the research on stem cells continue under ethical guidelines , and will provide millions of americans suffering from terminal diseases the hope that they have been denied .  all these organizations listed on this posterboard , such as the american academy for cancer research and the american medical association , support h.r. 810 .  i urge my fellow members of congress to vote yes on the bill 
R	mr. speaker , i thank the majority leader and my chairman for yielding me this time .  i do rise in opposition to this bill today .  the debate that we are about is expanding federal funding , not limiting research .  there are no bona fide treatments available for embryonic stem cells .  there is nothing in the laboratory , and there is certainly nothing in the clinics available to patients .  honesty is an important part of this debate , and i am concerned that more than a promise has been offered to people who are suffering and the reality is that those potential treatments are much more limited than they have been portrayed .  the president , i think , wisely put parameters , set boundaries around this type of research back in 2001 .  let us not forget that private funding for stem cell research is available today .  a couple who has an embryo developed in an ivf clinic is perfectly free to take that embryo to a lab at harvard or california and have a stem cell line developed .  the reality is in a poll of my reproductive endocrinologists back home : that never comes up as an issue .  but 22 cell lines are currently utilized .  there are an additional 31 cell lines available , per dr .  zerhouni 's testimony before our committee , that will be developed after the issue of animal growth medium becomes overcome .  and there are two papers out this past week that indicate that that date may be quickly upon us .  mr. speaker , i think it is important that we follow the money in this debate .  the reality is if there are indeed a third of the population of the united states who would benefit from this research , i believe that the big biotech money would be jumping into this .  we would not be able to keep them out .  they would be buying patents and capturing cell lines for their future use .  if there is one thing we learned in the last presidential election , it was that both major candidates asserted that life begins at conception , and we are talking about taking a life .  remember that that inner cell mass that we are talking about that is taken at about 2 weeks of development , if we put that on a timeline of a human pregnancy , about 5 days later we are going to see a heartbeat on a sonogram .  so , mr. speaker , this is what the debate is all about .  i urge us to protect life and vote against this bill .  
D	mr. speaker , today the house can vote to give millions of americans suffering from diseases new hope .  patients , doctors , and scientists are desperately awaiting the potential that stem cell research has for treating diseases like alzheimer 's , als , cancer , heart diseases , diabetes , spinal cord injuries , and so many others .  my state of california is already on the way .  californians overwhelmingly support this research and decided not to tie the hands of our scientists , not to block the promising new opportunities that stem cell research affords .  now our congress has the opportunity to follow suit .  this is the kind of research we wanted when we created the national institutes of health .  federally funded research ensures that the public benefits and that the research is ethically conducted .  i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 810 .  
D	mr. speaker , as my colleague from massachusetts eloquently stated a minute ago , today this house has a historic opportunity to vote for hope , hope for millions of americans suffering with devastating diseases .  these patients , their doctors and scientists , have reason to hope , the potential that embryonic stem cell research has for developing new treatments for these devastating diseases .  one of my dearest friends recently died of als , or lou gehrig 's disease , which causes fatal destruction of nerve cells .  the slow death sentence that als gives its victims is brutal .  the disease took away my young friend tom 's ability to control his own muscles , paralyzing them and ultimately making it impossible for him to breathe .  stem cell research provides hope , not for tom but for future als victims .  scientists believe they can use stem cell research to replace the devastated nerve cells that als leaves behind .  with heart disease affecting so many of us in this nation , the promise of embryonic stem cell research has advancements for the human heart which are incredible to think of .  instead of patients suffering because their heart cells are failing and no longer able to pump blood , new ways could be discovered to replace those cells .  and with regard to cancer , stem cell research has enormous potential .  for example , it could facilitate the testing of new medications and treatments , not in time for my daughter 's life , but for her young children 's generation .  we can not afford to wait .  and it could be used to grow bone marrow that matches a patient and is not rejected by his or her body .  in each of these cases , stem cell research holds out promise .  it provides hope that longer , better-quality lives are possible .  that is what this bill is about .  it will expand the ability of the national institutes of health to fund this research and improve the chances for finding new treatments and cures .  as we have discussed , each year thousands of embryos no bigger than the head of a pin are created in the process of in vitro fertilization .  a small percentage of these embryos are implanted and , hopefully , become much-longed-for children .  some of the rest will be frozen , but most are discarded .  they will not be used to create life , they will never become children , they will be lost without purpose .  but under h.r. 810 , with the informed consent of the donor , under strict ethical guidelines , these embryos can be used to give life to millions of americans .  today , we can give this hope to millions who have little to hope for now .  this is an historic opportunity .  i urge my colleagues to do the right thing , to support lifesaving medical research .  support h.r. 810 .  
D	mr. speaker , i rise in support of h.r. 810 .  this bipartisan legislation will enhance existing stern cell research and help our nation 's scientists make significant progress toward the development of treatments for conditions affecting more than 100 million americans .  but this is not just about americans .  for years , our country has led the world in medical advancements , and people from around the globe travel here for medical education as well as for lifesaving care .  today , the house is considering opening new lines of research -- research that will help the united states retain its place as a world leader in this burgeoning new field , while helping to alleviate the pain and suffering of many around the world .  current federal policy , put into place by president bush on august 9 , 2001 , allows federal funds to be used to support research from the stern cell lines that existed on that date , but it bans the creation of additional stern cells from embryos that are stored at in vitro fertilization clinics .  to many observers , this policy seemed a reasonable compromise at the time , as many scientists believed that the existing 78 stern cell lines would be available for use .  in fact , only 22 lines are available and some of these were found to have been contaminated from contact with mouse `` feeder '' cells .  in addition , the 22 available lines were developed using science that has since seen significant improvements .  scientists at the national institutes of health report that these lines also lack the genetic diversity necessary to perform extensive research for diseases that disproportionately since the president 's policy was implemented , i have heard from hundreds of marylanders who have been diagnosed with debilitating illnesses , including leukemia , diabetes , parkinson 's disease , alzheimer 's disease , and spinal cord injuries .  they are grateful for the federal research funding that congress has provided in past years , particularly the doubling of the nih budget over a five year period , and they look to the future with hope that more effective treatments and someday , cures , will be forthcoming .  i have also heard from the academic medical centers across the country .  these are the places where the most complex medical procedures are performed , where medical school graduates from around the world are trained , where our most groundbreaking research is conducted .  two of the finest academic medical centers are located in baltimore -- the university of maryland medical center and the johns hopkins university medical center .  this bill presents an opportunity to expand their ability to make life saving and life extending discoveries .  some of my colleagues have raised ethical concerns about stem cell research , and i believe that this bill effectively addresses these concerns .  the authors of this bill , mr. castle and ms. degette , have written this legislation so as to not encourage the creation of human embryos for research or for any other purposes .  this bill stipulates that all embryos used for research must have been originally created for in vitro fertilization and are in excess of clinical need ; it requires that the embryos would not have been implanted and would have otherwise been discarded ; and it requires donors to provide written consent before embryos may be donated for research .  these guidelines are ethically sound ; they help ensure that enhancing stem cell research policy will not come at the expense of respect for human life .  it is not certain that stem cell research will result in cures , but it is fairly certain that if we close off promising avenues , such as stem cell research , finding those therapies and cures will take much longer .  in 2001 , two months before president bush issued his stem cell policy , sue stamos and her daughter , faith , came to visit me in my office .  at the time , faith was three years old -- a very brave little girl who had been diagnosed with juvenile diabetes .  sue asked for my support for federal research to help find a cure for faith , and i promised to do everything i could to help .  back in june of 2001 , our knowledge of stem cell research 's potential was nowhere near what it is now , and we did not yet know what the president would propose .  today , we have much broader and deeper knowledge about the scientific possibilities of stem cells , but much less capacity to research stem cell lines than we had anticipated .  today , i will vote to keep my promise to sue and faith stamos and to the thousands of other marylanders who are waiting for cures .  i will vote to expand the stem cells lines available for federally funded research .  mr. speaker , in closing , i must note that stem cell research is a controversial and emotional subject .  it touches on questions of human suffering , medical ethics , scientific potential , the role of government , moral considerations , and life itself .  h.r. 810 strikes the right balance .  it encourages research , but it does not encourage the creation of embryos for research purposes .  it allows us to support the efforts of the brilliant scientists in our research institutions who have dedicated their careers to alleviating the suffering of others .  it allows us to honor the wishes of in vitro fertilization donors who want to make a contribution toward medical advancement .  it was right for the leadership to allow a vote on this important bill , and it is right for the house to pass it .  i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting h.r. 810 .  
D	mr. speaker , i wish to express my strong , principled and hopeful support of h.r. 810 .  i commend the vital leadership of my brave colleagues , representatives castle and degette , for bringing this urgent issue to the floor .  federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is needed to help american scientists move this research forward , research which has the potential to revolutionize medicine and save countless lives .  while adult stem cells have been very useful in treating some cancers , embryonic stem cells appear to have a far greater potential for treating disease than adult stem cells .  scientists regard embryonic stem cell research as one of the greatest hopes for the cure of medical conditions such as parkinson 's disease and diabetes due to their unique ability to develop into virtually any type of cell in the body .  recently , researchers at the university of miami came up with a technique to transform embryonic stem cells into the insulin-producing cells destroyed by type-l diabetes .  such research may also help us better understand the causes of birth defects , genetic abnormalities , and other conditions that arise during the critical period of early human growth .  other possible medical applications include the repair of crippling injuries such as spinal cord damage and the ability to correct the damaging side effects of existing medical treatments like chemotherapy .  this debate is not about whether or not embryonic stem cell research will progress , for it surely will .  this research is already taking place around the globe , and right here in america .  the question is : will we lead the way ?  this debate is about american leadership in this world .  for generations america has led the world in scientific advances .  we must continue to support the work of our brilliant scientists and help them once again lead the world in this vitally important new field .  this bipartisan legislation would expand the scope of stem cell research while enacting stringent procedural guidelines .  all activities would be subject to the strict ethical guidelines of the national institutes of health .  no federal funds would be used to conduct research on unapproved stem cell lines .  the cells used in this research will be donated voluntarily by patients of in-vitro fertilization clinics .  it makes no sense , and it is just plain wrong to ban research using embryos that are being simply thrown away today .  mr. speaker , it is not our place as legislators to decide which medical research does and does not have merit .  we must not block advances in life-saving and ethically conducted science .  i commend my colleagues for supporting this critical legislation .  
R	mr. speaker , i rise today in support of h.r. 2520 , which establishes a national cord blood stem cell inventory , a cord blood system , and to reauthorize the national bone marrow registry .  this is an important piece of legislation because it addresses a vital need to establish a publicly coordinated national umbilical cord blood bank similar to the national bone marrow registry .  however , it is important to note that umbilical cord blood cells are a type of adult stem cells that have been used only to treat blood disorders like leukemia and lymphoma .  scientists do not believe that these cord blood stem cells will provide answers to diseases like diabetes , parkinson 's , spinal cord injuries , or other nonblood-related disorders .  according to dr .  david shaywitz , an endocrinologist and stem cell researcher at harvard , it seems extremely unlikely that adult blood cells or blood cells from the umbilical cord will be therapeutically useful as a source of anything else but blood .  that is why we must support all forms of stem cell research , including embryonic stem cell research , so researchers have the greatest chance of discovering treatments and cures .  that is why i am supporting this legislation as well as h.r. 810 , the stem cell research enhancement act , to expand the current federal embryonic stem cell policy .  i urge everyone to support this legislation and support h.r. 810 .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself 2 minutes .  mr. speaker , just speaking to the members perhaps back in the offices listening , i have 820 , 000 constituents in delaware , and probably more than a third of them have some kind of a disease that might be able to be benefited by embryonic stem cell research .  that is true of the figures in the country .  we have 110 million people who have illnesses out of the 290 million people who are living here .  they have visited my office .  they have visited your offices .  there is not a person in this room who has not had many , many visits by people who have very , very serious needs , whose lives are going to be shortened .  i am all for the first bill we debated today because i think it might help somewhat , but i have also looked at some statistics and i have come to realize that of the 15 leading diseases , adult stem cells can not do anything about 14 of them and can do a only little bit about heart diseases as they deal with only blood diseases in terms of what they can do .  embryonic stem cell research has the ability , perhaps , to do much more than that .  people are going to get up and they are going to say , well , it has n't done anything yet .  they were only discovered about 6 1/2 years ago .  if you read the vast body of research in the united states of america on this subject by people who are truly knowledgeable , you are going to learn there is more potential here than anything that has ever happened in medicine in the history of the united states of america .  congress should never , ever turn its back on this opportunity .  how are we going to get there ?  how are we going to do embryonic stem cell research ?  i do not have time to go through the whole in vitro fertilization process except to say that we create embryos in that particular process .  they are then frozen .  they are generally used and well used , the 400 , 000 embryos which are out there , to help give birth to people who might not otherwise be able to have a child .  but at the end of the process , a decision is made by the individuals that may be involved with that .  if the decision is they no longer want that particular embryo , they may do a variety of things with it .  they may , as has been discussed here , give it up for adoption .  they may decide to have it discarded as hospital waste .  that is where the vast , almost all of them actually go as hospital waste .  we want to give them the opportunity to say , within that embryo there are stem cells which could help other people live better lives and give them the opportunity to be able , instead of having it put in a bag for hospital waste , sitting at that table , to be put over here , and the state to be able to do the research .  that is what we need to do .  we need to be able to develop that as rapidly as we possibly can for the benefit of all mankind .  mr. speaker , i rise today in support of h.r. 810 , the stem cell research enhancement act .  i have been in public office for over 30 years and throughout my career , i -- just like all of you -- have had the opportunity to change and improve public policy so this country may continue to flourish on the principles it was founded .  and the 820 , 000 people i represent in the state of delaware are a constant reminder to me of this responsibility .  i am their voice in the congress of the united states .  some of you may be wondering why i have become so interested and involved in embryonic stem cell research .  and frankly , the answer is simple -- those 800 , 000 constituents .  we estimated that about one-half of all visits to my office are about health care and about one-half of those visits are by delawareans who are suffering themselves or whose family members are suffering -- from juvenile diabetes , alzheimer 's , cancer , parkinson 's , hiv and hosts of other dredge diseases .  year by year the groups would grow in number and soon we would have to get bigger rooms for our meetings .  in the early years we would discuss the necessity of funding the national institutes of health , and i was proud to be able to support newt gingrich and the republican party 's drive to double funding for the nih .  and that funding has gone toward the basic science needed to find cures and treatments to our most debilitating diseases .  but in the past few years , the number one topic on these groups ' minds was embryonic stem cell research .  one little girl stands out in mind .  i met her a few months ago at an event back in delaware .  olivia was two months old when she was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes .  her parents were first time parents so it is no wonder that the practice of testing her blood sugar and giving her insulin shots was extremely heartbreaking .  olivia is now 6 and has never known life without diabetes .  she is the person we are fighting for on the floor today .  she is one of 110 million people who are suffering that may be helped by stem cell research .  i remember very clearly the difficult decision president bush made on august 9 , 2001 and i know how careful he was to balance the needs of science with his own moral concerns .  at the time , the compromise -- to allow federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells lines that had already been derived -- seemed quite reasonable .  but as we know , unfortunately , the number of lines eligible for research -- once as high as 78 -- is now only at 22 , with the nih saying the number of lines will never get above 23 .  so when diana degette and i began discussing how to expand the president 's policy in an ethical manner , i went right back to the speech he gave to the nation in 2001 .  we wanted to be as consistent as possible with the ethics he laid out in his speech as we worked to update the policy .  the legislation we are going to vote on today , h.r. 810 , the stem cell research enhancement act , which has the backing of the medical groups , the scientists , the research universities and the patient advocacy groups , mirrors the president 's ethical requirements .  i will read them to you and ask that you think about them very closely : ( 1 ) embryos used to derive stem cells were originally created for fertility treatment purposes and are in excess of clinical need ; ( 2 ) the individuals seeking fertility treatments for whom the embryos were created have determined that the embryos will not be implanted in a woman and will otherwise be discarded ; and , ( 3 ) the individuals for whom the embryos were created have provided written consent for embryo donation and without receiving financial inducement .  you may ask what is different -- we simply lift the arbitrary august 9 , 2001 date .  it is also critical that we are clear about what this legislation does not do : ( 1 ) no federal funding for the destruction of embryos or human life .  this is prohibited by law .  ( 2 ) no federal funding for the creation of embryos for research .  under our legislation it is up to the couple to decide what should happen to their embryos .  embryos can be adopted or donated ; embryos can be frozen for future family building ; embryos can be discarded .  after that initial decision is made , and if a couple decides to discard the embryos , our legislation would allow those couples to make a second choice -- do they want to donate them to research ?  an embryo or blastocyst is about 250 cells and the inner cell mass is about 100 cells and that is where the stem cells come from .  they are created in a petri dish , are about 5 days old and are the size of a pine head .  of the 400 , 000 frozen embryos in in vitro fertilization clinics throughout the u.s. , about 2 percent are discarded annually -- that is about 8 , 000 -- 11 , 000 embryos that could be slated for research .  allowing the option of donating these excess embryos to research is similar to donating organs for organ transplantation in order to save or improve the quality of another person 's life .  the bottom line is when a couple has decided to discard their excess embryos they are either going to be discarded as medical waste or they can be donated for research .  throughout this debate you will hear about adult stem cells and more about umbilical cord cells and how these types of cells are sufficient for scientists .  this is simply not true .  umbilical cord cells are adult stem cells and they are limited .  adult and umbilical cord cells are already differentiated into the types of cells they are , they are difficult to harvest and grow and they do not exist for every tissue type .  on the other hand , embryonic stem cells are `` master cells '' -- they have the potential to grow into any type of cell in the body , they are easier to identify , isolate , purify and grow and they are capable of continual reproduction .  listen to what the nih has to say on this topic : human embryonic stem cells are thought to have much greater developmental potential than adult stem cells .  this means that embryonic stem cells may be pluripotent -- that is , able to give rise to cells found in all tissues of the embryo except for germ cells rather than being merely multipotent -- restricted to specific subpopulations of cell types , as adult stem cells are thought to be .  in 2003 , 1.6 million people died of heart disease , cancer , diabetes , alzheimer 's , kidney disease , liver disease and parkinson 's .  of the 15 leading causes of death , adult stem cell research only addresses one .  adult stem cells have been around since the 1960s .  embryonic stem cells were only isolated in 1998 .  we must explore research on all types of stem cells , but the reality is the only policy that is restricted is the federal embryonic stem cell policy .  the nih is the right place to oversee this research because it can regulate the ethics , it provides for scientific collaboration and peer review and promotes publication so all breakthroughs are reported and all scientists have access to the latest research discoveries .  without nih oversight there are no guidelines as to how this research should be conducted .  the united states has always been the premier leader in biomedical research in our country and around the world .  as science continues to move rapidly forward , we need to continue to lead the way but we are not .  why should we waste one more year , one more day , forcing millions to suffer because of a policy that is outdated and unworkable .  does this congress really want to look back 10 years from now and say that we were the ones holding the treatments up ?  or do we want to be the congress that says , we back science , we want research to flourish and we played a small role in making that happen .  support h.r. 810 , the stem cell research enhancement act and accelerate hope .  
R	mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of our time .  
R	mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , i would like to thank both the republican and democratic leadership for allowing this to take place here today .  sometimes there are issues of such critical social importance that it is only right that the congress of the united states do this in the open , and they did that and for that we should all be very appreciative .  i just want to leave my colleagues with some closing thoughts , perhaps some of the things i started with .  there are 110 million people just in the united states of america out of 290 million who have some sort of illness that potentially could be helped by the use of embryonic stem cells .  most of those will never be helped by the use of adult stem cells .  we know that anything other than just the use of adult stem cells in blood tissues has been experimental at best and probably will never work .  i would encourage everyone to use their conscience as they vote today , to think about their constituents at home .  we talk about life , and i do not necessarily want to get into that argument back and forth , but the bottom line is there are a lot of lives that are being foreshortened in the united states of america and across the world that perhaps could be lived out to their fullest if that opportunity was given to the individuals involved .  remember that this research is going on at the private sector level .  it is also going on at the state level .  it is even going on to a degree at the federal level .  there has been $ 60 million spent over 3 years on this research at the federal level , and about $ 625 million has been spent on adult stem cells at the federal level .  so the research is going on at the time .  our ethic standards in this bill , and if you read it , it is only 3 pages long , exceed any ethical standards that have ever existed before including what the president had before .  the national institutes of health said : `` human embryonic stem cells are thought to have much greater developmental potential than adult stem cells .  this means that embryonic stem cells may be pluripotent , that is , able to give rise to cells found in all tissues of the embryo except for germ cells rather than being merely multipotent , restricted to specific subpopulations of cell types , as adult stem cells are thought to be. '' that is where the science is .  you can argue all you want , but if you do any extensive reading on this , that is where the science is .  these are the stem cells which can make a difference , the embryonic stem cells .  there are discussions of dollars .  there are no dollars used directly in the destruction of embryos at an in vitro fertilization clinic .  there are dollars used in the research ultimately .  but let us look at that .  let us consider what that is all about .  at the end , when those who have created the embryo make the decision that they no longer need or want that particular embryo , the physician has to make a decision about what to do with it .  there are some options there .  not a lot of options .  one of them is to give that particular embryo up for adoption .  some people do not choose to do that .  there have only been fewer than 100 so far .  and i think that is wonderful .  i think that option should be offered .  some people may make other decisions , but basically it will be one of two decisions if this legislation passes .  one is to put it into hospital waste , warm it up to room temperature , thereby destroying it at that point and doing it that way , or to be giving it up for research .  and my judgment is if that is a decision , why are we not helping the 110 million people out there who need help , as opposed to allowing this to go to hospital waste because it will happen anyhow .  if you do not like that , you better go out and lobby against what they are doing in in vitro fertilization clinics , and i do not think that we want to do that .  there are about 400 , 000 of these embryos .  that is probably a low estimate today .  that is an estimate of about 3 years ago .  about 2 percent are given up a year .  that is 8 , 000 .  the numbers that are more limited than that are just wrong .  a lot of people now , if this passes , are going to be offered the opportunity to give up the embryo for research instead of hospital waste , and they are going to make that decision , and we will get the kind of work that we need .  i would just close by saying that 14 out of the 15 diseases that are most likely to kill people in the world are not ever going to be helped by adult stem cells .  we need to do this .  with your vote today you can provide hope to tens of millions of americans and many more around the world .  support h.r. 810 .  
R	mr. speaker , on that i demand the yeas and nays .  
R	mr. speaker , as we debate this proposal , we can not ignore the fact that every human life begins as a human embryo .  sadly , passage of this bill will put the government and taxpayers in the position of sanctioning and funding the destruction of that human life .  now , we all feel strongly about the need for aggressive and advanced research to cure and combat the myriad of diseases that prematurely take the lives of our friends and our family members and our fellow citizens .  when we lost my father to cancer , our family certainly wished that medical breakthroughs had come sooner .  that is why i am so supportive of the rapid progress being made in the fields of adult and umbilical cord stem cell research .  cord blood stem cells have already been used to treat patients , we have been hearing , for up to 67 diseases , and it is my understanding they have the potential to become any kind of cell , similar to what embryonic stem cells do .  while i recognize that many proponents of this bill offer their support with good intentions , in this case we do have clear alternatives , and i would strongly urge my colleagues to support adult and umbilical and reject this bill .  
D	mr. speaker , i rise today to voice my support for the stem cell therapeutics and research act of 2005 .  as many of my colleagues have discussed , this bill provides federal support to help cord blood banks collect and maintain new cord blood units .  it 's important to acknowledge that this bill also reaffirms congress 's commitment to the national bone marrow donor registry .  established in 1986 , the national registry has facilitated more than 21 , 000 lifesaving transplants involving cord blood , peripheral blood , and bone marrow .  although we are discussing cord blood for the first time today , the national marrow donor program ( nmdp ) , which has operated the national registry since its inception , has already incorporated cord blood into the registry to help patients , especially minority patients whose genetic diversity often makes it difficult to find a suitably matched adult volunteer donor .  through the nmdp today , individuals in need of a cord blood transplant already have access to the largest listing of cord blood units in the united states -- more than 42 , 000 units .  in addition , the nmdp lists more than 9 million i am particularly proud of the work of the nmdp , especially its strong support for cord blood and because of its partnership with the st .  louis cord blood bank .  the st .  louis cord blood bank is the cornerstone of an active clinical stem cell transplantation and research program at cardinal glennon children 's hospital and st .  louis university .  along with the st .  louis cord blood bank , the nmdp partners with 14 of the 20 u.s. public cord blood banks .  another 3 are in the process of becoming partners .  together , the nmdp and these cord blood banks are working to increase the national inventory of cord blood available for transplants and research .  their work helps thousands of americans with life-threatening diseases , such as sickle cell anemia .  it is essential that the existing integrated program continue to be able to operate as it does today .  physicians and patients must be able to search for and obtain support from a single national registry that includes cord blood , peripheral blood , and bone marrow .  physicians should not have to waste time searching multiple cord blood banks and adult donor registries or having to coordinate the further testing and delivery of units .  searching is not the only function that must be integrated .  physicians need to be confident that the results of their searches allow them to truly compare cord blood units and adult donor information .  thus , the cord blood community should work with the national program to establish criteria and standards to ensure consistency of the information that is part of the registry .  finally , it is important that all patients , not just those who receive a bone marrow or peripheral blood stem cell transplants , receive the patient advocacy and educational services that the nmdp provides to all the patients it assists .  the nmdp already provides physicians and their patients with this type of support .  this bill is a step in the right direction because it builds upon the existing registry .  we must be careful not to waste scarce federal dollars by duplicating what is already working well .  therefore , i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of h.r. 2520 , which provides for an integrated national program .  
D	mr. speaker , i rise in strong support of h.r. 810 .  i commend my colleague , the gentlewoman from colorado ( ms. degette )  , for her leadership on this issue .  stem cell research is not about abortion .  stem cell research is not about human cloning .  we are talking about finding cures for alzheimer 's , paralysis , parkinson 's , and other diseases .  we are talking about improving the lives of countless numbers of people in this country .  that is what stem cell research is about .  we are talking about putting american health care and researchers in the best position to finding the cures for today 's diseases tomorrow and to preventing the diseases of tomorrow today .  this spring , i joined my colleague , the gentleman from new york ( mr. israel )  , for a congressional roundtable on stem cells and on the biotech industry .  doctors , researchers , and scientists spoke about how the president 's strict limits on stem cell research is prohibiting them from conducting the level of research that they would like to do .  i agree , but who is missing out the most are the 650 , 000 people we represent and the potential this research holds .  american medical research has extended lives through immunization , treatments , and innovations .  from eradicating polio to advances in diabetes , american research has been on the forefront .  but there is still so much more that can be done and much more potential that exists .  i commend my colleagues again for this bill being on the floor , and i support it wholeheartedly .  
R	mr. speaker , a family invests their embryos .  they are not going to save them for 1 , 000 years .  some of those embryos cryogenically deteriorate so they are going to discard those embryos .  others are just thrown down the toilet because someone does not want them anymore .  those are the embryos that we can use for stem cell research , only the ones that are going to be thrown away .  if there are 400 , 000 , then we will use 400 , 000 .  if there are only 10 , we will use 10 unless they can be adopted , which i also support in this bill .  people say that there has been no research .  if you take a look in animals , they have actually saved spinal cords in animals , in heart , in alzheimer 's , but they just have not done it in humans .  there is potential , both for adult and embryonic stem cell .  i have been here 15 years and i am 100 percent prolife , 100 percent .  this is an issue of life to me .  i had a 6-year-old in the committee that said , duke , you 're the only person who can save my life .  do you have a child with diabetes ?  do you have a child with other diseases that could be prevented ?  then you would support this .  i am for life and i am for the quality of life , but i do not want another 6-year-old to die .  i opposed the california bill .  it went too far .  i do not support cloning , but i want to save life .  we are this close to stopping juvenile diabetes .  there are other embryos that are tainted so bad that you would not implant those and they want to study those so that they can stop those childhood diseases .  but you can not look a child in the eye when the only chance they have to live is this research .  
R	mr. speaker , most of my colleagues that support this bill are from the pro-choice field .  i come at it from the pro-life section .  a lot of times i disagree with my colleagues because i think in some cases they would go further , and a fact that many people will not take under their wing is that many of these stem cells are going to be thrown away , either cryogenically they deteriorate and they throw them away , or a woman says `` i do n't want to keep them for 1 , 000 years '' and they discard them .  they literally throw them in the toilet .  now we can save life .  they say there is no good to be done .  animal studies have shown that work with the spinal cord , heart and others have been successful .  we have not done it on humans .  if you take a look at some of the blood diseases with bone marrow used , that is stem cell .  and we have hope in the future .  i met a young man that had aids at nih , and he only thought about dying .  he said , `` duke , all i need is hope to survive. '' this gives that hope , and i think it has promise .  
D	mr. speaker , let me begin by joining the various members of this institution who will speak today and who will urge the passage of both of these bills .  i certainly can not speak with the particular passion of the gentlewoman from california ( ms. matsui )  who has been touched by this issue , but this is a very good day for the house of representatives .  it is a very good day , because we have managed to reach across the partisan divides , i believe twice today , or we will manage to reach across the partisan divide , i believe twice today , to pass bills that are good for the american people and good for countless numbers of americans who need this research .  i want to say something about the cord blood bill in particular .  i have had the honor for 2 years of working with the gentleman from new jersey ( mr. smith )  on this bill , and i am a democratic sponsor on it ; and i want to thank him for his good work .  this bill will make an enormous difference to the african americans around this country who often struggle with blood matches .  cord bloods do not require a blood match .  the young man that we saw on the cannon terrace yesterday who suffered from sickle cell anemia whose life has been permanently transformed by cord blood cell technology speaks to the power of this bill .  we talk a great deal about health care disparities , and we ought to talk about health care disparities in this country ; but rather than talk , this bill acts .  it actually provides relief for a group of people who otherwise would not have seen it .  but i want to talk for just a moment about the concept of principled difference , because i think it is very much illustrated today .  mr. speaker , the reason that this cord blood bill made it to the floor is in large measure because rather than digging in in opposition to stem cell opposition , as strongly as the gentleman from new jersey ( mr. smith )  feels about this issue , rather than digging in in opposition , the gentleman worked with the scientific community , he worked across the aisle to try to find another approach .  and as circumstance has it , both of these approaches are before us today .  if we would somehow as an institution learn from his example , if we figured out how , rather than digging in and deciding how much we disagree with each other , what other ways exist , what ways can we find to work together , we would not have a 34 percent approval rating as an institution .  the final point that i will make is that i firmly believe that we have all of our genius and all of our brilliance as a scientific and medical community for a very good reason .  i think that we are meant to use it .  i am hopeful that all of the technological advances that have happened in the last several years , with cord blood cells and with stem cells , can make a significant difference .  so to all the members of this institution , i simply urge them and encourage them to vote for both of these bills but , even more importantly , to accept this as an example of what happens when democrats and republicans find intelligent common ground .  there will be people who will benefit from this , and i do not think it is going too far to say that lives will be saved because of these two bills .  so i thank the gentleman from new jersey ( mr. smith )  for his good work and , again , i am honored to be the lead democratic sponsor of the cord blood bill .  
R	mr. speaker , we need to remember that embryonic stem cell research is legal .  in the absence of the federal government , the states are already taking the lead .  california is at the forefront of establishing a robust embryonic stem cell research program .  new jersey has followed suit , and seven other states are in the process of doing so .  we do not want our stem cell research policies left to the vagaries of state electoral politics .  the federal government in general , and nih in particular , must be involved .  the less nih is involved with its time-tested methods and procedures , the less we are assured of good ethical guidelines and scientific methods will be followed .  instead , we will have more and more individual states attempting to set up their own regulatory schemes , something they may or may not be equipped to do .  opponents argue that it is the product of a utilitarian world view , that somehow this is a zero-sum game , if the members will , in which life is taken in order to give life .  i think the strictures that are established by h.r. 810 negate that argument .  under this bill , federal research will proceed using those embryos not used in fertility clinics , embryos voluntarily given that would otherwise be destroyed , that is , embryos that held the promise of life but are certain not to fulfill that promise .  what we are doing is extending the potential life where otherwise there would be none .  i urge passage of h.r. 810 .  
D	mr. speaker , i do not know why this debate has to be either/or , either we are going to cure sickle cell anemia or we have the potential to cure type 1 diabetes .  every single american who suffers from a terrible disease should have the right to a cure .  now , this bill that we are debating right now , it is a fine bill .  i support this bill .  i think cord blood research is important .  like adult stem cells , umbilical cord stem cells have proven to be a source of hematopoietic stem cells .  those are the ones that are the blood-forming stem cells that have been used for about a decade to treat blood diseases like leukemia and lymphoma .  that is great .  but it is not either that or h.r. 810 , because unlike human embryonic stem cells , stem cells from umbilical cord blood can not continually reproduce themselves .  instead of proliferating , they quickly evolve into specialized cells .  that is why they have not proven to be useful in some of the early studies .  now , the opponents of h.r. 810 say , well , embryonic stem cells have not been used to cure any disease .  that is because we are in the very promising early stages of that research .  and the adult stem cells have been used in their narrow milieu to cure diseases and to help with diseases that are blood specific .  mr. speaker , i am here to say that there is no , no scientific evidence today that will show that the cord blood or the adult stem cells will cure alzheimer 's , parkinson 's , type 1 diabetes , or the multitude of other diseases that are not blood based .  now , some of the opponents of h.r. 810 say , well , scientific studies have shown adult stem cells to be pluripotent .  number one , their argument , their argument is that embryonic stem cells have not shown clinical application .  guess what ?  neither have adult stem cells been shown clinically to be pluripotent .  furthermore , the studies where there were some indications of that were not peer reviewed and , frankly , are rejected by the scientific community .  here is a chart .  this chart shows exactly what embryonic and adult stem cells are good for and , frankly , they are good for different things .  so let us not muddle the science .  if people do not want to do embryonic stem cell research , they can look in the eye of our colleague , the gentleman from massachusetts ( mr. langevin )  and others and say to them , we do not want to do the research that could cure your disease , and i challenge them to do that .  in conclusion , curt civin , m.d. , who is a doctor at johns hopkins university school of medicine and a researcher , says `` as a physician-scientist who has done research involving umbilical cord stem cells for over 20 years , i am frequently surprised by the thought from nonscientists that core blood stem cells may provide an alternative to embryonic stem cells for research .  this is simply wrong. '' and it is wrong to say either/or .  that is why we should vote `` yes '' on this bill and h.r. 810 .  
D	mr. speaker , before yielding to the gentlewoman from new york ( mrs. lowey )  , i would just yield a minute to myself to respond to a couple of comments .  first of all , there is a misconception here .  under the castle/degette bill , no public funds are used for embryo destruction .  current law precludes that and we keep that under our bill .  secondly , we are not spending $ 60 million through the nih through embryonic stem cell research .  last year it was really $ 25 million , and the reason is because the president 's policy , issued in august of 2001 , has not worked .  instead of 80 or 90 stem cell lines , we only had around 19 to 22 stem cell lines .  and of those lines , all of them were contaminated with mouse `` feeder '' cells , and many of them were not available to researchers here in country .  that is why we have to ethically expand embryonic stem cell research .  
D	mr. speaker , i yield myself 2 minutes .  mr. speaker , i want to clarify something .  i am actually not sure that those who oppose this bill understand what this bill really does .  in 1995 , two members of congress , mr. dickey and the gentleman from mississippi ( mr. wicker )  , inserted language in the appropriations bill , which is there every year and has been there every year i have been in congress , and it says : `` no federal funds shall be used to create or destroy embryos. '' now , those on the other side of this debate say they do not think federal funds should be used for this research , even though by their own admission the majority of americans support this research .  and so here is what this bill does , and maybe once i explain it , everyone will want to vote for it .  what it says is , people who go to in vitro fertilization clinics , there are leftover embryos as part of the process .  they can decide one of two things : number one , do they want to not discard the embryos and either donate them to other couples , and they can be these snowflake children , or to store them in a freezer ?  or the donors can decide if they want to throw them away .  or do they want to donate them to science ?  it is their decision with informed consent .  now , if they decide to donate them , then what would happen would be the embryos would go to a clinic where a stem cell line would be developed from the embryo with private funds .  no federal funds .  the only federal funds used under the castle/degette bill are federal funds to then develop those embryonic stem cell lines .  just as the president 's executive order in august of 2001 allowed stem cell lines to be researched with federal funding , but he limited those lines , we are allowing more of those lines .  so no embryos will be destroyed with federal funds .  i hope that clarifies the situation .  
D	mr. speaker , i yield myself 30 seconds .  mr. speaker , i just want to say , if people want to donate their embryos to another couple for adoption , our bill allows that .  but our bill also allows people who do not want to give their embryos for adoption to donate them for science , so the children who are alive today can be cured .  i assume no one on the other side of this issue would want to force everybody to give up their embryos for adoption , because clearly that would be limiting the choice that people have .  
D	mr. speaker , i have no further speakers , and i am intending to reserve the rest of my time for closing .  
D	mr. speaker , i yield myself the balance of my time .  mr. speaker , first i would like to give my heartfelt thanks to my partner , the gentleman from delaware ( mr. castle )  , our bipartisan whip team , the 201 cosponsors of this bill , and so many others who spoke today from the bottom of their hearts .  more than 100 years ago , justice oliver wendell holmes recognized that we are living in an increasingly complex world and that `` the chief worth of civilization is just that it makes the means of living more complex. '' this world , he says , `` calls for great and combined intellectual efforts instead of simple , uncoordinated ones. '' the truth of justice holmes ' words in today 's complex world is best seen in the state of scientific research .  we are on the verge of breakthroughs that will cure diseases that affect tens of millions of americans .  yet some want to turn away from this potential , to refuse to even acknowledge its existence , simply because they do not understand the complexity of this issue .  this refusal is slowing the process of ethical science and , worse , delaying advancements that could cure diseases that affect patients and families around the world .  our constituents want more from us .  they want their elected officials to thoughtfully examine tough issues like embryonic stem cell research , and create policies that address both practical and ethical challenges .  they also expect us to consider these issues not as democrats or as republicans , not as pro-life or pro-choice , but as people with family members and friends whose lives could be made better or even saved by our decisions .  passing h.r. 810 will allow the federal government to enable scientists , not politicians , to determine whether embryonic stem cell research will lead to cures for diseases that now plague us , and it will do so while establishing the clear and strict ethical guidelines that are absent today .  in 2001 , the president issued his executive order establishing the current embryonic stem cell research policy in an attempt to balance bioethics and science .  in the last 4 years , it has become clear that the policy has failed on both counts .  research has been stymied in this country , going into private hands and offshore .  research moves ahead , but not with the resources and coordination of the national institutes of health and without clear ethical standards .  i recognize that new science creates new moral dilemmas .  that is why our bill sets explicit controls on how stem cell lines can be created .  it gives another option for embryos created for in vitro fertilization , embryos created in petri dishes , that would otherwise be destroyed so that they can be used to potentially save or extend lives .  it gives the patients for whom the embryos are created the decision on how they will be used : as now , freezing for possible future use ; discarding them as medical waste or donating them to other couples for implantation ; and if this bill passes , another option , donating them for critical research that could save millions of lives of people who are already born .  here is why we need to pass this bill .  these are two young brothers from denver , colorado .  wyatt and noah forman .  both of these boys have type 1 diabetes , and both of them have been diagnosed since they were 2. a couple of months ago , little noah had convulsions in the middle of the night from low blood sugar .  his parents thought they would lose him , and now they can not sleep at night .  without a cure , wyatt and noah face possible complications ranging from a heart attack to kidney failure or even blindness as they grow up .  how can we tell these boys , these two boys and millions of others , that we would rather throw the embryonic stem cells that could provide them a cure than to allow them to be donated for science ?  how can we tell our colleagues , the gentleman from rhode island ( mr. langevin )  and the gentleman from illinois ( mr. evans )  , our mothers with alzheimer 's , our brothers with lou gehrig 's disease , the millions of americans who are praying for a cure and for whom embryonic stem cell research may hold the key , sorry , the federal government is opting out ?  let us not let 1 more year , 1 more month , or 1 more day go by without acting .  let us reclaim the federal government 's role as the leader in ethical basic research .  let us give those whom we are sworn to represent hope .  let us pass h.r. 810 .  
D	mr. speaker , i am proud to stand on the house floor today to speak in favor of the stem cell research enhancement act , legislation which will bring hope to millions of people suffering from disease in this nation .  i want to thank congresswoman degette and congressman castle for their tireless work in bringing this bill to the house floor for a vote .  the discovery of embryonic stem cells is a major scientific breakthrough .  embryonic stem cells have the potential to form any cell type in the human body .  this could have profound implications for diseases such as alzheimer 's , parkinson 's , various forms of brain and spinal cord disorders , diabetes , and many types of cancer .  according to the coalition for the advancement of medical research , there are at least 58 diseases which could potentially be cured through stem cell research .  that is why more than 200 major patient groups , scientists , and medical research groups and 80 nobel laureates support the stem cell research enhancement act .  they know that this legislation will give us a chance to find cures to diseases affecting 100 million americans .  i want to make clear that i oppose reproductive cloning , as we all do .  i have voted against it in the past .  however , that is vastly different from stem cell research and as an ovarian cancer survivor , i am not going to stand in the way of science .  permitting peer-reviewed federal funds to be used for this research , combined with public oversight of these activities , is our best assurance that research will be of the highest quality and performed with the greatest dignity and moral responsibility .  the policy president bush announced in august 2001 has limited access to stem cell lines and has stalled scientific progress .  as a cancer survivor , i know the desperation these families feel as they wait for a cure .  this congress must not stand in the way of that progress .  we have an opportunity to change the lives of millions , and i hope we take it .  i urge my colleagues to support this legislation .  
R	mr. speaker , i appreciate the distinguished minority whip yielding to me .  the house will convene on monday at 12 : 30 p.m .  for morning hour and 2 p.m .  for legislative business .  we will consider several measures under suspension of the rules .  a final list of those bills will be sent to members ' offices by the end of the week .  any votes called on these measures will be rolled until 6 : 30 p.m .  on tuesday and the balance of the week , the house will consider several bills under a rule : h.r. 810 , the stem cell research enhancement act of 2005 ; h.r. 2419 , the energy and water development appropriations act for fiscal year 2006 ; and h.r. 1815 , the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2006 .  in addition , mr. speaker , we plan to consider the military quality of life appropriations act for fiscal year 2006 sometime later in the week .  
R	while it is certainly subject to change , i would expect us to consider the stem cell bill on tuesday , followed on tuesday by the energy and water bill .  hopefully , we could finish that bill by tuesday night and start the dod authorization bill on wednesday and thursday , if necessary , and complete the week with the military quality of life appropriations bill .  
R	we are working with your side on a unanimous-consent request to bring the bill up even without a rule .  hopefully , we can agree to a lengthy debate .  this issue is so important for an up-and-down vote .  hopefully , we could have a full and open debate on this very important issue .  and it will be hopefully done under a unanimous-consent request that will be worked out with your side , probably on monday .  
R	in working with the minority leader 's office and your office , there have been requests to accommodate some members and start this debate early in the afternoon instead of early in the morning .  i would , along with the unanimous-consent request , anticipate us working out an agreeable time , and i would expect after discussions already being held that we would anticipate the debate to start on that bill somewhere early in the afternoon and running for the length of time agreed to by both sides .  
R	we do have a very , very full schedule over the next few weeks .  as the gentleman knows and most of the members know , the appropriations committee is trying their best to get all the appropriations bills out of the house before the july 4 break , so there is very little time between now and the fourth of july to do other bills .  we are considering the head start bill , but we do not have any immediate plans to consider the head start bill reauthorization and hope that we can get to it as soon as possible .  
R	as the gentleman knows , this house passed the highway bill some weeks ago and the senate just finished the highway bill in their chamber .  we will probably have to consider some type of short-term extension next week , hopefully an agreed-to extension bill .  and if the senate requests a conference next week , i believe that the speaker will be prepared to appoint house conferees next week .  
R	mr. speaker , i would just say that the president has been criticized for not vetoing any bills over the last 4 1/2 years , but it has become a tradition around here to include the president as we do legislation through the house and the senate and therefore working out any of our differences so that he would not have to veto a bill , and i do not see that the highway bill is any different than anything else we have been doing for the last 4 1/2 years .  so he is obviously a major player in this process .  the house , as the gentleman says , has expressed itself at a number .  we think the president will sign the bill .  the senate has chosen to do otherwise .  hopefully , we can work this out in the conference committee so that the president will not have to mar his record by vetoing a bill .  
R	mr. speaker , i appreciate the gentleman 's yielding to me .  i would just point out to the gentleman that in the good old days that he refers to , yes , this house had a great reputation for wanting to spend more money , and those days have changed in that the president is adamant about spending and spending the right amount of money to do the job and the house has concurred in that many times and have voted in the house .  and it has been a pleasure to work with the president to hold down spending and make sure that every dollar is spent properly .  
R	which ag bill ?  
R	he signed the bill .  
R	mr. speaker , the issue of human cloning and embryonic stem cell research cuts to the very core of politics .  and today the house will hear passionate arguments , essentially about the nature and value of human life .  now , that debate will be , among other things , controversial , because the proponents of embryo destruction in the name of progress believe it is not the embryo destruction its opponents oppose , but rather progress itself .  but it is not so , and the bill before us now , the stem cell therapeutic and research act proves it .  this bill , which provides for federal funding of research using adult stem cells which have , unlike embryonic stem cells , proven medical benefits in treating more than 60 separate diseases , will pass with the overwhelming support of both sides of this debate .  now , this bill , sponsored by the gentleman from new jersey ( mr. smith )  will , for the first time , provide for taxpayer-funded research on well-developed stem cells from umbilical cords , expand federal funding in bone marrow stem cell research , and provide for the development of a national stem cell therapy database for medical practitioners and researchers .  this is what progress is , mr. speaker , concrete , definable and based on fact , rather than speculation or a false sense of hope .  the best one can say about embryonic stem cell research is that it is a scientific exploration into the potential benefits of killing human beings .  proponents of medical research on destroyed human embryos would justify admittedly unfortunate means with the potential ends of medical breakthroughs down the line .  but the deliberate destruction of unique , living self-integrated human persons is not some incidental tangent of embryonic stem cell research .  it is the essence of the experiment .  kill some in hopes of saving others .  the choice , however well intentioned , is predicated upon a utilitarian view of human life that this bill shows our government need not take .  the smith bill will fund the only kind of stem cell research that has ever proven medically beneficial , while helping to develop new and exciting avenues of inquiry , all without harming a single human embryo .  this bill is progress , mr. speaker , and represents a perfect contrast to speculative and harmful methods of embryonic stem cell research .  this is the right stem cell bill , mr. speaker .  progress , even progress that pushes the envelope of medical knowledge , need not be controversial .  it need not divide us or force people of goodwill to devalue human life .  progress , in fact , is the opposite of such a choice .  and the smith bill unites the public and private sectors , both doctors and patients , and recognizes the inherent dignity and value of every human person .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. speaker , i just have to respond to the comments by the gentlewoman from colorado ( ms. degette )  .  she must be reading a different bill .  that is what this whole argument is about .  the gentlewoman says that no federal funds can go to destroying an embryo in order to have research .  she just said that .  that is what this whole bill does is to allow funding of embryonic stem cell research , and in order to do that research , you have to destroy the embryo .  in fact , if the gentlewoman would like , i would be willing to entertain a unanimous consent request that if , indeed , that does not happen in her bill , i will be glad to accept it and i will vote for the bill .  that is the whole notion of what is going on here .  it is not true to say that her bill does not allow federal funding for destruction of embryos .  
R	mr. speaker , how much time remains on all sides ?  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. speaker , i just wanted to point out that it has been said that there are 100 , 000 embryos available for research .  i guess they want to add another portion to their bill requiring parents to give their embryos up for research because at the present time there are only 2.8 percent of the parents that have allowed or have designated their embryos to be used for research .  that means there are only 11 , 000 available for this research .  
R	mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , could i inquire as to the time on all sides ?  
R	mr. speaker , could i inquire of the gentlewoman from colorado ( ms. degette )  and the gentleman from michigan ( mr. stupak )  how many speakers they each have left ?  i have four , actually five , counting me .  
R	mr. speaker , i only have one more speaker before i close .  so i yield , mr. speaker , 3 1/2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from illinois ( mr. hyde )  , who has been fighting for the culture of life his entire career .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself the balance of my time .  mr. speaker , what we have before us today is not a debate as some have suggested between science and ideology , but between aspirations and actions .  both sides of this debate wish to ease human suffering .  so what divides us is not our ends , but the means to which we would resort to pursue those ends .  that is why the castle bill must be defeated , because while we are motivated by our aspirations , we are defined by our actions ; and the federal government simply can not sanction the actions authorized and funded by this legislation .  for all the arguments we have heard today , scientific , ethical , political , the debate for and against the castle bill , for and against the authorization of federal taxpayer dollars to fund medical research predicated on the destruction of human embryos is in essence a question of the level of respect and dignity our government chooses to grant human life in its earliest stage .  that embryos are human beings is not a political dispute .  an embryo is a person , a distinct , internally directed , self-integrating human organism .  an embryo has not merely the potential to become a human being .  it is one , and as such , just like a newborn or a toddler or a teenager , possesses instead the internally directed potential to grow into adulthood , to become in a sense what he or she already is .  an embryo is whole , just unfinished , just like the rest of us .  we were all at one time embryos ourselves , and so was abraham , so was mohammed , so was jesus of nazareth and shakespeare and beethoven and lincoln .  and so were the 79 children , those snowflake children , those snowflake children ages 6 and under who have been adopted .  do not throw them away .  adopt them .  these children have been adopted through different programs , but particularly the snowflake embryo adoption program , who under the castle bill and its predictable progeny might otherwise have been destroyed in a petri dish , these children that were embryos .  an embryo is nothing less than a human being , a fact both morally intuited and scientifically unquestioned .  what level of respect and dignity , then , should our government grant such little creatures , these tiny beings who our eyes suggest are not like us but who our hearts and minds know in fact are us ?  the castle bill is very clear , and though i oppose it , its clarity well serves both sides in this debate .  the castle bill says essentially that the potential medical and scientific progress represented by an embryo 's stem cells justifies , justifies taxpayer funding for the destruction of that embryo through the harvesting of the stem cells .  of course , it is not the hoped-for end of the castle bill that we oppose , nor necessarily , among some on this side of the aisle , even its destructive means , but instead the entitlement of those destructive means to federal tax dollars .  after all , human embryos are being harvested for medical research every day in this country .  we just do not think the government should be forcing the american people to pay for it , especially considering the discouraging track record of the kind of research the castle bill has in mind .  to date , mr. speaker , none , none , not one of the countless and extraordinarily well-endowed private embryo-cell-harvesting projects has yielded a single treatment for a single disease .  not one .  embryonic stem cell therapies which are by design definitely untherapeutic to the embryos have in fact proven to be similarly harmful to those patients the treatments were supposed to help .  harvested embryonic stem cells are typically rejected by the host patient and often form cancerous tumors as a byproduct of that rejection .  that is to say , mr. speaker , it does not work .  and , indeed , many embryonic stem cell experts concede that such research will not yield results for decades , if at all , if ever .  in truth , then , it is not the ends that would supposedly justify the grizzly means of the castle bill , but the mere aspiration to those ends .  on the other hand , better developed stem cells from the umbilical cords of newborn babies and the bone marrow of fully grown adults have led to treatments of no fewer than 67 separate diseases .  based on this successful track record , the biomedical industry is pouring its own money into adult stem cell research .  it is the smart investment .  in other words , mr. speaker , the castle bill would throw taxpayer money at the same unsuccessful research that companies with the financial motivation for developing such research are avoiding .  it just does not work .  indeed , one might say the stubborn advocacy of embryonic harvesting in the face of the overwhelming clinical evidence of its futility might be a genuine case of ideology trumping science .  but what if it did work , mr. speaker ?  what if all the utopian comments of the castle bill 's proponents were to come true ?  what then ?  what if we could be sure that government-funded destruction of human embryos could do all the things we are asked to believe ?  well , in that case , mr. speaker , we would still be right to oppose it because in the life of men and nations , some mistakes you can not undo .  some mistakes do not just come back and haunt you , they define you .  a decision by our government to sanction embryo harvesting here at the very dawn of the biotechnology age could come to own us , for the paltry research sum envisioned by the castle bill is but the first generation , the first drop of the deluge .  its offspring will ultimately include cloning , genetically engineered children , a black market of human body parts , and a global economy organized around the exploitation and hyper-ovulation of impoverished women and girls for their eggs .  if the mere aspiration of ends justify the means here , in our first ethical challenge of the biotechnology age , how could we hope for a higher standard the next time ?  which returns me to the irreducible question of this debate : what level of respect and dignity ought this government grant defenseless unburdensome human life at its earliest , most vulnerable stage ?  given the biological fact of a human embryo 's membership in the human family , given the technological necessity of embryonic destruction as a precondition of embryonic stem cell research , given the medical reality of embryonic stem cell research 's consistent therapeutic failure , given the moral catastrophe of means-justifying-the-ends morality , and given the physical revulsion people instinctively feel when considering the destruction of defenseless human life by scientists in lab coats ; given all these factors , the answer a proponent of taxpayer-funded embryonic stem cell harvesting and research must give is `` none. '' for if we afford the little embryos any shred of respect and dignity , we can not in good faith use taxpayer dollars to destroy them .  i wish there was another way , mr. speaker , but there is not .  it is just wrong , not as a matter of ideology or even fate , but as a matter of respect and dignity .  we are not asking anyone here to recognize the rights of human embryos , but the wrongs of human adults .  this is not about the embryo 's standing as a juridical person , but our standing as moral persons .  because the choice to protect a human embryo from federally funded destruction is not ultimately about the embryos , it is about us and our rejection of the treacherous notion that while all human lives are sacred , some are more sacred than others .  i heard it said here today , some are more sacred than others .  like our embryonic cousins , mr. speaker , our nation is whole but unfinished .  the issue is a test in which we are asked out of good and pure intentions just this once , just this tiny little bit , to let the ends justify the means , to let the noble aspirations justify ignoble actions .  in this test , in this vote , then , we have an opportunity today to speak truth to the power of biotechnology , to rise up against the prevailing winds of human excess and hold fast to the dignity of human life upon which all other worldly truths are based : to ensure our appetite for knowledge is checked by our knowledge of our appetites ; to stand up , as only america can , in the name of the least among us , whom we serve , and become the people we are .  i ask my colleagues , seize the opportunity and vote `` no . '' 
R	mr. speaker , in 1999 young tessa wick was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes .  she began the laborious process which changed her life and she dedicated herself to doing everything that she possibly could to ensure that no one would have to suffer as she has .  during that period of time , she has worked to raise large sums of money .  she has testified before the united states senate , and last friday her father told me that she said to him not a lot has been accomplished yet .  we have not yet found a cure .  and her father said to me that we need to do everything that we possibly can to ensure that we do find a cure .  we are all supportive of umbilical cord research , but i believe that it is proper for us to pursue embryonic stem cell research , mr. speaker .  in a week and a half , we mark the first anniversary of ronald reagan 's passing .  everyone knows how passionately nancy reagan feels about the need for us to pursue this research .  i believe it is the appropriate thing to do .  now , there are no guarantees .  we all know there are no guarantees at all , but passage of this legislation does provide an opportunity for hope , hope that we will be able to turn the corner on these debilitating diseases from which so many people suffer .  and so i hope very much that we can pursue a bipartisan approach to this important measure .  and while i am concerned that there is disagreement with the president of the united states , i hope that we will be able to , at the end of the day , work out a bipartisan agreement that will include the president of the united states in this effort .  
D	mr. speaker , as an original cosponsor of h.r. 810 , the stem cell research enhancement act of 2005 , i rise in strong support of this legislation .  h.r. 810 is essential legislation that will expand opportunities for scientists to treat spinal cord injuries , multiple sclerosis , parkinson 's disease , alzheimer 's disease , diabetes , and other devastating diseases .  there are ethical concerns over the use of embryonic stem cells in research , and we should not treat stem cells as just another laboratory product .  we must strongly prohibit unethical practices , such as human cloning .  and we should not allow embryos to be bought and sold .  but it is important to recognize that , as part of the process of in vitro fertilization , many embryos are created that are never used and are slated to be destroyed .  with the stringent moral safeguards established by this legislation , including the required written consent of the donors , i believe we should permit the use of stem cells from these embryos .  the use of embryos for research that would otherwise be destroyed strikes a responsible balance between the ethical and medical values associated with stem cell research .  the current state of stem cell research suggests that there is significant progress to be made if we move forward in this area .  leading scientists have testified that adult stem cells and umbilical cord stem cells do not share the ability of embryonic stem cells to replicate all other cells in the human body .  if we do n't invest in stem cell research , millions of americans with some of the most debilitating diseases will not be able to avail themselves of the treatments or cures that might result .  in addition , if we fail to invest federal resources in embryonic stem cell research , the u.s. will lose its competitive advantage in this essential area of science .  the limited federal support for stem cell research is just one area of science in which the u.s. is falling behind .  last year china produced 160 , 000 more engineers than we did .  nearly 40 percent of u.s. jobs in science or technology requiring a ph.d .  are now filled by people born abroad -- that 's up from 25 percent in 1990 .  we now rank below 13 other countries -- including japan , germany , and south korea -- in the percentage of 24-year-olds with a college degree in a science or engineering field -- that 's down from third in the world 25 years ago .  mr. speaker , this legislation will help the u.s. to move forward on our moral imperative to perform stem cell research in an ethically responsible way .  i urge all of my colleagues to support it .  
D	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman from ohio ( mr. brown )  for yielding time to me .  and i rise in support of h.r. 2520 , the stem cell therapeutic and research act of 2005 .  this act , combined with h.r. 810 , the stem cell research enhancement act of 2005 , will go a long way towards helping millions of americans who suffer from debilitating health conditions .  i wholeheartedly support umbilical stem cell research , but also support embryonic stem cell research .  as anyone who suffers from diabetes , parkinson 's disease , als , or a host of other health problems knows , one possible treatment is the use of stem cells to help regrow the tissues affected by their ailments .  scientists have stated that embryonic stem cells provide the best opportunity for devising unique treatments of these serious diseases since , unlike adult stem cells , they may be induced to develop into any type of cell .  adult stem cells are also problematic , as they are difficult to identify , purify and grow , and simply may not exist for certain diseased tissues that need to be replaced .  please understand that i do not discount the promise of adult stem cell research or cord blood research , but i agree with the national institutes of health that we must carefully study all types of adult and embryonic stem cells .  in their words , `` given the enormous promise of stem cell therapies for so many devastating diseases , nih believes that it is important to simultaneously pursue all lines of research. '' our loved ones deserve science 's best hope for the future .  now , i want to say something .  this is not about cloning .  i oppose cloning of human beings .  this is about the use of embryonic stem cells which would have been discarded anyway .  i want to repeat that .  this is about the use of embryonic stem cells which would have been discarded anyway .  it has been estimated that there are currently 400 , 000 frozen ivf embryos , which would be destroyed if they are not donated for research .  i would never condone the donation of embryos to science without the informed , written consent of donors and strict regulations prohibiting financial remuneration for potential donors .  our nation 's scientific research must adhere to the highest ethical standards .  but it is important that we do embryonic stem cell research .  we are falling behind other countries , and this is not what ought to be happening .  president bush has limited federal funding of stem cell research to only those stem cell lines that existed prior to august of 2001 .  but unfortunately , only 22 cell lines are available for study , which prevents scientists from having access to important genetic cell diversity .  simply put , if it continues , that would not be ethical .  please support both bills .  
D	mr. speaker , i thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time .  mr. speaker , i rise in support of this bill , which will expand funding for embryonic stem cell research , and i am proud to be an original cosponsor of it .  what i would like to say today is the following : scientists have informed us , the professional scientists in our country , not political scientists , but scientists , and what they have told us from their considerable work and research is that this issue represents hope .  it represents hope for the cure of diseases that plague so many of our people , from juvenile diabetes all the way to the other part of life , which is alzheimer 's , and so many diseases in between .  this congress and previous congresses have seen fit to double the funding of the national institutes of health .  i have always called them the national institutes of hope .  we are now on the threshold , we are now on the threshold of debating an issue that can bring hope to our people .  it is up to us to have an ethical standard in this debate .  that is why no human cloning is a part of the bill that i support .  why ?  because no one supports that .  the american people are decent and they want an ethical standard , but they also want their nation 's leaders to continue to give hope to them , hope for the cure of these diseases that cause so much human suffering .  we have a responsibility in terms of our compassion , in terms of the instruction that our nation 's scientists have given to us .  so i urge my colleagues to support this bill .  it is an ethical bill , and it is a bill that is all about hope .  mr. speaker , i rise in support of this bill which will expand funding for embryonic stem cell research , and i 'm proud to be an original cosponsor of it .  under this bill embryonic stem cell lines will be eligible for federal funding only if the embryos used to derive stem cells were originally created for fertility treatment purposes and are in excess of clinical need .  today , there are thousands of surplus embryos from fertility treatments that will never be used and will likely be discarded .  we should allow parents who choose to donate these embryos for use in federally-funded stem cell research to do so .  my home-state of california recently approved a $ 3 billion ballot initiative to fund embryonic stem-cell experiments .  it is the largest state-supported scientific research program in the country .  this initiative places california at the forefront of the field and exceeds all current stem-cell projects in the united states .  but without additional federal funding , our scientific leadership is being transferred overseas .  where the leading-edge research is carried out matters a great deal .  any policy restricting federal funding for embryonic stem cell research threatens the long-term vitality of the u.s. economy , and most importantly denies millions of americans hope .  i urge all my colleagues to vote `` yes '' on h.r. 810 .  
D	mr. speaker , today the house is considering h.r. 810 , the stem cell research enhancement act of 2005 , which expands funding for embryonic stem cell research .  as an advocate of stem cell research , i 'm proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation because i believe that this critical research can lead to cures for type 1 diabetes , parkinson 's disease , alzheimer 's disease , paralysis caused by spinal cord injury , and other serious health problems .  over 3 , 000 people die every day in the united states from diseases that may some day be treatable as a result of stem cell research .  now is the time for congress and the administration to recognize that the current policy does not work .  in 2001 , president bush crafted a policy to allow limited federal support for some embryonic stem cell research .  four years later , however , it 's clear that his policy has hindered progress .  today , of the 78 stem cells lines approved for federal research , only 22 are available to researchers .  these 22 lines are not only contaminated but were also developed with outdated techniques .  under h.r. 810 , embryonic stem cell lines will be eligible only if embryos used to derive stem cells were originally created for fertility treatment purposes and are in excess of clinical need .  today , there are thousands of surplus embryos from fertility treatments that will never be used and will likely be discarded .  we should allow parents to donate these embryos for use in federally-funded stem cell research .  this november , my home-state of california approved a $ 3 billion ballot initiative supported by governor schwarzenegger to fund embryonic stem-cell experiments .  it is the largest state-supported scientific research program .  this initiative puts california at the forefront of the field and exceeds all current stem cell projects in the united states .  however , with the federal government on the sidelines , scientists are still reluctant to pursue stem cell research and the private sector is unwilling to invest in the field .  we are losing ground to the rest of the world .  as the washington post reported last friday ( may 20 , 2005 ) , south korea is leapfrogging ahead of us and is developing techniques proving that stem cell research is robust .  now , the public , researchers and industry are looking to congress for leadership .  stem cell research should not be about politics .  it should be about science , medicine and hope .  we have an opportunity to help end the suffering of millions of people with chronic or terminal diseases , and we should seize it .  stem cell research is not only critical to saving lives but it also stimulates our nation 's economy .  stem cell research is the next `` big thing '' in biotechnology after the human genome project .  long-term economic growth depends on productivity , productivity depends on technology , and technology ultimately depends on basic science , which is why any policy restricting federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research threatens the long-term health and vitality of the u.s. economy .  biotechnology is at a stage of development similar to where information technology was in the late 1980s -- ready to explode .  for our leadership in science and technological leadership , where innovative leading-edge research is carried out matters a great deal , but under the current policy we 're leaving the field even before the game has begun .  now the president has said he will veto this bill .  he may succeed in stifling stem cell research in our country , but he will not stop scientific progress .  it will occur elsewhere .  if the u.s. fails to embrace stem cell research , we will only slow progress in treating disease and cede our leading role as a technological leader .  the federal government should be in the business of encouraging and assisting research that can help save the lives of its citizens .  the stem cell research enhancement act of 2005 accelerates scientific progress toward cures and treatments for a wide range of diseases while simultaneously instituting stronger ethical requirements on stem cell lines that are eligible for federally funded research .  i urge all my colleagues in the house to support this legislation .  
D	mr. speaker , i rise in support of h.r. 810 , the stem cell research enhancement act .  scientific and biomedical research and innovation has made our nation and our world a safer and healthier place .  advances in medicine have made virtually obsolete killer diseases like smallpox and polio , have increased life expectancy and improved the quality of life for people around the globe .  from roman times around 2000 years ago to 1900 life expectancy increased from 25 to 47 years of age .  however , because of important discoveries and advances in medicine and medical treatments , by the year 2000 life expectancy had increased to over 76 years of age .  the advances in medicine that resulted in this dramatic increase in life expectancy did not happen by accident .  they occurred as a result of visionary leadership in both the public and private sectors .  they occurred as a result of political will and public capital .  they occurred because of the private sector 's ability to convert government funded basic research into life-saving applications .  government funded basic research has and continues to serve as the foundation for the medical advances that have improved the health and quality of life for millions of people .  while the advances we have made in medicine in the last century have been both impressive and historic , we have a long way to go .  far too many people in our society suffer from debilitating diseases like parkinson 's , alzheimer 's and diabetes for which there are no cures .  the scientific community overwhelmingly believes that embryonic stem cell research holds the potential for medical advances and therapies that could make these and other diseases as obsolete as polio and small pox , and the national institutes of health have proposed an ethically sound policy to further this research .  i support federal funding for embryonic stem cell research because without it we run the risk of missing an historic opportunity to improve the lives of millions of i understand that many of the opponents of this legislation have moral qualms about using embryos for research .  but the embryos covered under this legislation would otherwise be discarded , so defeat of this legislation would do nothing to assuage moral difficulties surrounding destruction of embryos .  and defeat of this legislation would deny innocent victims of terrible diseases the opportunity of relief from their suffering and healing of their afflictions .  i support funding for this research because of the bright promise it holds to make life better and more productive for generations to come .  our north carolina values guide us to expand scientific and medical knowledge to enhance the health and well being of our families , neighbors and fellow citizens , and this research is key to that effort .  
D	mr. speaker , i rise in support of h.r. 810 because we need to support studying every kind of stem cell , from cord blood to adult to embryonic .  parkinson 's disease affects over 1 million americans , and i am one of them .  many people think that this is a disease that mostly affects older citizens .  that is not true .  i was diagnosed when i was in my mid-40s and michael j. fox , for example , was much younger than that .  parkinson 's does not keep me from doing the things that are important to my life and my work , but parkinson 's does affect me every day of my life .  there are good days and bad days , but there is still a need for research and for a cure .  parkinson 's has been said to be the most curable disease that is yet to be cured .  scientists believe a cure is on the horizon within the next 5 to 10 years .  they also believe that the advances in parkinson 's research will lead to accelerated cures for other illnesses such as alzheimer 's .  only embryonic stem cells hold enormous potential in order to treat these patients .  doctors treating patients with disease or injury may feel compelled to ease the suffering by taking every ethical avenue possible to find treatments and cures .  these doctors are among some of the most talented , dedicated , and well-respected doctors in this country .  today we decide whether to free these scientists or to hold them captive .  we will decide whether those suffering from parkinson 's , diabetes , spinal cord injuries , and others will have the greatest potential for cures , or whether they will just simply sit on the bench .  mr. speaker , i do not think that is the right message to send patients and doctors .  the american people agree .  poll after poll has shown that a wider majority of americans support ethical embryonic stem cell research .  the majority of bush supporters , for example , have voted to support this research .  over 90 patient organizations , scientific and medical societies , and universities also support this research .  some think this research has given false hope to patients like me .  but the science is moving forward and , with our help , will go even further .  this is really an exciting day for me , mr. speaker .  i appreciate everyone who has helped us .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank the chairman for yielding me time .  mr. speaker , today we will hear some of our colleagues talk about the empty promise of embryonic stem cell research .  they will argue for research that not only requires the destruction of human life , but to date , has also not yielded a single therapy .  what we in congress should be advocating for is the continuing advancement of adult stem cell research , a true scientific success story , which has benefited thousands of americans already .  perhaps nowhere is this success more evident than in the advancement of cord-blood stem cells .  a rich source of stem cells , umbilical cords are already treating patients .  cord-blood stem cells have already been used to treat thousands of patients and more than 67 different diseases , including leukemia , sickle cell anemia and lymphoma .  the new york blood center 's national cord-blood program alone has provided transplants to over 1 , 500 gravely ill children and adults .  and there is great promise for the future .  studies have shown that these cells have the capacity to change into other cell types , giving them potential to treat debilitating conditions such as parkinson 's disease , spinal cord injury and diabetes .  the stem cell therapeutic and research act focuses government efforts on research with real promise , providing federal funding to increase the number of cord-blood units available to match and treat patients .  the bill also takes on the recommendations of the institute of medicine , providing a national network that would link all the cord-blood banks participating in an inventory program into a search system , allowing transplant physicians to search for cord-blood and bone marrow matches through a single-access point .  it would also promote additional stem cell research for units not suitable for transplant .  the stem cell therapeutic and research act advances true stem cell research , research with real promise , grounded in proven science ; and it is ethically sound .  i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important and timely legislation .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank both gentlemen for yielding me this time .  the debate over embryonic stem cell research is important because there are no more important issues that we deal with in this chamber than when we debate life and death .  mr. speaker , as i stand here in this chamber today , i am a human being .  i am a man , an adult man .  sometime before i was a man , i was a teenager .  before that i was a child .  and sometime before i was a child , i was a toddler .  and before i was a toddler , i was an infant .  and sometime before i was an infant , i was a fetus .  and sometime before i was a fetus , i was an embryo .  i did not look like i do today , but it was me .  that embryo was me .  at some point in our history , every single person here was also an embryo .  the gentleman from texas ( mr. delay )  , you were an embryo once .  the other gentleman from texas ( mr. barton )  , the chairman of the committee ; yes , sir , you too were an embryo once .  the gentleman from delaware , the sponsor of this bill , you were an embryo once .  the gentlewoman from colorado , you too were an embryo once .  the gentleman from michigan , you were an embryo once .  now , we did not look like we do today , but it did not mean it was not you .  a human embryo is a member of the human family .  it has its own unique dna .  it is its own human entity .  it is unique .  it is irreplaceable , and it is a member of the species homo sapiens .  it is not just a bit of tissue .  it is not just , as some have suggested , a couple of cells in a petri dish .  it is human and it is alive .  it might not look like you or me , but there was a time when you and i looked exactly like that embryo .  today , we are debating embryonic stem cell research , a type of stem cell research in which a tiny member of the human family must die .  that is not just my opinion ; that is a scientific fact .  the gentlewoman from colorado would suggest that under this legislation federal funds would not be used to destroy human life .  that is simply false .  those who conduct human embryonic stem cell research must destroy human life to do so .  you can not conduct embryonic stem cell research without destroying human life , and that is wrong .  and it is certainly wrong to fund this unethical embryonic stem cell research using taxpayer money .  and that is precisely what this legislation would do .  it would use taxpayer money to fund research which destroys human life .  i urge a `` no '' vote .  
R	mr. speaker , the seminal question that we address is , should americans be using their tax dollars to fund research that kills a living human embryo ?  my answer to that is an emphatic `` no. '' it is our duty to ensure that we spend our money on things that work , and there are no therapies in humans that have ever successfully been carried out using embryonic stem cells .  and that is really what this whole debate is about , paying for what works and paying for it in a way that is consistent with the morals of our taxpayers .  look , even the president and ceo of the juvenile diabetes research foundation , a group that is a strong supporter of destroying human embryos for research , he said , `` there have been more promising results in adult stem cells than there have been in embryonic stem cells. '' he predicted that their foundation would soon be spending more on adult cells research than embryonic research .  private organizations like these are choosing to use their research dollars on what works , adult stem cells research .  washington must also spend its money efficiently on what works , while representing the values of the taxpayer .  i urge a `` no '' vote on federal funding for killing living human embryos .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman from maryland for yielding to me .  and i think particularly at this point i wanted to interject some thoughts .  first of all , the gentleman from maryland ( mr. bartlett )  , as he pointed out just a second ago , is a ph.d .  physiologist who taught years ago in medical school and taught physiology but , more importantly , has also taught the subject matter , which is difficult to understand .  i know .  i was there in medical school .  and that is the subject of embryology .  embryology .  medical students get maybe in a 4-year period of time , 6 months ' worth of embryology ; and of course , to hear my colleague from maryland explaining the embryologic process , it sort of takes me back to those days .  but i realize , of course , how difficult it is to understand for members of the body .  there are 435 of us , of course , and just a handful have ever taken any embryology .  there are no embryologists other than maybe the gentleman from maryland ( mr. bartlett )  in the body ; so it is not an easy concept to understand .  but what i hear my colleague tell us , mr. speaker , is that it is possible to get stem cells from an embryo without destroying the embryo .  is it being done today ?  no , it is not being done today because , quite honestly , it is easier to scramble an egg than to do one over easy .  it is a little more difficult .  it will take some study .  and we are not talking about long , many years , science fiction at all ; and the gentleman from maryland explained it very clearly .  we are close .  we need a little research , nonhuman primate research , but we are a lot closer to this possibility than a lot of our colleagues and the general public understand .  mr. speaker , i want to share with my colleagues , as an ob/gyn physician , there is a procedure that probably has been done for at least 10 , 12 , maybe 14 years now .  there is an acronym ; everything has an acronym .  it is called icsi , intracytoplasmic sperm injection .  what do i mean by that ?  an infertile couple where the problem is male infertility and a low sperm count .  a normal sperm count is 60 million .  that is a lot .  when we get below 1 , 000 , it is very difficult and the chances of a natural conception are markedly diminished at that point .  but with this icsi technique , they literally can obtain sperm by a biopsy in someone who has just a few sperm , not 1 , 000 , not 60 million , but maybe just a few ; and take one sperm from that biopsy and under the proper laboratory techniques , maybe a specialized microscope , take the wife 's egg and inject that sperm with a needle , with a very fine needle , under the microscope .  intracytoplasmic sperm injection , and all of a sudden an embryo is created .  life is created .  a child is created .  and after several days in cell multiplication , as the gentleman from maryland ( mr. bartlett )  was explaining , then that is implanted in the mom 's uterus , and the miracle of birth can occur for that couple .  we are not talking about a procedure , icsi , that is being done exclusively at the national institutes of health .  this is being done right in my community of marietta , georgia , by reproductive endocrinologists , those doctors who specialize in infertility and doing those kinds of things ; and it has been going on for 10 , 12 years now .  so this is an opportunity to come and share this time with my colleague and say that this is not star wars .  for goodness sake , we put a man on the moon in 1969 .  there is a way to do this .  that is to obtain embryonic stem cells without destroying or indeed even harming the embryo , and that analogy , that explanation of twinning and how the mono-zygotic single egg identical twin that the egg divides at a certain stage ; and indeed , they are taking away 50 percent of the cells , and in most instances , if the division is complete , they have two perfectly identical , beautiful children that develop .  i know .  i have got two precious identical twin granddaughters now who are 7 years old , mr. speaker .  they were born at 26 weeks , right at that point where it is perfectly legal with very little prescription in our respective states to destroy those lives .  so this is a hugely important thing to me , and i thank my colleague for pointing out the fact that we are not that far away .  with a little study , a little funding to be able to develop this technique of obtaining these stem cells , these totipotential cells , as he described , without scrambling the egg and doing it the easy way , the simple way , killing the embryo , which is destruction of life .  it is not necessary .  and we are going to be talking , mr. speaker , tomorrow in this chamber about the great successes that we are achieving today with stem cell technology , but not embryonic stem cells .  the results there have been pretty dismal .  we are talking about the great success , 58 different research endeavors where progress has been made in these various diseases that the gentleman from maryland ( mr. bartlett )  described , utilizing either stem cells obtained from umbilical cord blood or from adult stem cells , bone marrow and other tissues .  so this is why it is so important for our colleagues to hear from the gentleman from maryland ( mr. bartlett )  and to think about this , to understand exactly what he is saying , because i think it is really on point and very timely .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman for yielding , and i thank my friend , the gentleman from nebraska ( mr. osborne )  , for being here with us tonight and for his very , very pertinent remarks in regard to where do you draw the line as far as life .  i have heard people on the other side of this argument say , well , we are talking about getting these stem cells , and they are not really embryos , they are pre-embryos .  maybe our ph.d .  physiologist knows about the definition of pre-embryo , but i never learned that in embryology or any medical school course i took or in my obstetric and gynecology training and my 30 years of experience in the field .  an embryo is an embryo .  an embryo begins at the moment of conception when that sperm and egg come together .  that is the embryonic stage .  really , an embryo , that stage lasts until the birth of the child .  now , you can differentiate and say at 8 weeks or 10 weeks we start calling it a fetus , but there is no , to my knowledge , definition of a pre-embryo .  i wanted to just kind of follow on the gentleman from nebraska 's remarks .  we are hearing a lot now about we have to catch up , mr. speaker , that we are behind .  the south koreans have come up with therapeutic cloning and they have cloned an embryo and they are going to get embryonic stem cells from a cloned embryo , and we are getting further and further behind .  the thing that the american public maybe does not understand is that when they are asked the question , are you for embryonic stem cell research that can cure some of these dreaded diseases , my colleagues have talked about , naturally the response is going to be , oh , yes .  and use federal funding for that ?  sure .  we are going to cure juvenile type i diabetes , and christopher reeves , god rest his soul , we are going to restore the function of his limbs , and we are going to cure alzheimer 's .  but i think so many people , mr. speaker , and even some of our colleagues , need to understand that in getting those embryonic stem cells , the life is destroyed .  and when you ask that question , well , wait a minute now , if you are talking about sacrificing one life to get these cells in hopes that they might lead to at some point in the future a cure , no , i am not for that .  so i think we need to be very clear by it , mr. speaker .  we need to make sure that people understand that the harvesting today and the way it is done and the way it is proposed and the way we are hearing from the castle-degette bill we are going to discuss tomorrow is using federal dollars , taxpayer dollars , where people had no choice , they had to pay their taxes , we are going to use those dollars to fund research that involves the destruction of human life , a little , tiny infant , who with a little bit of luck and ingenuity could grow up and be a member of this body some day .  we were all , were we not , embryos at one time .  of course we were .  and when you get this and you start down this slippery slope in regard to what the south koreans are doing , suppose , mr. speaker , that the harvesting of these stem cells from these cloned embryos that the results are not very good , as they have not really been very good in the embryonic stem cells we have retained from these so-called throw-away babies , these 400 , 000 in these fertility clinics .  the results have not been that good .  that is why the gentleman from nebraska said that most of the private funding is going toward adult stem cells .  but what i am saying , and i will wrap this up pretty quickly because i know the gentleman 's time is running short , in these cloned embryos , if it is not working too well with the fetal cells , the embryonic cells , why not let these babies develop , maybe to the point 26 weeks , the stage at which my precious twin granddaughters were born , and then you have got an organ that you can transplant , a liver , a pancreas , and you can then just simply destroy the child at that point and take their organs ?  this is a slippery slope upon which we are about to start if we do not defeat this bill tomorrow , and the gentleman from maryland ( mr. bartlett )  has an alternative to this , and it is something that i think is timely and it is good and i commend him for his efforts .  
R	mr. speaker , i rise today in strong support of the gentleman from new jersey ( mr. smith 's ) stem cell therapeutics and research act of 2005 , and commend the gentleman for his courageous and principled stand for the sanctity of life .  as a physician member , i know that significant successes are being reported from the use of umbilical cord stem cells in the treatment of 67 diseases , including sickle cell anemia , leukemia , osteoporosis and lymphoma .  there is great promise in this research .  umbilical cord stem cells , unlike embryonic stem cells can be matched to a recipient by blood type , gender , ethnicity , that results in fewer tissue rejections .  compare this to embryonic stem cells .  aside from the fact that harvesting embryonic stem cells results in the destruction of innocent life , embryonic stem cells are gathered without knowledge of blood cell type , without assurance that they are free from infection , and without screening for genetic defects .  these embryonic stem cells may be mismatched , carry infection , or have genetic defects with cancer-producing potential .  there is a better way , mr. speaker .  it is h.r. 2520 , which enhances federal funding for expanding the already successful use of umbilical cord stem cells .  when you consider the ethics and the science and the debate , it is clear that cord blood stem cells are the right choice for our federal funding and scientific support .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank the majority leader for yielding .  mr. speaker , i rise this evening in opposition , strong opposition , to h.r. 810 , not as a physician , not as an obstetrician-gynecologist , but as a pro-life catholic who firmly believes in the sanctity of life .  i have sat here for almost 3 hours listening to every word of the debate as part of my job as a member of the rebuttal team , and here is my legal pad of notes and rebuts .  most of those rebuts are against people on my side of the aisle , because this issue is clearly a bipartisan issue .  you have members , republicans and democrats , who are for the bill , indeed the authors , and you have republicans and democrats who are in opposition to the bill .  so i have got plenty of rebuttals that i could make , but very briefly , i will just mention one or two .  one of the gentlemen on my side of the aisle said that we need the federal government , we need the federal government involved in embryonic stem cell research and the funding of that to provide ethical guidelines to the states .  you remember that comment , maybe an hour or so ago ?  well , if the federal government is involved in a program where taxpayer dollars are spent to destroy human life , what ethical advice can they give to my state of georgia , i ask ?  i think none .  you see , i firmly believe in the sanctity of life , and i believe that life does begin at conception , and these embryos are definitely living human beings .  the gentleman just said a few minutes ago that `` i ca n't imagine that a 14-week blastocyst has the same value as a human being. '' indeed , it does .  mr. speaker , i would ask my colleagues to look at these charts and what we know with these so-called frozen throwaway embryos that nobody wants .  well , there are hundreds today of these snowflake children , and there will be many more when people realize this is available to them .  yes , it starts as an embryo , just a few cells , and then a blastocyst .  but then here is a 20-week ultrasound with a beating heart and brain and limbs and moving , and then here is the final result .  let me just say in conclusion , the gentleman from new jersey talked about his development , his growth and development , and going backwards in his life .  he stood in this well and said , `` i am an adult man today .  but yesterday i was a teenager , and before that i was a toddler. '' but he did not go the opposite direction and say `` in 20 years i will be a senior citizen , and after that i may be in a nursing home and i may have alzheimer 's .  i may be a vegetable. '' you would not want to destroy those lives , any more than the embryos at the beginning of life .  
R	i certainly thank the gentleman from maryland for yielding .  it is indeed a pleasure to again be with him tonight , madam speaker .  any opportunity that i have as an original cosponsor of the gentleman from maryland 's legislation , h.r. 3144 , is an opportunity that i gladly accept no matter what the hour .  the importance of this issue really can not be overstated .  i know the gentleman from maryland as he started this special order hour discussed the fact that of the so-called throwaway embryos , throwaway babies as we see it in these in vitro fertilization clinics that exist across this country , i think somebody estimated there were 400 , 000 of them and that in some instances couples who had gone through in vitro fertilization and completed their families truly would have some extra embryos that they at least at a certain point in time had no intention of having reimplanted .  so for the time being , maybe they were excess embryos .  but those of us who feel very strongly about the sanctity of life truly believe that there is no such thing as an excess human life at either extreme , the very youngest embryonic stage or the very oldest , many of whom i would be referring to , our octogenarians and older who might be in a nursing home suffering from alzheimer 's disease at the final stages of their lives , but all of these lives are extremely important ; and as the gentleman from maryland pointed out , there are actually 100 or close to 100 little babies , up to 6 , 8 months old now who were referred to as the snowflake babies .  they actually were donated to couples who were barren , infertile , from these couples who had completed their family and had these excess embryos frozen that they were not going to use .  we have seen them .  i think the gentleman from maryland ( mr. bartlett )  had a lot to do with bringing , along with the gentleman from pennsylvania ( mr. pitts )  , these little children to the house , to the congress , and indeed to the white house during the week that we were debating the bill brought to us by the gentleman from delaware ( mr. castle )  and the gentlewoman from colorado ( ms. degette )  .  as the gentleman from maryland points out , there are a lot more of those little lives that are still on ice , if you will ; and the gentleman from maryland is so right in pointing out that , hey , maybe one of those would be an einstein one of these days , the next einstein .  some of my colleagues say , well , just 100 out of 400 , 000 , that is not very many .  indeed , it is a fourth of this body , madam speaker , almost a fourth of 435 members of the house of representatives .  there may be some real smart ones remaining on ice that possibly could end up being united states senators .  more importantly , of course , it could be the next pope john ii or pope john iii or martin luther king , jr .  or abraham lincoln .  who is to say what we are talking about as a throwaway life ?  i am just so grateful for the gentleman from maryland for bringing us a bill , h.r. 3144 , which avoids this issue of destroying human life for the purpose of obtaining embryonic stem cells .  i do not think , madam speaker , that we will ever get to the point in this chamber , as much as i , and i am sure the gentleman from maryland is of the same mind-set , of wanting to do things in a bipartisan fashion with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle , this issue , this pro-life/pro-choice issue .  the country is probably pretty evenly divided .  this body is probably evenly divided .  but the point is we do not have to get into a knockdown , drag-out , hair-pulling , fingernail-scratching bloodbath over this issue .  that is what the gentleman from maryland is bringing to us , an opportunity to support a bill that does not lead us down that road where there seems like there will never be a meeting of the minds .  this opportunity , basically , as he is pointing out with his posters in regard to the ability , with some research , to be able to obtain embryonic stem cells without destroying human life , without destroying the embryo , i have heard him refer to this almost like an embryonic biopsy .  as i understand the bill , it is an opportunity to encourage , with the president 's blessing , increased funding through the nih for research on nonhuman primates to make sure that this biopsy , actually it has already been done in genetic counseling studies on couples who have a really strong family history of inheritable diseases , something like hemophilia or duchenne 's muscular dystrophy where maybe if it is an adult child , it has a 50 percent chance of having one of these life-threatening , eventually fatal diseases .  we are already doing testing on those embryos to make sure that it would be safe to put them back into the mother 's womb to grow and develop and become a full-term fetus and there has been no harm in those instances .  this is not wild-eyed science , something that is star wars mentality .  not at all .  we are talking about one of the brightest members of this body , a ph.d .  physiologist , a doctor of physiology who has taught in medical school .  madam speaker , when i was in medical school , it was my instructor who taught me physiology , the functioning of the human body in a healthy situation , whether we are talking about the heart , the lungs , or any organ system of the body .  that is the study of physiology .  that is who we are talking about when we reference this member , the gentleman from maryland , who is bringing us this bill .  he knows of what he speaks .  he has taught not only physiology but also embryology .  i know my colleagues as they listen to his presentation tonight and they look at the material , the visual aides that he has with him , it is clear that his understanding , his depth of knowledge is far beyond maybe what even the physician members of this body have .  so it is with a deep amount of respect for him that i have signed on to this bill .  i am fully supportive of it .  it gives us an opportunity to address this issue of trying to find a way with stem cells , whether they are adult or embryonic ; and i tend to agree with the gentleman from maryland that embryonic stem cells probably do have a little more potential , although we have had great success in adult stem cells and a lot of these diseases that our colleagues have talked about and we have seen there is no argument , i do not think , in this body , in a partisan way about wanting to help and wanting to use science to the best of our ability to look for a cure .  there is not a guarantee .  there is absolutely no guarantee .  there are probably lots of complications , false starts , two steps back for one step forward .  there will be lots of money , federal dollars probably being spent on research .  but the point is the president in august of 2001 was absolutely right , in my humble opinion , in regard to his decision to put a moratorium on the harvesting of stem cells , embryonic stem cells that would result in the destruction of human life .  at that point , there were some 60 cell lines already in existence that our university research scientists at nih and other places were using .  the president said , that is perfectly okay to continue .  those lives have already been destroyed in obtaining those stem cell lines .  good research was occurring .  the president , this president , george w. bush , is the very first president that , in fact , allowed federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells .  so those who criticize or suggest , madam speaker , that this president is insensitive and uncaring , i suggest to my colleagues that this president is the most caring that we have ever had in regard to this issue .  he has done more than any other president .  he does not deserve to be criticized , but rather applauded for his efforts in this regard .  and i think he is steadfast in his determination not to destroy human life because , as the gentleman from maryland has pointed out and as i just said , we do not know those so-called extra embryos , those throwaway embryos .  we do not know what those lives entail .  we do know that they have a very unique , full complement of dna that have all of their genetic material they are going to ever have .  they are the tiniest of human life , little tiny babies .  we call them embryos , but they are little tiny embryos whose lives are frozen and suspended .  but they should have that opportunity .  and even the couples who think , madam speaker , that they would never use those embryos , we have witnessed tragedies every day in the news , this 24-hour cable news that we are subjected to , but we read about children that are kidnapped , abused , murdered , the situation in aruba , the situation in nebraska .  we can just name so many where people think that their family is complete and they have got all they want out of their reproductive life , and all of a sudden , as the old country song goes , `` some days are diamonds and some days are stones , '' all of a sudden we have a few days that are stones and there might be a tragic loss of a child or more than one child , and all of a sudden maybe those frozen embryos do not seem so expendable anymore .  so that is why this issue is so important and why i feel so very passionate , not just myself and the author of this bill , the gentleman from maryland ( mr. bartlett )  , but a number of others who have signed on to this bill .  the white house , i think , is very supportive of this .  there is a companion piece of legislation , as i understand ; it originating in the other body .  we are on to something here .  and again it is a pleasure to join my colleague tonight and share these thoughts , try to maybe enlighten my colleagues on both sides of the aisle , madam speaker ; and i do thank the gentleman for giving me an opportunity to be with him to discuss such an important issue .  and i will be glad to stick around for a little while if we want to get into a colloquy later on , but i thank him for giving me this opportunity .  
R	madam speaker , i wanted to mention to the gentleman that as an ob/gyn physician , of course i have had some experience with some of the processes that can occur in reproductive endocrine laboratories and the technique dealing with infertile couples , and i have had a discussion with the gentleman from maryland about this .  but in a situation where the couple is infertile and it is because of male infertility , there is nothing wrong with the egg , but there is a very , very low sperm count in the male , and normally it takes probably 1 , 000 sperm to successfully fertilize an egg in the natural way .  in fact , the normal sperm count in a male is about 60 million .  but even a sperm count as low as 1 , 000 , pregnancy can occur in the normal , natural way .  but when it gets much lower than that , it becomes less and less possible .  but they have a technique .  and there is an acronym , madam speaker .  there is an acronym for everything , it seems , even though this is not in the military .  that acronym is icsi .  it stands for intracytoplasmic sperm injection , icsi .  and these biologists working with reproductive endocrinologists , medical doctors who specialize in infertility , can literally take a single sperm and with a needle inject that sperm into the egg and create a life , and that has been done many times , and not just at the nih , but in a lot of these infertility clinics across this great country , in my state of georgia .  it is something that is done routinely .  so what the gentleman from maryland ( mr. bartlett )  is talking about in this poster presentation in regard to waiting to just the right point for these scientists to be able to develop a technique to obtain embryonic stem cells without destroying that embryo and beyond the point where that single cell itself would be an embryo , he knows of what he speaks .  and i wanted to have an opportunity to share that , madam speaker , with our colleagues and make sure they understand that here again we are not talking about star wars technology here .  we are talking about things that are being done today .  
D	mr. speaker , i rise today to support not only h.r. 2520 , but also h.r. 810 , the castle/degette legislation to expand federal research for embryonic stem cells .  undoubtedly , each of us on this floor today has a friend , family member or neighbor who could benefit from increased embryonic stem cell research , whether they suffer from spinal cord injury , alzheimer 's , ms or juvenile diabetes .  as we consider both the castle/degette stem cell bill and the smith legislation on umbilical cord stem cells , it is important we differentiate between the effects of these two bills .  i support both of them .  but one is not a substitute for the other .  the castle/degette bill will expand research on embryonic stem cells , which would have the ability to reproduce indefinitely and to evolve into any cell type in the body .  it is this element of embryonic cell research that offers the most hope for finding cures to the diverse set of diseases that plague too many americans .  we can not take away that hope by shutting the door on federal research on embryonic stem cells .  the president 's policy shut that door , and we have lost 4 years of robust research that will be needed to cure the most complex diseases .  opponents of this bill will say that the embryonic cell research is unproven , but we will never know the true promise of embryonic stem cells if we hold back federal dollars for the research .  if embryonic stem cell research gets us even one step closer to curing parkinson 's , spinal cord injury and alzheimer 's , it is worth every penny .  just ask michael j. fox , dana reeves or nancy reagan .  these tremendous people , as well as countless more in each of our communities , know what it is like to live every day waiting for your cure .  slamming the door on stem cell research slams the door in their faces .  we talk about using our values to pass legislation to help people .  both these bills are important to helping people with such terrible illnesses .  this last saturday i helped my wife 's mom move into a nursing home .  she was diagnosed with alzheimer 's in the mid-1990s .  we have watched the progression of that terrible disease .  nothing can help my mother-in-law .  but by voting today for both these bills , we can help maybe the next generation , instead of sticking our heads in the sand .  i urge my colleagues to do the right thing for the millions of americans suffering from incurable diseases .  pass both the castle/degette bill and the smith legislation and keep the hope for embryonic cell and cord blood research alive .  
D	mr. speaker , the promise for curing a whole host of debilitating diseases is brighter than it 's ever been .  today , congress has the opportunity to capitalize on breakthrough scientific research to help millions across our country .  representatives castle and degette have crafted this bill meticulously , which would allow the use of surplus embryos from in vitro fertilization treatments and require donor consent .  it does not allow stem cells to be sold for profit .  this legislation takes an ethical and moral approach to a challenging subject , and throughout is respectful of the value of life .  real political courage and leadership -- on both sides of the aisle , in the house and senate -- was required to bring us to this point .  people from every point along the political spectrum -- from nancy reagan to the late christopher reeve -- have embraced the promise and potential of stem cell research .  parkinson 's , cancer , alzheimer 's , juvenile diabetes , spinal cord injuries -- cures for these and other serious ailments may lie in stem cell research .  we owe it to generations of suffering americans and their families to help find treatments that could lead to full recovery .  many in this body like to talk about `` values. '' today , i say to them : using discarded embryos to find scientific cures for fatal diseases is our moral obligation .  saving life is precisely what we all care about .  mr. speaker , a vote for h.r. 810 is a vote to save lives .  i urge all my colleagues to support this bipartisan , bicameral legislation .  
R	mr. speaker , i rise in support of the legislation to help us have continued success in the funding for research for uses for adult stem cells .  adult stem cells really encompass a number of different kinds .  people have talked today about cord blood .  they have talked about the bone marrow stem cells .  a number of them have already been used clinically and with much success .  i believe it is this congress 's duty to help support that , because certainly we will have many people who have benefited already and additional people in the future who can benefit from this kind of research .  in fact , the university of pittsburgh in my hometown just announced about a week or so ago that they are doing clinical trials regarding the use of bone marrow stem cells to help reverse chronic heart failure .  i met a gentleman actually who was involved in the research , and they talked about trials that have already been done in south america that have been successful .  these are all with adult stem cells .  it is important for congress to fund research , but it is especially important for this congress to fund responsible research and that is the research supported on this bill on adult stem cells .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank the majority leader for yielding me this time , and i am rising in opposition to the legislation that would fund the destruction of embryos in order to take the stem cells for research .  there are a number of reasons that i oppose the bill .  the very first one , though , is one of the statements we keep hearing over and over again from those who support the bill , and that is that these embryos would just be discarded .  this morning , i met several families , parents with young children who are here in washington .  these children were just like every other child , but they were different .  and they were different because these children are the snowflake babies .  they have been referred to a little bit today , but for those just joining the argument , the snowflake babies are born from what would have been discarded embryos in fertilization clinics .  it is important that we know this , because it is not , no option , that these embryos would be discarded or tossed aside .  it is true these embryos are often adopted .  and , in fact , the children i met today were wonderful evidence of that .  it looks like these embryos do not have to be discarded .  all they needed was a mother and 9 months .  we do not have to choose between embryonic stem cell research and cord blood , assuming that only embryonic can solve problems .  and , in fact , there is no proof that embryonic stem cell research can be successful .  this list on the left on this chart shows all the different treatments currently using adult stem cells .  on the right is the list of success with embryonic stem cells .  it is a pretty empty list .  i encourage my colleagues to reject the false promise of embryonic stem cell research and reject this legislation .  
D	mr. speaker , we will be hearing a great deal today about the humane and helpful and hopeful research of embryonic stem cells .  this is an advance similar to advances in past years of blood transfusions and organ transplants .  and to be fair , some patients do not want to take part in blood transfusions and organ transplants for personal reasons .  however , for most americans , embryonic stem cell research falls well within public ethical standards .  it is something that we should be supporting .  we will hear from some today that cord blood and adult stem cells hold promise .  not nearly so much promise as embryonic stem cells .  supporting cord blood research at the expense of supporting embryonic stem cell research is like buying a schwinn bicycle to travel across the country .  potentially useful , but it is not likely to get us there .  this is something that is well within the public ethical norms .  we should be supporting h.r. 810 .  
D	mr. speaker , i thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time .  mr. speaker , i am proud to represent new jersey , one of the few states that devotes its own resources to embryonic stem cell research .  to help us understand this humane line of research , let us look at in vitro fertilization .  several decades ago , many people raised concerns about this procedure ; everywhere there were attacks using the term `` test tube babies. '' but today there are 400 , 000 young people who are the products of in vitro fertilization , and in every case , there are eggs , fertilized eggs , that were not brought to full-term birth .  but people do not condemn the use of ivf .  and just as we do not place ethical burdens on the children who were conceived through ivf , we should not place ethical burdens on the millions of americans suffering from parkinson 's , alzheimer 's , diabetes , et cetera .  i am hoping that several decades from today , we will look back and find ourselves thankful that we came to a humane , prudent conclusion .  embryonic stem cell research will have yielded new ways to diagnose , treat , and cure tragic diseases .  i urge my colleagues to support the humane h.r. 810 .  
D	mr. speaker , i rise today in strong support of the bipartisan stem cell research enhancement act , h.r. 810 , legislation that will dramatically expand the number of stem cell lines available for federally funded research .  this bill will allow scientists to more effectively pursue cures and therapies for a wide array of life-threatening illnesses and disabilities affecting millions of americans .  earlier today , the house passed a related but very different bill : the stem cell therapeutic and research act , h.r. 2520 .  this legislation will create a new federal program to collect and store umbilical-cord-blood stem cells for research purposes .  i support the additional research on adult stem cells provided for by h.r. 2250 , but this legislation is not a substitute for h.r. 810 and its emphasis on embryonic stem cell research .  embryonic stem cells have a unique ability to develop into any type of cell as they mature , offering scientists tremendous insights on the replacement of damaged cells and organs , the mechanics of life-threatening diseases , and the testing and development of new drugs .  adult stem cells , on the other hand , have not shown this ability to differentiate into specific types of cells , have not yet been identified in all vital organs , and are difficult to identify , purify , and grow .  although embryonic stem cell research promises extraordinary medical discoveries , the available supply of existing embryonic stem cells is woefully insufficient .  according to the national institutes of health , nih , only 22 of the 78 stem cell lines that were deemed eligible for federal funding by president george bush in 2001 are currently available to nih investigators .  some of these 22 lines are too expensive or difficult to obtain , and some have been contaminated with non-human molecules diminishing their therapeutic value for humans .  to make matters worse , these stem cell lines lack the genetic variation needed to develop therapies that will benefit the diverse population of the united states .  h.r. 810 addresses the shortage of embryonic stem cell lines by lifting the arbitrary and indefensible august 9 , 2001 cut-off date for stem cell eligibility .  since 2001 , 128 embryonic stem cell lines have been developed , including disease-specific stem cell lines that allow researchers to understand the basic cause of some rare diseases .  this legislation also provides stricter ethical guidelines to ensure that only the best and most ethical stem cell research will be federally funded .  the state of california has already taken steps to ensure that human embryonic stem cell research will be allowed to develop by establishing the institute for regenerative medicine , which will devote $ 3 billion to california universities and research institutions over the next 10 years .  the passage of h.r. 810 will further empower and equip california scientific institutions to undertake cutting-edge research on the most pressing medical challenges of our day .  let us make no mistake , the development of lifesaving medical procedures has been slowed by an unwarranted restriction on stem cell research .  i believe that , as policymakers , we have a moral imperative to pursue innovative medical research that can improve the quality of life and prevent harmful illnesses and diseases for generations to come .  i urge my colleagues to join the innumerable scientists , university leaders , patient groups , and medical research groups that support h.r. 810 .  
D	i thank the leader for that information .  if i could go through a couple of these bills .  the defense authorization bill , mr. leader , do you expect at this point in time to have that on a particular day of the week ?  do we know when that will be ?  
D	i thank the gentleman for that response .  with respect to the defense authorization bill , can you tell us now what kind of a rule might be applicable to the consideration of that bill ?  
D	i thank the leader .  i know that our leader and your office are working on that unanimous consent and the parameters of the consideration of , as you point out , a very , very important bill .  there are obviously different points of view on the legislation .  i know we are going to be meeting monday night and going to come in early tuesday .  would you have a thought as to when , because of the importance of this bill , our members want to be sure that they are here , as i am sure yours do as well , what time of day you would expect to be considering that piece of legislation ?  
D	i thank the leader for that information and appreciate his working with leader pelosi in determining that , because this is important .  i think all members will want to make sure that that time frame in which it will be considered , they will be available to be on the floor or be watching the floor debate with the ability to come to the floor to offer their thoughts .  i thank the gentleman for that information .  
D	i thank the leader for that observation .  the happy circumstance is we both certainly agree on this procedure , that it needs to have a thorough airing and debate and discussion .  there are strong views on either side of this issue and quite obviously the consequences of this bill are very substantial .  whether it passes or whether it fails , the consequences are substantial .  so we appreciate the fact that there will be significant time to discuss and debate this issue .  mr. leader , i have two items left .  the head start reauthorization has now , as you know , been marked up by the committee .  i know it is not coming next week , and we will be out the week after that for the memorial day work period .  can you tell me when you might expect the head start reauthorization bill to come to the floor ?  
D	i thank the gentleman and would hope that we could try to move that as quickly as possible .  obviously , people will want to be planning for the next school year and next head start year .  lastly , mr. leader , the highway bill .  as we know , the highway bill is now more than 2 years overdue in terms of reauthorization , has been sitting for some period of time .  the senate has now passed that bill .  can you tell us when we might appoint conferees for the highway conference ?  
D	i thank the leader for that observation and hopefully we can , in fact , move on that .  we not only passed it last week but we passed it a number of times before that .  mr. leader , i would simply observe on our side and , frankly , on your side that the senate number is a number that i think our committee certainly and this house could well approve .  i know the president does not like that number , but very frankly , as the gentleman knows , our own committee almost unanimously on voice vote passed out an authorization figure at , i think , 375 , so $ 80 billion more than the senate-passed bill .  i would certainly hope that the congress could exercise its will .  the senate was at 218 .  we were at 284 .  now it is a little bit in between that .  i would hope that we could move this conference as quickly as possible .  it has been held up a long time and has a significant consequence for jobs , as the leader knows , significant consequence for contractors , states , municipalities , localities , and we have been a long time waiting for this passage that is now some 2 years late .  but i appreciate the leader 's observation that we will appoint conferees next week , and hopefully perhaps the leader can help accelerate that conference so we can agree .  and then the president , of course , will have to do what he thinks is best and make a determination , and then we might have a shocking event and he may veto a bill and send it back to us , and i am relatively confident we would work our will at that point in time .  i do not know whether the leader wants to make an observation .  
D	mr. speaker , reclaiming my time , i recall that democrats , when they were in charge , had a slightly different perspective , believing we were a co-equal branch of the government .  we would adopt our policies based upon what we believed to be in the best interests of this country , and that the president , as a co-equal branch of the government , would make his determination , and if we disagreed we would override his veto .  as a matter of fact , i voted to override a number of vetoes that the previous democratic president disagreed with us on .  the gentleman is right .  we do not seem to do that .  we have a 4 1/2 -year unblemished record , as the leader points out , of not doing anything that this president did not want us to do .  
D	mr. speaker , reclaiming my time , does the gentleman by any chance remember the ag bill ?  
D	the ag bill that was passed some years ago .  the president was not too excited about that spending level , as i recall .  he signed the bill , nevertheless .  
D	mr. speaker , i have been here for some period of time , as the leader knows , and the only bill that ronald reagan vetoed that was overridden by the congress was a bill in which he said we did not spend enough money in 1983 .  he vetoed it because we did not spend enough money .  
D	mr. speaker , i thank the gentlewoman for yielding and want to congratulate the gentleman from delaware ( mr. castle )  and the gentlewoman from colorado ( ms. degette )  for her leadership and his leadership on this bill .  this is , i think , one of the most important bills that we will consider for the welfare of people not only in this country , but throughout the world .  mr. speaker , let us be very clear about what this bipartisan , moderate bill would do and not do .  this legislation , which has 200-plus cosponsors from both sides of the aisle , would not permit federal funding for cloning ; it would not permit federal funding to create embryos , nor would it permit federal funding to destroy embryos .  this important legislation simply expands the current federal policy of allowing federal funding for research on stem cell lines derived after the arbitrary date of august 9 , 2001 , from embryos created for fertility treatment that would otherwise be discarded .  recall that on that date , president bush announced that federal funds would be available to support research on human embryo stem cells so long as such research was limited to existing stem cell lines .  at the time it was believed that 78 stem cell lines were eligible .  yet today , as we know , only 22 such lines are available for research , and these lines are aged , contaminated or developed with outdated research .  meanwhile , there are at least 125 new stem cell lines with substantial potential that federally funded researchers can not use .  thus , mr. speaker , i believe the issue before this house today is this : will we foster embryonic stem cell research , research that holds great promise for the potential treatment or cure of diseases such as als , lou gehrig 's disease , alzheimer 's , parkinson 's , and other diseases , and offer hope to those with spinal cord injury and other injuries of the nervous system , or will we stand in the way ?  i know that the opponents of this bill believe that we are ignoring the ethical and moral implications of such research .  i do not share that view .  but , in fact , this legislation requires the department of health and human services and the national institutes of health to issue guidelines for ethical considerations ; it requires a determination that the embryos would never have been implanted and would have been discarded ; and it requires the donor 's written , informed consent .  mr. speaker , i realize this is a difficult issue for many .  it is , however , i think , an issue that the american people have made a judgment on .  it is an issue which they , i think , overwhelmingly support .  the polls seem to reflect that at least 60 percent of the americans asked the question support this important effort .  they believe it holds promise for them , for their spouses , for their children .  we have talked much about life on this floor .  it is important that we do so .  it is important that we do so in a thoughtful and principled way .  i believe that this moderate , well-thought-out , carefully constructed bill takes a step that america expects us to take .  this is the people 's house .  i believe the people would have us pass this legislation , and i urge my colleagues to vote accordingly .  
R	mr. speaker , the reason this vote is so important is simply because the embryo is human life .  it is not animal , it is not vegetable , it is not mineral , but a tiny , microscopic beginning of a human life .  everyone in this room was an embryo at one time .  i , myself , am a 192-month-old embryo .  the question we face is how much respect is due to this tiny little microscopic human life .  if we are truly pro-life , we should protect it rather than treat it as a thing to be experimented with .  lincoln asked a very haunting question at a small military cemetery in pennsylvania .  he asked whether a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal can long endure ?  and that question has to be answered by every generation .  what is wrong with this legislation ?  the motives of its sponsors are so noble .  well , i will tell you two things that are fatally wrong with this legislation .  the first one is , for the first time in our national history , taxpayers ' dollars are going to be spent for the killing of innocent human life .  that is number one .  and number two , this bill tramples on the moral convictions of an awful lot of people who do not want their tax dollars going to be spent for killing innocent human life .  americans paid a terrible price for not recognizing the humanity of dred scott .  we are going to pay a terrible price for not recognizing the humanity of these little embryos .  we should not go down that road .  in world war ii , 1940 , before america got in the war , there was a publication called the yearbook of obstetrics and gynecology .  and dr .  joseph delee wrote in that yearbook something that applies to us today .  here is what he wrote .  `` at the present time , when rivers of blood and tears of innocent men and women are flowing in most parts of the world , it seems almost silly to be contending over the right to life of an unknowable atom of human flesh in the uterus of a woman .  `` no , it is not silly .  on the contrary , it is of transcendent importance that there be in this chaotic world one high spot , however small , which is safe against the deluge of immorality and savagery that is sweeping over us .  `` that we , in the medical profession , hold to the principle of the sacredness of human life and the rights of the individual , even though unborn , is proof that humanity is not yet lost. '' i believe humanity is not yet lost , and this vote will tell us the answer to that question .  
D	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 .  
D	mr. speaker , i rise today in strong support of this important bill .  i have met with constituents with afflictions such as alzheimer 's disease , parkinson 's disease , childhood leukemia , heart disease , lou gehrig 's disease , diabetes , several cancers , spinal cord injuries , and other diseases , disorders and injuries .  embryonic stem cell research offers them hope .  i have also met with an amazing young woman named brooke ellison from long island .  in 1990 , when she was eleven years old , brooke was hit by a car , which left her paralyzed from the neck down .  even with this hardship , she graduated from harvard university in 2000 , harvard 's kennedy school of government in 2004 , and she is currently a ph.d .  candidate in political science at stony brook university .  her inspiring story was made into a movie on a & amp ; e and was directed by the late christopher reeves .  i have worked with her to raise public awareness of the importance of stem cell research , and under the unanimous consent agreement , i am including an essay that brooke wrote on the issue in the congressional record .  as everyone here knows , on august 9 , 2001 , president bush announced that embryonic stem cell research would be limited ; he limited federal funds by limiting eligible lines for research .  although scientists were expecting a big number of available lines , less than one third of the allowed 78 lines are available for distribution .  the stem cell research enhancement act would expand research on embryonic stem cells by increasing the number of lines stem cells that would be eligible for federally funded research .  this bill should not be controversial .  the bill ensures that strict ethical guidelines would be met : the embryos would have been donated with informed written consent and without any financial payment or other inducement to make the donation .  these are embryos that will be discarded .  finally , the bill would not use any federal funds to derive the stem cells .  it is a good bill , but i wish this bill went further .  there is still a need for other funding , because state or private funding would be needed to fund deriving the stem cells .  california and new jersey have already set up funding sources for embryonic stem cell research , and a number of other states have announced intentions to fund this research .  we must ensure that all entities can work together .  scientists still need funding for the aspects of research that the federal government will not cover .  today , i am introducing a resolution that expresses the sense of congress that the federal government should not infringe on states or private organizations that fund embryonic stem cell research .  i hope that my colleagues will show support for all embryonic research , by supporting my resolution .  many of us have family members suffering from devastating illnesses , and the prospect of helping them to be healthy and free of pain is a worthy goal .  make no mistake ; this goal is what we are debating today .  enticingly close ... ..  yet painfully far the ability to view the world through another 's eyes is the essence of altruism .  when putting their pens to the paper of policy , those who legislate ought to take into keen consideration the world as it is seen through others ' eyes , wrought with the problems they face and conditions they endure .  this is the basic tenet of a representative democracy , the basic belief upon which the united states was founded .  yet , despite this underlying and widely accepted notion of several voices speaking on behalf of many , this does not always appear to be the case and , in fact , those making collective decisions can become inextricably linked to their own , myopic ideology , failing to understand the situations of others or hear their voices .  in september of 1990 , when i was eleven years old , i was hit by a car while walking home from my first day of 7th grade .  that accident left me paralyzed from my neck down and dependent on a ventilator for every breath i take .  living as a person with a physical disability or debilitating disease , each day is a struggle .  tasks that , to others , might seem mundane or be taken for granted are strenuous challenges , sometimes taking long hours instead of mere minutes , causing frustration both from what can not be at present and potential being lost in the future .  when we place our hopes and visions for our world into the hands of those making broad decisions , we do it with the belief that they will act on behalf of our best interest and not on an isolated viewpoint .  to do otherwise is bad policy .  to undermine the interests of a majority of citizens is bad policy .  to ignore the voices and dash the hopes of those most in need is bad policy .  in the context of stem cell research legislation , these are bad policies , yet policies that are being upheld .  this forces millions to wonder things like , `` if i could be freed from the on august 9th , 2001 , from his ranch in crawford , texas , president bush announced that he would significantly limit federal funds to stem cell research , only agreeing to fund research conducted on to stem cell lines already in existence at the time .  according to this limitation , federally supported research could be done on no more than 78 existing genetic cell lines , although even the most optimistic estimates of viable cells were estimated to be far fewer , less than two dozen .  to the delight of some and the grief of others , mr. bush indicated that the use of embryonic cells for medical research was a violation of the sanctity of life , analogous to abortion or euthanasia .  in the president 's own words , `` i worry about a culture that devalues life , and believe as your president i have an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in america and throughout the world ... ... .  embryonic stem cell research offers research that holds so much promise for so many now remains unsupported by the federal government .  similar to other issues facing our nation today , the decision of whether or not to fund embryonic stem cell research is now left in the hands of the states , with the legislatures and governors picking up where the u.s. congress and president have left off .  california , with its proposition 71 , has been the most recent state to make substantive progress on the issue , passing a referendum to support research conducted in the state .  california joins new jersey in leading the charge for state-funded stem cell research .  but the cause should not and must not stop there , as two states out of our fifty is simply not enough .  with researchers , scientists , and human lives waiting in the wings for advances , opportunity wasted is opportunity lost .  therapeutic stem cell research , also known as somatic cell nuclear transfer , has the potential to provide cures for a considerable number of neurological and degenerative conditions , including alzheimer 's disease , parkinson 's disease , childhood leukemia , heart disease , als , several different types of cancer , and spinal cord injuries .  in its most basic description , stem cells are the undifferentiated , unspecialized cells that can be extracted from embryos in their earliest stages of development , three to five days after fertilization .  the embryos , known in this initial developmental form as blastocysts , contain only about 30 cells .  importantly , the cells taken from the blastocysts can be well , some have argued , is n't using stem cells just the destruction of one life for the sake of another ?  are n't we simply judging some lives as more important than others ?  to hold such a belief is to view the world in black and white terms , thereby ignoring the much more complex gray areas .  yes , it is possible that , if a blastocyst , from where stems cells are derived , were to be inserted into a womb and allowed to grow for nine months there is the potential a life could be born .  however , that is not the case for any of the blastocysts that yield stem cells that are used for research .  these blastocysts are those that will go unused after in vitro fertilization procedures and will never be used to bring about life .  these blastocysts , which some proclaim represent the sanctity of life , will only be kept in freezers at fertility clinics until they have expired and then will be discarded completely .  under current federal legislation , they are of no use to anybody .  to rob the stem cells of their other potential of life , which is to cure diseases or to help regenerate parts of the body that are not regenerating on their own , is really to devalue life in another , otherwise avoidable way .  well , others have argued , is n't the work done on stem cells just the same as cloning ?  are n't these cells essentially promoting the creation of another person ?  the once almost incomprehensible , futuristic ideas of `` cloning '' and `` body-doubles '' are now considered feasible and fearsome possibilities , and therapeutic stem cell research has been the unwitting victim of the prevalent fears .  orwell 's 1984 has somehow come to life in 2004 , with the speculations made by some of about unintended , science-fiction consequences .  but , the connection between human reproduction and human therapy is a foggy one at best .  the real fear , though , is not the potential of mad scientists reproducing people but the lost potential of sound scientists curing people .  fourteen years ago , i could have never imagined having to advocate for something that could potentially restore for me the very basic aspects of life and humanity .  but , that is something that no one should have to imagine .  science has given medicine more promise than ever before , with the potential to heal and restore people in ways once unfathomable .  stem cells , which would otherwise serve no other purpose , hold the promise of life , not just for the newly born but now for the already living and this opportunity must be seized .  the time is now .  if the federal government chooses not to do it , then the states must tend to it , themselves .  the time has come when we can change the lives of so many , giving to them the fundamental parts of life and dignity .  
D	mr. speaker , i thank the ranking member for yielding me this time .  let me thank the sponsors of this legislation , the gentleman from new jersey ( mr. smith )  , the gentleman from texas ( mr. barton )  , the gentleman from alabama ( mr. davis )  , and , of course , the gentlewoman from colorado ( ms. degette )  and the gentleman from delaware ( mr. castle )  for the second bill , the bills being h.r. 810 and h.r. 2520 .  let me just say that separating these two legislative initiatives would be like separating the flag from the pledge of allegiance .  it is appropriate to have a marriage today of two very vital and important legislative initiatives , one dealing with adult stem cell research , which is vital and done along ethical lines and will help many in our community that have a number of significant diseases ; in particular , alzheimer 's and sickle cell anemia .  then , of course , the importance of stem cell lines and expanding it under federal funding is something that we can not imagine .  let me tell my colleagues about an individual that i love and admire in my community , reverend m.l .  jackson , exciting , exuberant , a leader in our community .  his family just said that with all of his leadership and heading up ministerial alliances , he has alzheimer 's .  i go home this weekend to meet with reverend jackson and to recount his life with him as he now sees it .  but would it not be wonderful for a vibrant and outstanding leader of our community to have an expanded opportunity , as nancy reagan argued for , for president reagan .  unless federal funding for stem cell research is expanded , the united states stands in real danger of falling behind other countries in this promising area of research .  i would mention that the national academy of sciences recently issued a set of guidelines to ensure that human embryonic stem cell research is conducted in a safe and ethical manner .  this legislation , the castle-degette legislation , h.r. 810 , and , of course , the fantastic and forward-thinking legislation , h.r. 2520 , sponsored by the gentleman from texas ( mr. barton )  , the gentleman from new jersey ( mr. smith )  , and the gentleman from alabama ( mr. davis )  , represents a coming together of our family .  it certainly deserves a good marriage .  just as we can not separate the pledge and the flag , let us unite today and vote unanimously on these two outstanding initiatives to support american stem cell research , and to save lives .  mr. chairman , i rise this morning in support of the `` stem cell therapeutic and research act of 2005. '' this measure , sponsored by christopher h. smith , joe barton , and artur davis would promote research on a type of stem cell , known as an adult stem cell , taken from umbilical cord blood .  in addition , the bill creates a new federal program to collect and store umbilical-cord-blood stem cells , and expands the current bone-marrow registry program .  while i have no objections to the bill , it is important that no one view h.r. 2520 as a substitute for h.r. 810 , the `` stem cell research enhancement act. '' these are entirely different bills , but both deserve passage .  recent discoveries have convinced scientists that stem cells might eventually become the key to treating diseases such as parkinson 's , diabetes , and heart disease .  researchers hope to be able to study stem cells to better understand how diseases develop and eventually use them to generate tissues that could replace damaged or diseased tissues and organs in patients .  adult stem cells are unspecialized cells found in specialized tissue such as bone marrow or skeletal tissue .  initially , scientists viewed their medical applications as limited in what they can become to the cell types from which they were extracted .  recent evidence has suggested that adult stem cells could provide more flexibility than previously thought , according to the national institutes of health .  this legislation would create a new federal program to collect and store umbilical-cord-blood stem cells , and reauthorizes and expands the current bone marrow registry program .  i am supportive of this bill because it would be of great benefit to african americans .  this bill has specific language that would diversify the bone marrow banks of this nation .  this would be of extreme importance to many african americans suffering from sickle cell anemia .  as you can see , these are complicated issues , but i think we are headed in the right direction .  this bill would help our doctors and scientists discover new treatments and cures for otherwise debilitating and incurable diseases and ailments .  for this i must support it .  however , i can not support this bill without clarifying that it should not be viewed as an alternative to h.r. 810 , rather as a complementary force .  
D	mr. speaker , i make a simple plea to save lives by supporting h.r. 810 , the degette/castle bill , and to help americans who are suffering .  i ask for a `` yes '' vote on h.r. 810 simply to save lives .  mr. speaker , i rise today in support of h.r. 810 , the `` stem cell research enhancement act of 2005. '' as a supporter of the bill , i would argue that it is necessary to expand the number of stem cell lines that can be used in federally funded research in order to accelerate scientific progress toward the cures and treatments for a wide variety of diseases and debilitating health conditions -- including parkinson 's disease , diabetes , alzheimer 's disease , als , cancer , and spinal cord injuries .  according to the national institutes of health , nih , of the 78 stem cell lines that were declared eligible for federal funding in 2001 , only about 22 lines are actually available for study by and distribution to researchers .  further , nih concludes that these stem cell lines are contaminated with `` mouse feeder '' cells , making their therapeutic use for humans uncertain .  these nih-approved lines lack the genetic diversity that researchers need in order to create effective treatments for millions of americans .  h.r. 810 would expand the number of stem cell lines that would be made available under strict ethical guidelines .  the stem cells would be derived from excess frozen fertilized embryos that would otherwise be discarded .  it is estimated that there are currently about 400 , 000 frozen ivf embryos , which would be destroyed if they are not donated for research .  the embryos could be used only if the donors give their informed , written consent and receive no money or other inducement in exchange for their embryos .  it is important for me to note that it is simply not true that adult stem cells offer the same , or better , potential for treating disease as embryonic stem cells .  while embryonic stem cells have qualities that give them the potential to treat a wide variety of diseases and injuries , adult stem cells do not have those same qualities .  unlike embryonic stem cells , adult stem cells can not be induced to develop into any type of cell .  furthermore , adult stem cells may not exist for certain tissues , and adult stem cells are difficult to identify , purify , and grow .  unless federal funding for stem cell research is expanded , the united states stands in real danger of falling behind other countries in this promising area of research .  researchers have already moved to other countries , such as great britain , which have more supportive policies .  the recent announcement that south korean researchers have produced cloned human embryos that are genetic twins of patients with various diseases , and have derived stem cells from them , shows just how far that country is going .  while it is important to recognize that this bill has nothing to do with cloning , it is also important to recognize that other countries are moving ahead in stem cell research .  this bill provides a limited -- but nonetheless highly significant -- change in current policy that would result in making many more lines of stem cells available for research .  it would do so under strict ethical guidelines .  the measure has widespread bipartisan support .  passage of this bill would provide hope for those millions of americans suffering from diseases that may be treated or even cured as a result of stem cell research before concluding , i would just mention that the national academy of sciences , nas , recently issued a set of guidelines to ensure that human embryonic stem cell research is conducted in a safe and ethical manner .  because of the limitations of the current federal policy , only 22 stem cell lines are eligible for federal research and fall under the jurisdiction of national institutes of health guidelines .  specifically , h.r. 810 requires that : the stem cells must be derived from human embryos that were donated from in vitro fertilization clinics , and that were created for the purpose of fertility treatment , but were in excess of the clinical need of the people seeking such treatment ; the embryos would not have been used for fertility treatment , and would otherwise be discarded ; the individuals seeking fertility treatment donated the embryos with informed written consent and without any financial payment or other inducement to make the donation .  in addition , the bill requires that not later than 60 days after enactment , hhs , in consultation with the national institutes of health , issue final guidelines to carry out the requirements of this bill .  finally , the measure requires hhs to report annually to congress on the activities carried out under this bill .  the report must include a description of whether , and to what extent , these activities were carried out in accordance with the requirements of this bill .  in closing , i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 810 .  listen to the following news reports which indicate this research as viable and of great need for so many .  since the federal government 's science officials have abdicated their traditional role in setting ethical rules for medical experimentation , the national academy of sciences has filled the void with useful guidelines for research with human embryonic stem cells .  acting on behalf of scientists around the country , the nas last week issued stem cell research guidelines that should become a blueprint for ethical behavior in both the public and private sector .  the atlanta journal constitution , may 3 , 2005 .  kudos to the national academy of sciences for ably filling the breach caused by the absence of federal guidelines on human embryonic stem cell research .  while we prefer that rules governing research on human tissues be federal and enforceable , the national academy of sciences ' new voluntary guidelines are a necessary stand-in .  the baltimore sun , may 3 , 2005 .  with the federal government 's role limited , research has been proceeding without clear , consistent guidelines ... ... .these and other recommendations are a good start toward ensuring that stem cell research is conducted in an ethical way ... ..  the federal government is still not doing all that it should , but these recommendations ought at least to help the private companies and states that are moving ahead with research that offers so much hope for many americans .  the winston-salem journal , may 3 , 2005 .  the national academy of sciences gave a much needed boost to embryonic stem cell research last week when it issued ethics guidelines that should help researchers find a clear path through a minefield of controversial issues .  .  .  they will give practicing scientists the assurance that they can proceed with their work while adhering to principles endorsed by a panel of distinguished scientists , ethicist , and others .  the new york times , may 2 , 2005 .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time .  i rise in strong support of the legislation before us which i consider to be extremely important .  it builds on the president 's policy by merely allowing the use of embryonic stem cells created for fertility purposes to be donated with permission , but without payment , by the woman for research , research to cure some of the terrible diseases that plague our lives .  these free citizens would simply exercise their right and their conscience in donating embryos that would otherwise be discarded , destroyed , as waste .  i believe we have a moral responsibility to advance the research that saves lives , relieves pain , and prevents suffering , rather than destroying those embryos .  those embryos could produce the stem cells that would save lives , and should not be destroyed as waste .  why do we have to do this today ?  because if we do not , stem cell research will be done , but will not be uniformly governed by nih 's ethics policy .  why do we have to do this today ?  because no nation has created a sustained , strong , globally-competitive economy without the freedom to research the frontiers of knowledge .  finally , why do we have to do this today ?  because it is the right thing .  now , we have heard a lot of discussion on the floor today about destroying these cells as taking life and , as a matter of conscience , this is a complicated issue and one on which we disagree .  if you believe life begins when the sperm enters the egg , then , yes , you would believe this is a taking of life , though we would unceremoniously toss those same cells into a waste bucket .  but if you believe that life begins when the fertilized egg is implanted in the mother 's womb , which , of course , is essential for it to realize its potential for life , then using a fertilized egg that has not been implanted is not a taking of life .  if , further , you believe that life begins later in the process , then you are not taking life .  so i ask each of my colleagues to think carefully in conscience when life does begin ; and , on that issue , your vote on this bill rests .  
D	mr. speaker , i rise today to lend my voice to the stem cell research debate .  as a co-sponsor of h.r. 810 , i hope we can expand our scope and benefit of existing stem cell lines .  h.r. 810 represents another step forward in our battle against diseases and illnesses which we have spent billions of dollars trying to research , treat , and cure .  as the premier medical research nation , we must allow our researchers and doctors to remain at the top of their fields of research both internationally and nationally .  we must support our research institutions as they embark on the ethical , expert and very , very necessary trials .  federal research restricts federal funding of stem cell research to the 78 stem cell lines that existed prior to aug .  9 , 2001 .  mr. speaker , h.r. 810 does not usher us into uncharted waters : we are already engaged in both the federal funding and the federal oversight of this research .  if we see the benefit to permitting research on 78 , then the argument is not embryonic research -- but rather numbers .  i come from a district where we have perhaps the leading medical research institutions .  in my district case western reserve university , the cleveland clinic , and university hospital have embarked on a monumental and groundbreaking project to establish the national center for regenerative medicine .  within the walls of these three institutions lie perhaps some of the most advanced and prolific members of the scientific research community on regenerative medicine .  while this research is basically focused on adult stem cell and umbilical cord research , we must continue to move forward with research in a responsible , compassionate , and humane way .  we must support the efforts of the national institutes of health as we move forward .  i support the movement towards the treatment , research , and cure of diseases and illnesses which the use of stem cells can alleviate .  
D	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time .  today we in the congress are debating the essence of human life , the creation of life and the destruction of life .  we are debating how one 's family 's life code , their dna , is propagated and bequeathed to the next generation .  each human life begins as an embryo .  what concerns me , as someone who cherishes life and is a strong supporter of medical research for epilepsy , for diabetes , for spinal cord injury , for alzheimer 's , for so many debilitating diseases , is that this bill seems to be on a very fast track .  it is moving through this congress at record speed and not under the normal procedures we depend on to make informed decisions .  today i rise with more questions than answers on this bill .  i respect the advocates .  i respect those that do not support the bill .  but i know one thing : on a matter of life and death , congress should proceed carefully , thoughtfully and in an informed manner .  all points of view must be heard and not suppressed .  most surprisingly , this bill never had a subcommittee nor a full committee hearing .  so my opinion today about this bill is : not yet .  i am not yet confident that this institution has allowed for full dialogue to develop on a matter of such gravitas .  regardless of how you view the bills before us , the lack of a full hearing record is most troubling indeed .  i ask myself , why is the normal committee process subverted on a matter of such consequence ?  what do proponents have to lose ?  where is the committee transcript that will tell us the diverging views of scientists on the potentiality of adult stem cell versus embryonic stem cell to improve life ?  the fact is , there is none .  some evidence indicates stem cell research from nonembryonic sources now has made a difference in treating 58 different diseases .  we need to know more about the science .  then , where is the committee record that helps us struggle with the essential moral question of : how exactly does one destroy life in order to save it ?  where is the committee transcript that reveals to the majority of members not on the committee the ethical questions that we and every family should be addressing concerning the proprietary nature of the dna in any embryonic cell ?  we go to great lengths as a congress to protect intellectual property rights , as our constitution requires .  after all , this nation provides for patents for computer software , for medical devices , for seed corn genomes ; and yet we provide no protection for the dna of a human embryo ?  whose dna will be bequeathed to the future and whose will not ?  how do we evaluate this bill when so much is missing ?  how do we evaluate which embryos should be allowed to be sent to research and how many to be adopted by infertile couples so those embryos can be developed into full human beings ?  who will decide ?  is it just a matter for the individual couple , or is there a larger , societal responsibility to protect life ?  the woman whose eggs are being taken , how is she legally protected ?  how is her husband or mate legally protected in this relationship ?  and what are the rights of the embryo ?  where is the hearing record that informs us how to carefully manage any transfer of human embryos to research so their essential worth is recognized ?  we are told that the ethical requirements section of the bill will suffice , yet this section is but 156 words long .  it directs that nih will issue final guidelines within 60 days of passage of this bill .  sixty days ?  that is not even enough time to grow a tomato plant .  i ask , is this realistic ?  and further , who will influence nih without more congressional guidance ?  mr. speaker , there is a lot of money to be made in this new field of life science .  i think congress should know who is likely to be making it , especially when federal funding becomes involved .  which biogenetic and pharmaceutical firms stand to benefit the most from moving this bill forward ?  exactly who are they ?  which immunosuppressant drug companies ?  do we as members of congress not have a right to know something more from the nonexistent transcript from the committee ?  i find it most coincidental that last week the south koreans doing research in this arena announced that they had cloned cells , making it appear as though , if congress did not act today , america would fall behind in the world research community .  i found the timing of that announcement just all too convenient and asked myself , which companies were behind it ?  in my opinion , the subcommittee and committees of jurisdiction have not met their responsibilities to this congress , by abdicating their hearing responsibility .  all we have are documents from outside proponents and opponents , and frankly , that is not good enough .  where is the hearing record to which all members can refer which recounts the struggles of proponents and opponents with the ethical requirements that should be a part of this bill , and not merely leave it up to the national institutes of health ?  on a matter of such magnitude , where some human embryos will be destroyed in the hope that new cures are made possible , the congress needs to be more responsible .  i ask my colleagues to vote `` no '' on the degette-castle bill and remand it back to committee .  
D	mr. speaker , i am a strong supporter of stem cell research .  it saves lives , it prolongs life , and it helps unhealthy people remain existent on this earth .  i am a diabetic myself , and for the last decade i have been working with stem cell research in my own district .  the karmanos cancer institute , world renowned in our community and in michigan , and part of the former detroit medical center , is a leader in research .  this bill deals with cord research , umbilical cord research , not controversial .  medical professionals and others support umbilical cord research .  umbilical cord research is the cord that is separated after a woman delivers her child .  in many instances , 90 percent of the time , those cords are displaced and thrown away .  what this bill will help us do is first of all gather those cords across america to save lives , to renew organs , and to continue life as we know it .  so i rise in support of h.r. 2520 as another means for us to prolong life , to give life , from stem cords , umbilical cords of women that are heretofore thrown out .  in our community , we are educating women and asking for their permission that medical research is able to use the cords , the umbilical cords of the fetus .  it is new , it is exciting , and it is happening all over the world .  our country is first in medical science ; and this act that we are taking today will continue research and development , healthier lives and longer lives .  support h.r. 2520 and let us bring america up so that we can save lives , prolong lives , and build a real strong america .  mr. speaker , i rise to support the `` stem cell therapeutic and research act '' .  this bill creates a new federal program to collect and store umbilical cord blood stem cells and reauthorize and expands the current bone marrow registry program .  umbilical cord blood units , typically discarded at hospitals , can be an unlimited source of stem cells with representation of all races and ethnicities .  according to the national marrow donor program ( nmdp ) , african-americans have only a 30 percent chance of finding a stem cell match within their own families and often require healthy stem cells from an unrelated individual , typically another african american .  of the nmdp 's registry of donors , only 8 percent are from african-americans .  i support the use of embryonic stem cells , adult stem cells and cord blood research to find cures .  i urge all of my colleagues to support this bill and h.r. 810 `` stem cell research enhancement act '' introduced by representatives mike castle and diana degette that would lift bush 's 2001 ban on the use of federal dollars for research using any mew embryonic stem cell lines .  all avenues of stem cell research need to be explored .  the current embryonic stem cell policy must be changed .  we can no longer tie the hands of our scientists and researchers when millions of lives are at stake .  
D	mr. speaker , i rise in strong support of this legislation .  and just to be clear once again during this debate , this bill limits the use of only those embryos that will be discarded or destroyed from in vitro fertilization clinics with the consent of the donors .  i rise in support of this legislation not because it promises cures for diabetes , parkinson 's , spinal cord injuries , alzheimer 's , but because it gives us yet another opportunity to discover cures for these ailments .  adult stem cell research , yes , let us do it .  cord blood research , absolutely .  but let us also allow the federal government to get more involved in embryonic stem cell research .  the university of wisconsin has been at the forefront of this research ; yet our researchers are being held back because of current federal policy .  we are already falling behind the rest of the world in this research in light of south korea 's recent announcement last week .  but it is precisely because the other countries are moving forward that makes our involvement all the more necessary .  i believe that we as the leader of the free world must provide important leadership on the ethical parameters , the ethical constraints that this research requires .  support this bipartisan bill .  
D	mr. speaker , i rise today in strong support of h.r. 810 , the stem cell research enhancement act of 2005 .  this bill would expand the current federal policy on embryonic stem cell research by allowing federally funded research on stem cell lines derived after august 9 , 2001 , while implementing strong ethical guidelines to ensure federal oversight of the research .  most of the scientific community believes that for the full potential of embryonic stem cell research to be reached , the number of cell lines readily available to scientists must increase .  just last month , a number of nih directors testified before the senate appropriations committee that the current policy is restrictive and hinders scientific progress .  we are already at risk of losing our scientific and technological edge because of increasing competition around the world .  other countries -- such as china , india , and the united kingdom -- are forging ahead with embryonic stem cell research because of less restrictive policies .  india , for example , has an extensive stem cell regulatory system , yet allows the derivation of new stem cells from surplus embryos at fertility clinics .  our restrictive policy not only puts us at risk of losing our scientific edge , we are also at risk of losing some of the best american scientists to other countries where policies are less restrictive .  important advances in the science of embryonic stem cell research have been made since the august 2001 policy was set .  earlier this year , researchers at the university of wisconsin in madison figured out how to grow human embryonic stem cells without using mouse feeder cells .  this is exciting news since mouse feeder cells are thought to be a source of contamination if the cells are ever to be used therapeutically in humans .  from its earliest days , stem cell research has been important to the people of wisconsin .  in fact , dr .  james thomson , a researcher at the university of wisconsin , was the first to isolate and culture embryonic stem cells .  in 2003 , this esteemed researcher received the frank annunzio award , given to recognize the innovative research of american scientists who devote their careers to improving the lives of people through their work in science .  wisconsin has been at the forefront of embryonic stem cell research from the beginning .  this legislation is essential to make sure the important work of our scientists is not unnecessarily sidetracked by politics .  but this legislation is not only important because of the potential for advances in science and technology .  more important is the fact that embryonic stem cell research could lead to new treatments and cures for the many americans afflicted with life-threatening and debilitating diseases .  scientists believe these cells could be used to treat many diseases , including alzheimer 's , parkinson 's , diabetes , and spinal cord injuries .  however , the promise of this research may not be reached if the federal policy is not expanded .  mr. speaker , it has become increasingly clear that the american public supports expanding the federal stem cell policy .  just yesterday , results from a survey of wisconsin voters were released showing overwhelming support for embryonic stem cell research .  nearly two-thirds of those polled support expanding federal policies to support more research -- regardless of party affiliation .  i strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation that will allow science to move forward unimpeded , has the potential to revolutionize the practice of medicine , and can offer hope to the millions of americans suffering from debilitating diseases .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank the leader for yielding me this time .  i ask myself this question : if we are going to deal with this debate on embryonic stem cell research , what are the ethics of this ?  one can go to google and do a google search on permissible medical experiments .  and i did that , and i found that there is a list of 10 things that have to be qualifiers for permissible medical experiments on human beings .  one is the subject must be a volunteer .  the second one is there must be no alternative .  the third one is results of animal experimentation must be proven successful prior to their experiments .  the net result in death or disability can not be accepted .  the seventh one is there can not be even a remote possibility of injury , disability , or death .  the human subject must be at liberty to end the experiment .  and the likely result can not be injury , disability , or death .  the exception is if a physician wants to experiment upon himself .  where do i find this information , mr. speaker ?  i find this information in the military tribunals under control council law no .  10 , october , 1946 , nuremberg .  
R	mr. speaker , today the political center will hold with nancy reagan , and this congress will stand for yankee ingenuity and stem cell research .  our constitution stands at its heart for the principle of the dignity of every individual and this idea is certainly central to our government and people .  but there is a key american principle at the heart of our people that predates the constitution .  nearly all of us are the sons and daughters of people who took risks to come to build a new life in a new world .  if there is one american character that totally distinguishes us from all other countries , it is that americans are innovators , explorers , inventors and scientists .  we take risks , we try new things ; and for 200 years the future came first to americans , the most dynamic and forward-thinking people in all of human history .  we invented the telephone , the radio , the airplane , we eradicated polio .  americans now receive more nobel prizes in medicine than all other european countries combined .  we stand for innovation and leadership , and this congress should ensure that american patients never have to leave our shores to find a cure .  
R	mr. speaker , i do rise today in strong support of h.r. 810 .  over the past two decades , three-quarters of the scientists who have won the nobel prize in medicine have studied or taught in the united states .  and this is not a coincidence .  our nation has created an environment that values innovation and discovery , especially in biological sciences .  h.r. 810 will help america continue to lead in this crucial field .  of course , there is more at stake in this debate than america 's global standing .  stem cell research holds extraordinary potential to save lives and alleviate human suffering .  i had a father who suffered from parkinson 's , a mother who passed away with alzheimer 's .  and i am all the more convinced that we must pursue this research vigorously , because i believe it does have potential to yield results .  i would argue that h.r. 810 is worthy of our support not just for what it allows but for what it restricts .  the bill requires that embryos be in excess of clinical need .  it does not permit financial compensation for those embryos , and it requires the donor 's written , informed consent .  this legislation appeals to hope , but it insists on caution as well .  h.r. 810 is as thoughtful as it is ambitious .  for that reason i urge my colleagues to support it .  
D	mr. speaker , i support h.r. 810 , the stem cell research enhancement act of 2005 .  h.r. 810 is the safest , most ethically and morally sound way to proceed with this potentially life-saving scientific advancement .  this debate is not about whether or not embryonic stem cell research should occur .  the administration is not stopping private embryonic stem cell research .  it just opposes the expansion of public stem cell research .  the private sector is not restricted from such research .  the private sector currently uses frozen embryos which would otherwise be discarded .  corporate entities already have access to 125 new and better embryonic stem cell lines , created after august 9 , 2001 , when the president announced his new stem cell policy .  h.r. 810 expands the number of frozen embryos to be used for stem cell research by the federal government .  federally sponsored research is subject to greater oversight and safeguards and higher ethical standards .  ethical controls over privately funded research are limited .  recent scientific breakthroughs have demonstrated that embryonic stem cell research has life saving potential .  it could result in saving millions of lives .  it could be the answer to the prayers of those who suffer from parkinson 's , diabetes , cancer , heart disease , spinal cord injuries and other debilitating conditions .  recent studies have set back the case for the efficacy of adult stem cells .  embryonic stem cell research will continue with or without the federal government .  this bill expands federal research , which will be subject to greater oversight and safeguards .  
D	mr. speaker , i rise in strong support of h.r. 810 , and i want to acknowledge the bipartisan effort that has gone into this legislation and the incredible grass roots movement that has built support for this groundbreaking medical research .  it has been inspirational to see so many members putting aside politics and partisanship to address this issue which affects the lives of millions of americans .  mr. speaker , i am one of those americans .  at age 16 , i was an explorer scout in my hometown police station .  one afternoon , in the police locker room , a gun accidentally discharged .  the bullet severed my spinal cord , and i have been paralyzed ever since .  this experience shapes my perspective in so many ways .  above all , it has given me tremendous appreciation and respect for life .  my life as a quadriplegic is filled with challenges and obstacles , yet i am grateful for every minute .  this gratitude has become a passion , and it has motivated me to help create a culture that values and protects life from its beginning to its end .  to me , being pro-life also means fighting for policies that will eliminate pain and suffering and help people enjoy longer , healthier lives .  and to me , support for embryonic stem cell research is entirely consistent with that position .  what could be more life-affirming than using what otherwise would be discarded to save , extend , and improve countless lives ?  this research offers the opportunity to discover cures and treatments for diseases like parkinson 's , alzheimer 's , als , diabetes , spinal cord injury , and many others .  but it will take not only the talent of our scientists , but also the support of our government to realize its full potential .  we have a responsibility to ensure that this research proceeds , and it does so with ethical safeguards and strict guidelines .  by permitting research only on excess embryos created in the in-vitro fertilization process , and by establishing a clear , voluntary consent process for donors , h.r. 810 meets this responsibility .  stem cell research gives us hope and a reason to believe .  i believe one day a child with diabetes will no longer face a lifetime of painful shots and tests .  i believe one day families will no longer watch in agony as a loved one with parkinson 's or alzheimer 's gradually declines .  and i believe one day i will walk again .  there are few moments in medical history when we can clearly identify a giant step forward in improving countless lives .  we saw it with the discovery of antibiotics and the advent of organ transplants .  mr. speaker , i believe that adult and embryonic stem cell research is another of these great moments .  today we have a historic opportunity to make a difference in the lives of millions of americans and for people around the world .  i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of h.r. 810 .  
D	mr. speaker , i rise today in support of h.r. 810 , the stem cell research enhancement act and h.r. 2520 , the stem cell therapeutic and research act that we debated earlier today .  both bills would expand stem cell research , which holds tremendous promise to curing and treating some of the most devastating diseases and conditions facing americans today .  this issue is about medical research coupled with high ethical standards and providing hope to those most in need -- it should have no role in any party 's political agenda .  in 2001 , president bush announced that for the first time federal funds could be used to support limited research on human embryonic stem cells , specifically `` existing stem cell lines where the life and death decision has already been made. '' under this policy , only 78 embryonic stem cell lines are eligible for use and according to the national institutes of health ( nih ) , only 22 of those lines are viable for human research .  since 2001 , 128 embryonic stem cell lines have been developed that are ineligible for federally funded research .  both bills -- the stem cell therapeutic and research act that would create a new federal program to collect and store umbilical-cord-blood cells and expand the current bone-marrow registry program and the stem cell research enhancement act that would increase the number of stem cell lines that can be used in federally funded research -- establish much-needed ethical standards and expand the possibilities of stem cell research for new treatments and cures .  according to the nih , in the united states more than 4 million people suffer from alzheimer 's disease ; one in every four deaths is from cancer ; and every hour of every day , someone is diagnosed with juvenile ( type 1 ) diabetes .  these brave individuals battling life-threatening and debilitating diseases are not responsible for policy or debate , but they will be the ones most affected by the outcome of today 's vote .  the president was quoted by the associated press over the weekend saying , `` i made it very clear to the congress that the use of federal money , taxpayers ' money to promote science which destroys life in order to save life is -- i 'm against that .  and therefore , if the bill does that , i will veto it. '' this legislation will not create life for the purpose of destruction .  these bills will expand the scope of research that the bush administration has already approved .  it is unfortunate president bush would dash the hopes of so many people looking for medical answers through research .  mr. speaker , i urge my colleagues join me today in advancing science and supporting h.r. 810 .  congress and the administration must not withdraw from progress , but embrace the immense opportunities that expanded stem cell research can have for the future and wellbeing of our nation 's public health .  
R	mr. speaker , we do not know yet , but the possibility is very real that stem cell research may be the greatest breakthrough in the history of science .  there are deep and profound moral and philosophic issues surrounding the research , but our government should be very cautious about coming down on the wrong side of science , especially when the scientific endeavor is designed to lengthen and ennoble life .  it has been suggested here today that no breakthrough therapies have yet been developed with stem cell research .  this is simply not the case .  using , for example , the microenvironment of human embryonic stem cells , dr .  mary hendricks and her team of researchers at chicago 's memorial research center have developed a methodology to slow the aggressive properties of metastatic cancer cells .  how in heaven 's name can we deny the promise of such research ?  there is consensus at this time in this body and in the research community that scientists should not play god in attempting to clone human beings , but we are at a stage of human existence where there is a practical possibility that a blastocyst that would otherwise be thrown away as waste can , in a petri dish , be used to help solve these incredible diseases , from alzheimer 's to parkinson 's to diabetes to cancer .  if one believes that life matters , the balance of judgment should be to carefully open the door , as this bill , led so beautifully by my good friends the gentleman from delaware ( mr. castle )  and the gentlewoman from colorado ( ms. degette )  , does .  not to open the door is to put our heads in the sands and foreclose the prospect of a better life for many , many americans .  
D	mr. speaker , as an original co-sponsor of h.r. 810 , i rise in support of the stem cell research enhancement act .  i want to applaud my colleagues rep .  castle and rep .  degette for working together to introduce this common sense bi-partisan measure .  mr. speaker , we know that our population is aging .  debilitating chronic diseases like cancer , parkinson 's , alzheimer 's , and diabetes are becoming far more common .  diabetes in particular is a huge problem , and like many other diseases , minority communities are disproportionately affected by it .  in my district in alameda county , approximately 13.4 percent of african americans have been diagnosed with diabetes compared to 4.5 percent of whites .  and the diabetes death rates of latinos and african americans are as high as 2-2.5 times those of whites .  expanding the number of embryonic stem cell lines available for research will assist scientists to develop therapeutic treatments and cures for diabetes and a range of other diseases .  by passing this bill we will not only help to improve the health and well being of the public , but we will also help to eliminate future chronic health care costs and improve the health of our economy as a whole .  i urge my colleagues to support this bill .  
D	mr. speaker , i rise in support of the stem cell research enhancement act .  the american people need and want a carefully crafted stem cell research policy that allows us to seek scientific breakthroughs .  we do not have such a policy today .  the stem cell policy established by president bush is severely restrictive and arbitrary .  the national institutes of health has reported that of the 78 stem cell lines promised by president bush , only 22 lines meet the president 's criteria for use .  a number of those lines have developed genetic mutations which will make research on them useless .  the vast majority of the remaining usable lines are in other countries that have shown little interest in making them available to u.s. researchers .  as a result , our researchers are falling behind their counterparts in other countries , and our citizens are watching their hopes for cures within their lifetimes slip away .  what is at stake are potential cures for diseases such as alzheimer 's , parkinson 's , diabetes and cancer .  the stem cell research enhancement act expands the number of stem cell lines that are available for federally funded research .  the bill also implements strong ethical requirements on stem cell lines that would be eligible for federally funded research .  this is an issue that can impact families across america , crossing all lines of income , political persuasion or religious affiliation .  furthermore , delay in effectively resolving this issue could for countless americans be a matter of basic health or indeed life .  keeping in mind the essential federal role in critical basic health research , i believe that it is essential that we support this bill so our country can continue in the lead in exploring the frontiers of science and medicine .  
D	mr. speaker , i support h.r. 810 , the stem cell research enhancement act .  stem cell research holds the potential to improve the lives of millions of americans suffering from diseases like cancer , heart disease , and diabetes .  i believe we should do all we can to support this research , and it is why i am so frustrated at the bush administration 's attempts to stop it .  nih said that u.s. scientists are falling behind because of the bush 2001 limitations on stem cell research .  elizabeth nable of the national heart , lung and blood institute said , `` because u.s. researchers who depend on federal funds lack access to newer human embryonic stem cell lines , they are at a technological disadvantage relative to researchers funded by california , as well as investigators in asia and europe .  my home state of california has already moved ahead of the federal government by establishing the institute for regenerative medicine , which will devote $ 3 billion to embryonic stem cell research over the next 10 years .  this bill is a modest proposal compared to california 's , but it is still an important step ; and that is why it is supported by all the major educational research institutions in california .  i include their letter of support in the record .  let us not drive this research overseas .  may 19 , 2005 .  dear representative lofgren : we are writing to express our support for changing federal policy on human embryonic stem cell research to allow an expansion in available cell lines .  as you probably know , a vote on legislation that would alter current policy is expected in the coming weeks , and we urge your `'yes '' vote .  embryonic stem cells hold the potential for new cures and therapies for an array of life-threatening diseases affecting millions of americans across the nation .  this potential will be enhanced by the bipartisan stem cell research enhancement act ( h.r. 810 ) , introduced by representatives michael castle ( r-de ) and diana degette ( d-co ) and co-sponsored by more than 200 members of the house of representatives .  the castle-degette bill would expand current policy to allow federal funding for research with stem cell lines discovered after the mandated august 9 , 2001 , cut-off date as well as lines derived in the future .  with regard to future stem cell lines , the bill applies only to lines derived from days-old blastocysts that otherwise would be discarded from in vitro fertilization clinics , but that instead are voluntarily donated to research by consenting individuals , without compensation .  further , this legislation would ensure the development of ethical guidelines for research with embryonic stem cell lines .  california has moved ahead by establishing the institute for regenerative medicine , which will devote $ 3 billion to embryonic stem cell research over the next ten years .  the provisions within h.r. 810 are more restrictive than those of the california initiative ; however , h.r. 810 is crucial because it will make a significant difference to nationwide federal research programs .  this expansion in policy will further facilitate and accelerate the research conducted in our state .  when the current federal embryonic stem cell research policy went into effect in 2001 , the notion was that 78 cell lines would be available for research .  currently , only 22 are actually available to researchers ; many others have been found unsuitable .  furthermore , a number of the available lines are entangled with commercial interests making the cells too expensive or impossible for nih-funded investigators to obtain .  for these reasons , the existing embryonic stem cell lines do not provide a sufficient supply to advance the research to its full potential .  embryonic stem cells offer the potential to reverse diseases and disabilities experienced by millions of americans .  stem cell research is still very new .  thus , we have a collective responsibility -- scientists , university leaders , and government leaders -- to support the exploration of the promising possibilities of both embryonic and adult stem cell research for curing and preventing disease .  please support scientific advancement and the possibility of new cures by voting `` yes '' on h.r. 810 to expand federal stem cell research policy .  sincerely , & lt ; center & gt ; robert c. dynes , & lt ; /center & gt ; & lt ; center & gt ; & lt ; em & gt ; president , university of california. & lt ; /em & gt ; & lt ; center & gt ; steven b. sample , & lt ; /center & gt ; & lt ; center & gt ; & lt ; em & gt ; president , university of southern california. & lt ; /em & gt ; & lt ; center & gt ; david baltimore , & lt ; /center & gt ; & lt ; center & gt ; & lt ; em & gt ; president , california institute of technology. & lt ; /em & gt ; & lt ; center & gt ; john l. hennessy , & lt ; /center & gt ; & lt ; center & gt ; & lt ; em & gt ; president , stanford university. & lt ; /em & gt ; 
D	mr. speaker , i am proud to be a cosponsor of h.r. 810 , and i rise in strong support of this critical legislation .  my colleagues , what an extraordinary moment we have before us .  embryonic stem cells have the potential not just to treat some of the most devastating diseases and conditions , but to actually cure them .  at issue here is the fundamental value of saving lives , a value that we all share regardless of race , culture or religion .  but this promise exists only if researchers have access to the science that holds the most potential , and are free to explore , with appropriate ethical guidelines , medical advances never before imagined possible .  i also sit on the committee that funds the national institutes of health with the gentleman from florida ( mr. weldon )  .  i am not a scientist , i am not a doctor .  but as i sit on that committee and we hear the testimony , one after another , of people who are suffering , who have lost their loved ones , who are on the verge of losing another loved one , look at the 200 major groups who are supporting this legislation .  and let us listen to them .  i am proud to be a cosponsor of h.r. 810 , and i rise in strong support of this critical legislation .  my colleagues , what an extraordinary moment we have before us .  embryonic stem cells have the potential not just to treat some of the most devastating diseases and conditions , but to actually cure them .  at issue here is the fundamental value of saving lives -- a value that we all share regardless of race , culture , or religion .  but this promise exists only if researchers have access to the science that holds the most potential , and are free to explore -- with appropriate ethical guidelines -- medical advances never before imagined possible .  there is no question that scientific advancement often comes with moral uncertainties .  we should and have ensured that difficult ethical and social questions are examined and debated before passing this legislation .  in my judgment we now have a moral obligation to pursue each opportunity and provide crucial funding , support and oversight for this critical research .  like many of you , i believe that strong guidelines must be in place with vigorous oversight from the nih and congress before allowing federally-funded embryonic stem cell research .  with appropriate guidelines we can ensure that the research with the most promise for medical achievement can be fully realized .  while adult stem cells have yielded important discoveries , the evidence from scientists themselves suggests they do n't have the same potential as embryonic stem cells .  the legislation before us today would strengthen the standards guiding embryonic stem cell research and would ensure that embryos originally created for the purpose of in vitro fertilization could be made available for research only with the consent of the donor .  let me be clear .  this legislation retains the current restrictions on creating human embryos for the purpose of research .  so today i ask my colleagues to be as determined to find a cure as science allows us to be .  with the appropriate guidelines in place , we are closer than ever to remarkable discoveries and on the brink of providing hope to millions of individuals who otherwise have none .  i urge my colleagues to vote `` yes '' on h.r. 810 .  
D	mr. speaker , i have never seen such a well-attended debate , which shows the importance of this issue ; and i rise today on behalf of my father who died of parkinson 's disease .  i also rise today on behalf of the millions of americans like me who have watched their loved ones battle the ravages of some dreaded disease .  i ask my colleagues , how many more lives must be ended or ravaged until our government gives researchers the wherewithal to simply do their jobs ?  although there are no guarantees , many scientists have told me that embryonic stem cell research offers the best and only hope to discover a cure for many , many dreaded diseases .  embryonic research offers scientists the opportunity to extend life and the quality of life for future generations of americans .  as we are debating , other countries , other states , other people are moving forward with research with all speed .  we should pass the degette/castle bill .  life is too precious to wait .  mr. speaker , i rise today in support of h.r. 810 , the stem cell research enhancement act of 2005 .  as a founder and co-chair of the congressional working group on parkinson 's disease , i support this legislation that will expand the number of stem cell lines that are available for federally funded research .  i believe this bill will reopen the doors to scientific inquiry , allowing us to be able , once again , to utilize embryonic stem cells while adhering to strict ethical guidelines .  i am and continue to be an opponent of human cloning .  however , i recognize that we must move forward with ethical research that could lead to new drug therapies .  we owe this to those suffering from parkinson 's disease , heart disease , stroke , diabetes , and lou gehrig 's disease .  and we owe this to scientists who are eager to explore new frontiers of science and medicine , but who are restrained by federal restrictions .  mr. speaker , i have met with doctors , scientists , and researchers in my district 's leading medical institutions who warn of a `` brain drain '' as their best and brightest relocate to places where funding for embryonic stem cell research is not restricted .  i have spoken with lawmakers in the state of new york , who have garnered $ 1 billion in embryonic stem cell research funding , but without federal funding , stem cell research will move forward without crucial oversight and guidelines .  i have been persuaded by directors at the national institutes of health who have spoken out against the white house policy on stem cells .  and i have been moved by the pleas of my constituents who are eager to find cures for suffering loved ones .  mr. speaker , this is a mandate .  in 2003 , over 900 , 000 americans died of heart disease and more than 550 , 000 succumbed to cancer .  i am sure that many in this chamber have seen friends suffer through the misery of cancer and the indignities of chemotherapy .  who among us has not had a parent or grandparent look at us with vacant eyes because alzheimer 's has stolen their memory away from them ?  too many of us have watched as our children with juvenile diabetes hold back tears as they give themselves insulin injections each day .  mr. speaker , it does not have to be this way .  healing our children , family , and friends is a bipartisan issue .  in fact , it is a moral imperative .  
D	mr. speaker , twelve million baby boomers will have alzheimer 's .  three million baby boomers will suffer from parkinson 's disease .  juvenile diabetes , lou gehrig 's disease , spinal cord injuries will wreak havoc on the daily lives of millions of american families .  these diseases are going to bankrupt the health care system of our country unless we take action .  today , we can take dramatic action , a step , to deal with this looming crisis .  president bush has threatened to use his first veto to prevent scientists from using federal funds to search for these cures .  this is wrong .  stem cell research is the light of life , the way out of the darkness , the life-giving , life-enhancing , life-extending path to hope .  hope is the most important four-letter word in the language .  we must vote for hope , vote for life , vote for a brighter future for all of our loved ones .  vote for hope for a small girl forced to stick a needle three times a day into her young arm .  vote for hope for a beloved mother whose loss of balance leads to falls in the night .  vote for hope for a spouse who realizes that his memory of life and family are dissolving into a forgetful haze .  vote `` yes '' so that the next generation of children will have to turn to the history books to know that there ever was such a thing as juvenile diabetes or parkinson 's or alzheimer 's or any of these plagues that affect our nation today and are going to turn into a crisis in the next generation .  
D	mr. speaker , while europe and singapore and california and korea are moving forward in an effort to relieve human suffering , the united states congress , 435 theologians , have gathered here to decide a values decision .  we have no guidance .  there was no in vitro fertilization or stem cell research when jesus walked on the earth .  we are left to make the decision on our own .  the decision comes down to this : a man and woman come in to a physician .  he presents some semen .  she presents some eggs .  they put them in a jar or they put them in a petri plate , and it becomes an embryo .  they have several of them ; so they use one .  they put it in the mother .  she has a baby .  and there are a bunch left .  now what shall we do with those ?  shall we throw them down the sink , wash them away , or shall we use them to help people who have terribly debilitating diseases ?  that is what this issue is about .  like the last speaker , i am a physician .  i have counseled people who were dying with lou gehrig 's disease .  to watch somebody drown in their own secretions , someone that you know and care about , and then come in here and say we are not going to look for a way to relieve that kind of agony , we will not worry about a 13-year-old kid who gets diabetes and has to give himself thousands and thousands of shots and loses the length of life that most of us expect because of that disease ; we will say to them , well , jesus wanted us to do this .  i do not remember the lord ever saying that .  i do not ever remember his saying , i gave you a brain , you human beings .  i do not want you to figure anything out .  i do not want you to make it any better .  this is a perfectly good values judgment on which everybody should vote `` yes . '' 
D	mr. speaker , i am pleased to support h.r. 810 , the stem cell research enhancement act of 2005 .  this legislation takes the critical first step in expanding the number of stem cell lines that are eligible for federally funded research .  for years , the united states has been the preeminent world leader in the field of biotechnology .  we have made extraordinary advancements in the treatment , management and prevention of a wide range of disabilities .  it 's nearly impossible to read a newspaper without hearing of some new breakthrough -- drug cocktails for aids patients ; gene therapy treatments ; new medical devices .  these advancements are cause for celebration .  our mothers and fathers , our spouses , children and grandchildren are benefiting like never before .  they are living longer , healthier lives due to our investments in scientific research .  much like this earlier research , the potential benefits from stem cells are almost limitless .  and as policymakers , we have the rare opportunity to help further scientific innovation that , with the proper research and development , could produce better treatments -- or even cures -- for diseases like diabetes , parkinson 's disease , and cancer .  despite some arguments that we have heard today , recent developments have proven that we are not far off from recognizing the true potential of this research .  in fact , just last week , scientists in south korea successfully created the world 's first human embryonic stem cells that are patient-specific .  this advancement was applauded around the world as a major step in the effort to produce cell-based therapies that wo n't be rejected by the body 's immune system .  and in my home state of massachusetts , viacell and new world laboratories , two small biotech companies , have made notable progress in their research on spinal cord injuries and tissue regeneration .  though no one can predict the outcome of embryonic stem cell research , what is certain is that without federal support , we will never fully recognize it 's potential .  we are at a pivotal point in our nation 's history , and i hope that my colleagues will carefully consider this issue , leaving out partisan politics .  with federal support , this research could have a real and tangible impact on millions of lives in this country .  our nation 's current policy severely limits scientific research , and we must not continue on this dangerous course .  i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting h.r. 810 .  mr dingell .  mr. speaker , i support h.r. 810 , the `` stem cell research and enhancement act of 2005. '' let us be very clear about why we are here today .  we are here to decide whether our nation will move forward in the search for treatments and therapies that will cure a multitude of dreaded diseases that afflict an estimated 128 million americans .  today , millions of americans suffer from alzheimer 's disease , parkinson 's disease , spinal cord injuries or spinal dysfunction , and diabetes .  and today , along with the tremendous number of americans living with cancer , approximately 1.5 million new cases were diagnosed in the united states last year .  today , we can vote for h.r. 810 , and in doing so , choose to save lives and help to end the suffering of so many americans .  stem cells are the foundation cells for every organ , tissue , and cell in the body .  embryonic stem cells , unlike adult stem cells , possess a unique ability to develop into any type of cell .  embryonic stem cell research holds the potential for treating a variety of diseases such as lou gehrig 's disease , parkinson 's disease , alzheimer 's disease , autism , cystic fibrosis , heart disease , diabetes , multiple sclerosis , and osteoporosis , as well as spinal cord injuries .  h.r. 810 would impose strict ethical guidelines for embryonic stem cell research and would lift the arbitrary restriction limiting funds to only some embryonic stem cell lines created before august 10 , 2001 .  by removing this arbitrary restriction , h.r. 810 will ensure that researchers can not only continue their work to prolong or save lives , but also conduct such research using newer , less contaminated , more diverse , and more numerous embryonic stem cells .  h.r. 810 does not allow federal funding for the creation or destruction of embryos .  this bill only allows for research on embryonic stem cell lines retrieved from embryos created for reproductive purposes that would otherwise be discarded .  this point is critical : if these embryos are not used for stem cell research , they will be destroyed .  former first lady nancy reagan once said , `` science has presented us with a hope called stem cell research , which may provide our scientists with many answers that for so long have been beyond our grasp .  i just do n't see how we can turn our backs on this .  we have lost so much time already .  i just really ca n't bear to lose any more. '' let us not turn our backs on this important research and the 128 million americans who could benefit from it .  let us not lose any more time .  let us pass h.r. 810 , the `` stem cell research enhancement act of 2005 . '' 
D	mr. speaker , i rise in support of h.r. 810 , the stem cell research enhancement act , to put science and compassion ahead of ideology and fear .  the promise of embryonic stem cells is that they alone have the potential to develop into any kind of body tissue , including blood , brain , muscle , organ , or nerve tissue .  scientists believe that this unique ability might lead to breakthroughs in a number of illnesses that are now untreatable .  over 100 million americans suffer from diseases and conditions that may one day be treated using stem cell therapies , including alzheimer 's , parkinson 's , juvenile diabetes , lou gehrig 's disease , severe bums , and spinal cord injuries .  for the very reason that we do not yet know what kind of treatments stem cell research will yield , it would be unwise not to explore the possibilities .  as one researcher at harvard medical school and boston 's children 's hospital recently wrote in the new england journal of medicine , `` the science of human embryonic stem cells is in its infancy. '' restricting stem cell research now `` threaten [ s ] to starve the field at a critical stage. '' it 's critical to understand the science of stem cell research to weigh the moral and ethical issues involved .  this bill allows funding of research on stem cells that are harnessed from fertility clinics .  in vitro fertilization is a technology that has allowed millions of couples to share in the joy of childbirth .  it results in the creation of embryos that are never implanted into the womb , never grow to be more than a handful of cells , and would otherwise be discarded .  harnessing stem cells for medical research from fertility clinics is a compassionate , pro-family , and pro-life position .  as one of the world 's foremost centers of medical research , massachusetts has much at stake in the stem cell debate .  not only are our hospitals , research facilities , and institutions of higher learning on the cutting edge of conquering disease , they are also major economic drivers keeping us competitive in the global economy and employing tens of thousands of people .  massachusetts has over 250 biotech firms .  that is more than all of western europe combined .  if we continue the current ban on stem cell research , it does not mean that research will stop elsewhere .  but it would put america -- the world 's most powerful engine of innovation and progress -- on the sidelines .  mr. speaker , america should be leading the world in using our compassion and our scientific knowledge to develop lifesaving therapies .  i urge support for h.r. 810 .  
D	mr. speaker , i rise in very strong support of the stem cell research enhancement act , which will expand the federal policy and implement stricter ethical guidelines for this research .  embryonic stem cell research is necessary in discovering the causes of a myriad of genetic diseases , to testing new drug therapies more efficiently on laboratory tissue instead of human volunteers , and to staving off the ravages of disease with the regeneration of our bodies ' essential organs .  president george w. bush 's policy on stem cell research limits federal funding only to embryonic stem cell lines that were derived by august 9 , 2001 , the date of his policy announcement .  of the 78 stem cell lines promised by president bush , only 22 are available to researchers .  unfortunately these stem cell lines are aged and contaminated with mouse feeder cells , making their therapeutic use for humans uncertain .  according to the majority of scientists , if these stem cell lines were transplanted into people , they would provoke dangerous viruses in humans .  what is even more disturbing is the fact that there are at least 125 new stem cell lines , which are more pristine than the lines currently available on the national institutes of health registry , which are ineligible for federally-funded research because they were derived after august 9 , 2001 .  this restrictive embryonic stem cell research policy is making it increasingly more difficult to attract new scientists to this area of research because of concerns that funding restrictions will keep this research from being successful .  the stem cell research enhancement act does not change the current policy on the use of federal funds ; this measure simply seeks to lift the cutoff date for lines available for research .  h.r. 810 will also strengthen the ethical standards guiding the federal research on stem cell lines and will ensure that embryos donated for stem cell research were created for the purposes of in vitro fertilization , in excess of clinical need , would have otherwise be discarded and involved no financial inducement .  contrary to what opponents have been saying , the stem cell research enhancement act will not federally fund the destruction of embryos .  h.r. 810 is clear that unused embryos will be used for embryonic stem cell research only by decision of the donor .  no federally-funded research will be supported by this measure if the embryos were created and destroyed solely for this purpose .  in february 2005 , the civil society institute conducted a nationwide survey of 1 , 022 adults and found that 70 percent supported bipartisan federal legislation to promote embryonic stem cell research .  let public interest triumph over ideological special interests .  public interest is best served when the medical and the scientific community is free to exercise their professional judgment in extending and enhancing human life .  i urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of the stem cell research enhancement act .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank the chairman for yielding his time .  you know , you can not divorce medical research from medical ethics .  and as such , it is critically important we are dealing here with medical facts .  first of all , although many members and the public and the media seem to get this wrong , the truth is , i believe we will have probably close to unanimous support for using federal dollars for stem cell research , but it is important to understand the different types : adult stem cell , which has much promise to harvest and grow these , although it has some risk for infections and other problems .  some 30 , 000 people have been treated .  umbilical cord , which is pluripotent .  it can be used in multiple ways .  over 6 , 000 cases have been treated .  frozen embryo research , zero .  and cloning has its own problems with that as well .  in the area of umbilical cord blood , one of the cases , because in my practice , i oftentimes dealt with children with developmental disabilities .  one case of the new england journal of medicine reports 90 percent success rate with hurley 's syndrome , a developmental disorder , autosomal dominant one , which ends up in severe developmental delays and death .  those are incredible results , incredible results that come from looking at the facts of what cord blood stem cell research is about .  let us not distort this discussion and confuse cord blood and embryonic , because when you are using cord blood , umbilical blood , you are not killing anyone .  you are not limiting or destroying a life .  you are taking something that has been discarded in the normal process of pregnancy and birth .  let us help support the continuation of this vital research which does not just show promise , but shows demonstrable results .  and it does not involve the ending of any life in the process .  this is where we should continue our research .  this is where we must continue our work .  this is where we must take our stand today , to continue to support medical research that is important .  look also at medical ethics .  
R	mr. speaker , i recently had a granddaughter born .  i looked at that little baby , and i was in love with her when i went to ultrasound and we saw her , even before she was born .  when i saw the little snowflake children , i thought about their humanness .  i thought about what joy they brought to their families .  i thought about little children that needed to be comforted when they were hurt , little children that wanted to be put to bed at night with a kiss and a story , their wonderful humanness , and i thought about what the american people think of babies and how we cherish them .  when i see these little children , i know their intrinsic value ; and how we treat people , in whatever form of development , depends on how we perceive them .  the embryo is a human being at an early stage of development .  when we talk to many who have great knowledge about this , and i appreciate the doctors in our presence , we should never spend the american taxpayers ' dollars to take the life of an innocent human being .  as i look at this bill , i know it is very complex ; but we need to always support human life .  
R	mr. speaker , i rise today in opposition to h.r. 810 .  i believe in the transforming and the lifesaving power of research and science , and i have seen firsthand how cutting-edge research can make a big difference in the lives of americans who suffer with all sorts of diseases , and , i understand the value of federally funded research .  i also support stem cell research .  however , this debate is not about the merits of scientific discovery .  there is no ban on research for the limited number of ivf embryos on which such research would even be possible .  this debate is about federal tax dollars and whether these dollars should be spent on the destruction of embryos , which i do not support .  supporters of this bill say we have nothing to lose by destroying existing embryos with federal money because , after all , some of them will probably be discarded anyway .  i would ask my colleagues to recall the reason why we do not conduct scientific research on federal death row inmates .  are n't they going to die anyway ?  by all accounts , death row inmates are not innocent lives -- but we do n't conduct destructive experiments on them because it would be ethically reprehensible .  we certainly do n't dedicate taxpayer funds for that purpose .  those who 've studied the implications of an embryonic stem cell research expansion know full well that federal funding for the destruction of existing ivf embryos is no silver bullet for disease treatment .  but that 's how the bill will be sold on the floor today .  h.r. 810 is merely the first step in an effort to spend federal money -- not only on the destruction , but on the creation of cloned embryos for research .  i ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill .  
D	mr. speaker , i thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time .  mr. speaker , the debate on stem cell research challenges all of us to think carefully about the value we place on human life .  many of us turn to our faith traditions for guidance and wisdom .  none of us has the right to legislate our religious beliefs and impose them on others .  but as members look to the teachings of their faiths for guidance , i ask them to remember that not all faiths hold that stem cell research is the enemy of life .  the religious traditions of many of us do not tell us that a 14-day-old blastocyst has the same moral significance as a human being and do tell us that the obligation to preserve life , which includes the obligation to cure disease and alleviate human suffering , is paramount .  i understand and respect the faith of all of my colleagues .  it is a sincere faith that reveres life .  i ask them to accord that same respect to the faiths of others .  unfortunately , words have sometimes been used carelessly , and these words sometimes denigrate the faith of others .  when the teachings of a faith are described as `` a culture of death '' because they hold that the potential to save and heal human lives is an integral part of valuing human life , that faith and its adherence are being slandered .  how dare anyone slander the faiths of many americans as `` a culture of death. '' god does not speak to one faith alone .  we hear lots of speeches about respecting people of faith and the need to bring faith into the public square .  the people who make those speeches should respect all faiths .  we should vote our consciences , but we should not denigrate the faith and consciences of the millions of americans who seek to preserve life and end suffering and who believe that embryonic stem cell research can save lives and therefore embodies the highest morality .  
D	mr. speaker , the issue of embryonic stem cell research places humanity on the frontier of medical science and at the outer edge of moral theology .  on the side of science there is much hope , even expectation that extraordinarily effective therapies will be developed due to a wide range of maladies from diabetes to parkinson 's , spinal cord injury and a host of others .  progress has been achieved in the laboratory in animal studies and in human application .  much has yet to be learned , however , about adverse outcomes , which is why scientists proceed cautiously without overpromising and with respect for moral considerations of their research .  the latter gives me the greatest pause .  an editorial in america magazine said it well : `` the debate over embryonic stem cell research can not be fully resolved because it is ignited by irreconcilable views of what reverence for life requires. '' let us recall louise brown , the first test tube baby .  her life began as a single cell , fertilized egg , in vitro .  there are many leftover potential louise browns , potential human beings as cryogenic embryos conceived in the laboratory .  are they to be discarded or , can they be ethically used for stem cell research ?  that is the moral theology issue that we must resolve .  i can not get over the reality that human life is created in creating an embryo , whether in vitro or whether in utero .  each of us has to decide the morality of this unique aspect of the issue .  but i can not get over the moral theology underpinning of this extraordinary research on the frontier of science that we are tinkering with human life .  and we must not tinker further .  we know not where we head .  it is between god and us .  let us resolve any uncertainty in favor of life .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman very much and applaud him for his effort .  i have been able to listen to most of what was said tonight .  obviously , the gentleman has a tremendous depth of scientific understanding .  i do not have that depth , but i would just like to reflect on the dilemma that many members will be placed in tomorrow as we decide on this particular vote .  as the gentleman has mentioned , those who are in favor of embryonic stem cell research , many of them are people who have children who have juvenile diabetes .  there are many who have parents or others with parkinson 's or alzheimer 's and lou gehrig 's disease and so on .  we have heard from these people personally , and our hearts go out to them .  we have heard that 400 , 000 embryos are going to be discarded anyway , and on and on and on .  yet , on the other side of the argument , as the gentleman has amplified so well , there are some other dilemmas .  one thing that is of concern to me is when is a life a life ?  obviously , we would not take a 2-year-old and do any harm to that child ; we would not experiment on that child .  we would not do it to a 1-year-old .  probably , in many cases , most of us would say an 8-month-old fetus would not be appropriate to do some harm to .  but where is it that you draw the line ?  is it at 6 months ?  is it at 4 months ?  is it at 1 month ?  is it at 1 week ?  so therein lies the horns of the dilemma .  so many of us are of the persuasion that you really can not draw that line .  when a life is a life is at conception , and therefore you have to respect life .  there is a certain sanctity of life .  so , again , the arguments will range wide and far tomorrow .  some will say that embryos can be adopted , and they can .  so whether we have 400 , 000 or 20 , 000 , maybe 1 , 000 , maybe 10 , 000 , maybe 15 , 000 , maybe more than that will be adopted out .  many will argue that adult stem cells are more productive in research .  as the gentleman has pointed out so effectively here , some of that has to do with the length of time of research .  there is no question .  but there is no question that adequate resources and adult stem cell research will produce results .  there is also the question about private funding .  there is no restriction on private funding on embryonic stem cell research .  if it is so promising , then why has the private sector not stepped up , because obviously there are huge profits to be made if you have some type of a cure for juvenile diabetes or alzheimer 's or whatever ; and yet we do not seem to see that afoot .  then i guess the last thing that i would mention is that there is the ethical question , should we use public funds in doing research that is so divisive , that has so many people on both sides of the fence ?  it seems we should have more unanimity in using public funds to do this type of research .  so i applaud the gentleman for the proposed legislation that he has before us , because in this legislation is the prospect of using embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo .  of course , that removes the dilemma on both sides .  so we think that the legislation , even though it is in its early stages , certainly has great promise and is one that we ought to pay very close heed to and one that would certainly be much more appealing to me than the other alternatives at the present time .  mr. speaker , i just wanted to come down briefly and let the gentleman from maryland ( mr. bartlett )  know i appreciate his efforts .  i have read the white house white paper .  i understand most of what is in there .  one other thing that is also mentioned is the fact that when these frozen embryos are thawed out , many of them die , as the gentleman mentioned ; and some of those apparently will yield stem cells in the early stages .  anyway , mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman again for this legislation .  
R	mr. speaker , the issue of government funding of embryonic stem cell research is one of the most divisive issues facing the country .  while i sympathize with those who see embryonic stem cell research as providing a path to a cure for the dreadful diseases that have stricken so many americans , i strongly object to forcing those americans who believe embryonic stem cell research is immoral to subsidize such research with their tax dollars .  the main question that should concern congress today is does the united states government have the constitutional authority to fund any form of stem cell research .  the clear answer to that question is no .  a proper constitutional position would reject federal funding for stem cell research , while allowing the individual states and private citizens to decide whether to permit , ban , or fund this research .  therefore , i will vote against h.r. 810 .  unfortunately , many opponents of embryonic stem cell research are disregarding the constitution by supporting h.r. 2520 , an `` acceptable '' alternative that funds umbilical-cord stem cell research .  while this approach is much less objectionable than funding embryonic stem cell research , it is still unconstitutional .  therefore , i must also oppose h.r. 2520 .  federal funding of medical research guarantees the politicization of decisions about what types of research for what diseases will be funded .  thus , scarce resources will be allocated according to who has the most effective lobby rather than allocated on the basis of need or even likely success .  federal funding will also cause researchers to neglect potential treatments and cures that do not qualify for federal funds .  ironically , an example of this process may be found in h.r. 2520 ; some research indicates that adult stem cells may be as useful or more useful to medical science than either embryonic or umbilical cord stem cells .  in fact , the supporters of embryonic stem cell research may have a point when they question the effectiveness of umbilical cord mr. speaker , there is no question that h.r. 810 violates basic constitutional principles by forcing taxpayers to subsidize embryonic stem cell research .  however , h.r. 2520 also exceeds congress 's constitutional authority and may even retard effective adult stem cell research .  therefore , i urge my colleagues to vote against both h.r. 810 and h.r. 2520 .  
D	mr. speaker , this is an important day for us in congress .  i myself am deeply indebted to the gentlewoman from colorado ( ms. degette )  and the gentleman from delaware ( mr. castle )  for their great leadership and courage in bringing this legislation to the floor .  i thank the gentleman from delaware ( mr. castle )  and the gentlewoman from colorado ( ms. degette )  .  this is important legislation because every family in america , every family in america is just one phone call away , one diagnosis , one accident away from needing the benefits of stem cell research .  we want all of the research to proceed , the umbilical cord research that we talked about this morning , and adult stem cell research .  that is all very important .  but we must have the embryonic stem cell research if we are truly going to have science have the potential it has to cure diseases .  i served for many years , probably 10 , on the labor-hhs subcommittee which funds the national institutes of health .  so i have studied this issue over the years .  what we are doing here today is recognizing the miraculous power to cure that exists at the national institutes of health and in other institutes of excellence in research throughout our country .  we are recognizing the miraculous , almost biblical power that science has to cure .  and what we have said , what we are saying here today is nothing that should not be considered of value .  what we are saying is when these embryos are in excess of the needs of in vitro fertilization , rather than be destroyed , they will be used for basic biomedical research .  it is interesting to me because when i first came to the congress , some of the same forces out there that are against this embryonic stem cell research were very much against in vitro fertilization .  it is difficult to imagine that now , but they were against in vitro fertilization and considered it not to be on high moral ground .  the research is going to occur with federal funding or without .  it should not occur without high ethical standards that the federal funding can bring to it .  in order for our country to be preeminent in science , we must have the most talented , the most excellent scientists .  they will not be attracted to a situation which limits scientific inquiry .  as we all know , in science as in business , talent attracts capital , the capital to build the labs and all that is needed to do the research , and those labs in turn attract the excellent scientists , and that makes us first in the world , preeminent in science .  we can not allow this important endeavor to go offshore .  i am particularly proud of my state of california where the people of california in a bipartisan way , as we are doing today , voted a commitment of resources to invest in embryonic stem cell research .  we in california will become the regenerative capital of america , indeed , probably of the world .  but this should be happening all over the country , and it should not depend on the local initiative of the state .  that is good , but it should be coming from the leadership of the federal government with the ethical standards that go with it .  we have ethical standards in california .  they should be uniform throughout our country .  to some , this debate may seem like a struggle between faith and science .  while i have the utmost respect , and the gentlemen know i do , for those who oppose this bill on moral grounds , i believe faith and science have at least one thing in common : both are searches for truth .  america has room for both faith and science .  indeed , with the great potential for medical research , science has the power to answer the prayers of america 's families .  i believe strongly in the power of prayer ; but part of that prayer is for a cure , and science can provide that .  many religious leaders endorse the castle/degette bill because of their respect for life and because they believe science , within the bounds of ethics and religious beliefs , can save lives and improve its quality .  groups as diverse as the united church of christ , the union for reform judaism , the united methodist church , the episcopal church , and the union of orthodox jewish congregations of america all support this bill .  the union of orthodox jewish congregations of america says the traditional jewish perspective emphasizes the potential to save and heal human lives is an integral part of valuing human life .  the episcopal church in its letter in support of this legislation says : `` as stewards of creation , we are called to help men and renew the world in many ways .  the episcopal church celebrates medical research as this research expands our knowledge of god 's creation and empowers us to bring potential healing to those who suffer from disease and disability. '' this is what they wrote , and much more , in support of this legislation .  it is our duty to bring hope to the sick and the disabled , not to bind the hands of those who can bring them hope .  i believe god guided our researchers to discover the stem cells power to heal .  this bill will enable science to live up to its potential to again answer the prayers of america 's families .  i urge all of my colleagues to support this bill , thank all of our colleagues on both sides of this issue for their very dignified approach to how we are dealing with this legislation today , but also say that today is a historic day , that the gentleman from delaware ( mr. castle )  and the gentlewoman from colorado ( ms. degette )  have given us the opportunity to move forward , again to answer the prayers of america 's families , to meet their needs , to allow the science to use its biblical power to cure ; and for that i am deeply in their debt .  
R	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 .  
R	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 can not 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 .  
R	mr. speaker , i am a big supporter of stem cell research .  but i do not support the dissecting and destruction of living human embryos to do so .  steve johnson from reading , pennsylvania , agrees with me .  a bicycle incident , an accident , he had 11 years ago replaced his bike with a wheelchair .  he has heard that embryonic stem cells might help him walk again .  for steve , though , that is unacceptable , using embryos .  the way that h.r. 810 would find those cells is through the destruction of ivf living embryos .  he and his wife , kate , adopted his daughter , zara , as an embryo from an ivf clinic when she was just a frozen embryo .  and h.r. 810 would have killed zara as an embryo for her stem cells .  there are 20 others like this child here in town today -- the `` snowflakes '' -- babies who developed from embryos given by their biological parents to a couple unable to conceive on their own .  if h.r. 810 were law , there is a good chance they would not be here at all .  they are living human embryos , and there are many of them that should be adopted , not dissected .  the sad thing is that steve is more likely to be treated not with embryonic stem cell research but with stem cells from his own body .  adult stem cell treatments are helping people walk today , in 67 different diseases and treatments .  the proponents of h.r. 810 can produce no such results .  there are none for embryonic stem cells .  
R	mr. speaker , i rise in favor of adult stem cell research , characterized by the gentleman from new jersey 's ( mr. smith )  bill , and oppose h.r. 810 , the castle legislation , that would propose federal dollars for destroying human embryos for embryonic stem cell research .  i can illustrate the difference with these two binders .  in this one binder there are 67 successful treatments using adult stem cells , and stem cells from cord blood , adult stem cells for treatment of diseases .  they are all categorized here by diseases , successful treatments .  from embryonic stem cell research : zero .  the simple fact of the matter is with the use of embryonic stem cells the only thing that you have today are dead embryos and dead laboratory rats with tumors .  they have not worked .  they do not work .  with adult stem cells you have live patients with treatments .  this is the ethical way to go .  this is what we should support .  
R	mr. speaker , we are all different .  we are all different because we each have our own dna .  the ordering of genes in our body makes us unique .  we have the color of our hair , skin , eyes , teeth , because of dna .  and each person has his or her own set of dna , and that makes us each unique .  each and every person is valuable .  i am a supporter of ethical stem cell research , mr. speaker .  i do not support the dissecting and destruction of living human embryos to harvest stem cells for the purpose of experimentation and research , and that is because each of these living human embryos has its own genetic makeup , its own dna .  it is not animal dna .  it is not plant dna .  it is human genetic code , human dna .  the stuff that sets each person apart is there in this tiny little life that h.r. 810 would destroy .  each unique and distinct , but frozen .  early today i met with a man , steve johnson , from reading , pennsylvania , who is in washington for this debate .  steve was in a bicycle accident 11 years ago and his bike was replaced with a wheelchair , and today steve is a paraplegic .  and he has heard the promises made that embryonic stem cell research might help him walk again .  for steve , though , that is unacceptable .  and so steve and his wife , kate , adopted a little girl .  here are three little snowflake babies .  he adopted little zara when she was just a frozen embryo , stored at an ivf clinic .  she was a leftover embryo that proponents of this bill would destroy for her cells .  if someone had dissected her for embryonic stem cell research , she would not be here today .  but she is here today with 21 other little snowflake children .  steve would not have his daughter because scientists want a laboratory experiment .  zara is living proof that advocates of h.r. 810 are wrong on this issue .  what they do not admit is that steve johnson 's paralysis is more likely to be reversed using adult stem cells .  how do we know that ?  because recently , we learned that cells taken from a person 's nose , olfactory cells , are helping people walk again .  cells taken from cord blood are helping people walk again , today .  embryonic stem cells , no , not helping people walk again .  they might say there is hope .  there is no proof .  i would like to challenge the other side to put up in front of a camera one person treated for spinal cord injury with embryonic stem cells .  you can not , can you ?  we can .  hwang mi-soon , susan fajt .  how about parkinson 's ?  you can not .  we can .  dennis turner .  how about cancer ?  leukemia ?  sickle cell ?  you can not .  adult stem cells are treating human patients today for the very diseases that the proponents of this bill claim might hopefully one day be treated through the destruction of living human embryos .  the human being is in all stages of development , or disability , uniquely distinct and infinitely valuable .  house resolution 810 is a tragic betrayal of that value .  
D	mr. speaker , i rise today to say that i will be casting my vote for h.r. 810 , the stem cell research enhancement act of 2005 .  i am voting for this legislation with the face of ashley dahly on my mind .  ashley is a 17-year-old high school junior from devils lake , north dakota .  she is a happy teenager with an adoring family .  she likes school , enjoys student congress and speech class , and loves ice skating .  ashley also has juvenile diabetes .  in fact , today she is at home missing her finals because of high blood sugars .  ashley is north dakota 's delegate for children 's congress through the juvenile diabetes research foundation , taking place here in washington on june 18-22nd .  ashley 's goal is to enter a health-related field such as a nurse or diabetes educator , because as ashley has said , `` i know the pain that children diagnosed with diabetes go through , and i think i could help in relieving that pain. '' there is currently no cure for juvenile diabetes , a disease that affects another child every hour of every day .  embryonic stem cell research offers great potential for advancing treatments or even curing diabetes , as well as many other diseases such as parkinson 's disease , cancer , als , paralysis and others .  particularly in the case of diabetes , embryonic stem cell research holds the greatest possibility for understanding and curing this disease , since adult stem cells are not present in the pancreas , the organ attacked by diabetes .  embryonic stem cell research is an extremely difficult issue , involving the potential for critical medical breakthroughs on the one hand , and very complex bio-ethical issues on the other .  the bill requires that research only be conducted on stem cells derived from embryos created for fertility treatments that were in excess of the need of the mother and would otherwise have been destroyed .  my vote today is supported by over 200 major patient groups , scientists , and medical research groups , and i believe that my vote can provide hope to families in north dakota like ashley 's who are suffering through the illness of a loved one .  
R	mr. speaker , critics of embryonic stem cell research maintain that it is wrong to promote science which destroys life in order to save life .  as the leading prolife legislator in washington , senator orrin hatch put it , since when does human life begin in a petri dish in a refrigerator ?  to reduce this issue to an abortion issue is a horrible injustice to 100 million americans suffering the ravages of diabetes , spinal cord paralysis , heart disease , parkinson 's and alzheimer 's disease , cancer , ms , lou gehrig 's disease and other fatal and debilitating diseases .  i met with researchers from four of the main stem cell institutes in america .  as one prominent researcher told me , and i am quoting , `` the real irony of the president 's policy is that at least 100 , 000 surplus frozen embryos could be used to produce stem cells for research to save lives .  but instead , these surplus embryos are being thrown into the garbage and treated as medical waste , thrown into the garbage and treated as medical waste. '' only 22 of the 78 stem cell lines approved by the president remain today .  as another leading researcher said , `` this limit on research has stunted progress on finding cures for a number of fatal and debilitating diseases. '' mr. speaker , it is too late for my beloved mother who was totally debilitated by alzheimer 's disease which killed her .  it is too late for my cousin who died a tragic , cruel death from juvenile diabetes while still in his 20s ; but it is not too late for the 100 million other american people counting on us to support funding for life-saving research on embryonic stem cells .  let us not turn our backs on these people .  let us not take away their hope .  let us listen to respected pro-life colleagues and friends like orrin hatch , former senator connie mack , former health and human services secretary tommy thompson when they tell us this is not an abortion issue .  we should support embryonic stem cell research .  mr. speaker , critics of embryonic stem cell research maintain it is wrong to `` promote science which destroys life in order to save life. '' as the leading pro-life legislator in washington , sen .  orrin hatch put it , `` since when does human life begin in a petri dish in a refrigerator ?  `` to reduce this issue to an abortion issue is a horrible injustice to 100 million americans suffering the ravages of diabetes , spinal cord paralysis , heart disease , parkinson 's and alzheimer 's disease , cancer , multiple sclerosis , lou gehrig 's disease and other fatal , debilitating diseases .  i have met with medical researchers from the university of minnesota stem cell institute , the mayo clinic , the national institutes of health and johns hopkins university .  as one prominent researcher told me , `` the real irony of the president 's policy is that at least 100 , 000 surplus frozen embryos could be used to produce stem cells for research to save lives .  instead , these surplus embryos are being thrown into the garbage and treated as medical waste. '' only 22 of the 78 stem cell lines approved by the president in 2001 remain today .  as another leading medical researcher said , `` this limit on research has stunted progress on finding cures for a number of debilitating and fatal diseases. '' mr. speaker , the scientific evidence is overwhelming that embryonic stem cells have great potential to regenerate specific types of human tissues , offering hope for millions of americans suffering from debilitating diseases .  mr. speaker , it 's too late for my beloved mother who was totally debilitated by alzheimer 's disease which led to her death .  it 's too late for my cousin who died a cruel , tragic death from diabetes in his 20 's .  but it 's not too late for 100 million other american people counting on us to support funding for life-saving research on stem cells derived from donated surplus embryos created through in vitro fertilization .  let 's not turn our backs on these people .  let 's not take away their hope .  let 's listen to respected pro-life colleagues and friends like senator orrin hatch , former senator connie mack and former hhs secretary tommy thompson when they tell us this is not an abortion issue .  let 's make it clear that abortion politics should not determine this critical vote .  embryonic stem cell research will prolong life , improve life and give hope for life to millions of people .  i urge members to support funding for life-saving and life-enhancing embryonic stem cell research .  the american people deserve nothing less .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank the leader for yielding me this time .  i recall being taught that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds , and yet it grows into the mightiest of trees .  and the same can be said of the human embryo , something so very small , so unseen by the human eye , and yet so special at the very beginning of life that it needs to be safeguarded .  the real heart of this argument is whether something so innocent should be killed and whether americans should pay to facilitate the government-sanctioned experimentation on human life based upon a prospect , based upon a maybe , based upon a possibility , based upon the potential .  the government already takes 285 million of our tax dollars each year and funnels it into pro-abortion organizations .  the leadership of the gentleman from delaware ( mr. castle )  undermines my ability to love my country , undermines our patriotism .  i say stand fast against the secret pollsters and vote `` no '' on this legislation .  
D	mr. speaker , as a proud cosponsor of h.r. 810 , the stem cell research enhancement act of 2005 , i rise in support of this legislation .  those of us who have long supported the increased accessibility and possibilities of ethical stem cell research appreciate the opportunity the leadership has granted us by allowing a vote on this legislation today .  i would also like to thank representatives castle and degette for their continued persistence to bring this bill to the floor .  we have all known someone who has suffered from lou gehrig 's disease , alzheimer 's disease , parkinson 's disease , multiple sclerosis , rett syndrome , lupus , pulmonary fibrosis , juvenile diabetes , autism , cystic fibrosis , osteoporosis , spinal cord injuries , heart disease or cancer .  by passing h.r. 810 , we have the opportunity to help all of those individuals who are living with these and many other illnesses and injuries .  embryonic stem cell research holds the key to decreasing the pain and suffering of so many of our friends and family members .  furthermore , we have a moral obligation to do everything we can to help the millions of americans , whose lives we hold in our hands , by allowing federal funding to be used for this promising research .  the authors of h.r. 810 have gone to great lengths to guarantee that safeguards are in place to ensure the ethical use of embryonic stem cells .  embryos used for stem cell research under h.r. 810 , will come from donor participation in in vitro fertilization , ivf , so embryos will not be created or cloned for research .  this legislation also directs the experts at the national institutes of health to define the boundaries of this research .  nih has stated that they are prepared to institute these parameters .  such restrictions will ensure that rogue scientists are not performing dangerous and unethical experiments .  the united states has long been the leader of groundbreaking health research .  today we have the opportunity to ensure that the rest of the world does not continue to take the lead in health care advances .  i urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of h.r. 810 , not only because u.s. based researchers deserve to be at the forefront of the development of promising new treatments , but also for all of our constituents , friends , and family members who are counting on us to support the effort to find cures for so many different diseases and illnesses .  
D	mr. speaker , i rise today in strong support of h.r. 810 , the stem cell research enhancement act of 2005 .  stem cells have tremendous promise to treat a myriad of devastating diseases and disorders .  embryonic stem cells can become any cell type in the body , and their promise lies in the ability to tailor-make cellular treatments , heart muscle for heart disease , pancreas cells for diabetes , or nervous system cells for spinal cord injury .  stem cells are relatively new on the research scene ; it was only in 1998 that the techniques were developed to isolate stem cells from humans , and we have a lot to learn about how to make the cells develop in the ways that will be essential for therapeutic application .  today , i would like to highlight how the reeve-irvine research center has made significant head way in making the promise of embryonic stem cells a reality .  work recently published by dr .  hans keirstead and his group has shown that they are able to turn human embryonic stem cells into a clinically useful cell type .  to use embryonic stem cells for therapy , it is critical to devise ways to cause them to turn into particular cell types .  if un-differentiated stem cells are transplanted into the brain or spinal cord , they may become a teratoma , a tumor made of many different cells like bone , muscle , and hair .  so , to be useful for therapy , embryonic stem cells must be `` restricted '' to differentiate into the desired cell types .  that is , they must be told what specific cell type to turn into as they mature .  dr .  keirstead 's group has developed a unique method to create these differentiated cells .  moreover , as report in journal of neuroscience , his group has been successful in transplanting these cells into an acute spinal cord injury .  once transplanted , these cells have been able to survive in a living organism , move to areas where they are needed , and do what they are supposed to .  the result is a significant improvement in walking ability , at least at an early time point post injury .  this finding is proof of principle that human embryonic stem cells can be a viable therapeutic agent .  dr .  keirstead 's cells are on the federally approved list .  they are among the very few lines that are actually usable , and he is among the very few who have had access to human embryonic stem cells .  dr .  keirstead 's progress since 2001 when he received the cells has been remarkable .  his group has learned how to maintain the embryonic stem cells , no small feat in itself .  they have learned how to transform the cells into differentiated cells , they have learned how to use the cells to treat new spinal cord injury in animals .  all this in less than 4 years , and in one lab .  imagine the progress that could have been made with , 100 labs working with embryonic stem cells on not only spinal cord injury but alzheimer 's , parkinson 's , diabetes , and so many others .  the reeve-irvine research center is one of a handful of places in the u.s. that has the know-how to use embryonic stem cells .  with more lines available , we could readily address issues related to paralysis by developing new cell populations , like motor neurons , or by testing the therapeutic quality of other lines .  in addition , more researchers would be able to devote their talents to this area of research .  my father is suffering from alzheimer 's .  i know that my family would do anything to find a cure for this horribly degenerative disease .  i would ask my colleagues , would your family do any differently ?  would the families of your constituents do any differently ?  the stem cell research enhancement act of 2005 before congress today , if passed , would open the door to our country 's brightest scientists to find the treatments that dr .  keirstead 's work suggests are really there waiting to be discovered .  i urge my colleagues to support this research and to vote for h.r. 810 .  
D	mr. speaker , i stand today in strong support of the bipartisan stem cell research enhancement act of 2005 .  one of the few places this is really an extremely controversial bill is right here because the majority of americans strongly support embryonic stem cell research .  they want the federal government to fund research that is critical for some 128 million americans who suffer from juvenile diabetes , parkinson 's , alzheimer 's , cancer , heart disease , spinal cord injuries , als , and other diseases .  stem cell research is a medical issue , one that should and fortunately does transcend political lines and instead focuses on human lives .  one such life is that of clara livingston , a 9-year-old girl with diabetes .  during her testimony last week in a hearing in chicago , clara said , `` there are things i do n't like about diabetes .  i have to put a one-inch needle into my skin to connect my insulin pump .  i do n't like pricks or shots .  i do n't like having high blood sugar and not being able to eat .  i do n't like going low and fainting. '' she continued , `` i would like to find a cure because finding a cure will help make america and the rest of the world not worry about diabetes. '' most scientists agree that embryonic stem cell research offers the greatest hope to patients like clara .  there are limitations on the usefulness of adult stem cells when compared to embryonic stem cells .  for example , there are no adult stem cells in the pancreas .  that means that adult stem cell research will be inadequate in helping clara or any other patients who are patients hoping for a cure for diabetes .  while it is important to continue working with adult stem cells , it is also vital to fund the research funding embryonic stem cells .  we do a grave disservice to millions of children and adults living with serious illness , as well as the millions who will develop these conditions in the future , by prohibiting promising research .  this bill will lift these arbitrary restrictions and permit funding of cell lines regardless of where they were created .  federal funding guidelines assure that research will meet ethical standards and allow advancements to be made as quickly as possible .  as steven teitelbaum of washington university in st .  louis said , `` this is not a contest between adult and embryonic stem cells .  this is a contest between us as a society and disease. '' i hope my colleagues will vote `` yes '' on this bipartisan legislation .  
R	i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time .  mr. speaker , the gentleman from delaware ( mr. castle )  and the gentlewoman from colorado ( ms. degette )  deserve our thanks for sponsoring the stem cell research enhancement act and working with so many families who have been impacted by diseases that may find cures as a result of this vital research .  their work and dedication on this legislation has been tremendous and praiseworthy .  i also thank them for giving me the opportunity to cast one of the most important votes i will ever make in congress .  almost everyone has lost some family member prematurely .  i think of the grandmother , whom i never met , who died when her daughter , my mother , was only 16 .  i think of my mother-in-law who never had the opportunity to know her grandchild who is now 25 .  i think of my cousin , who was brilliant and never got to realize his full potential .  embryonic stem cell research has the potential to cure disease and save lives in ways never dreamed of .  and it is only 6 years old .  these are discarded embryos that were never in the womb .  they were not taken from it and they were not put into it .  but they can help save lives .  that is why it is so important that we not only pass this legislation today , but that the president signs this bill into law .  sometimes ideology can box you in and cause you to make wrong and harmful decisions .  i think it is time we recognize the dark ages are over .  galileo and copernicus have been proven right .  the world is in fact round .  the earth does revolve around the sun .  i believe god gave us intellect to differentiate between imprisoning dogma and sound ethical science , which is what we must do here today .  i want history to look back at this congress and say that in the face of the age-old tension between religion and science , the members here allowed critical scientific research to advance while respecting important ethical questions that surrounded it .  we know that by allowing embryonic stem cell research to go forward , treatments and prevention for diseases will not come to us overnight .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank my good friend for yielding and for his leadership on this bill and for cosponsoring it , along with the gentleman from alabama ( mr. davis )  on the other side of the aisle for his leadership over the last 3 years as we crafted this legislation .  it is finally on the floor after almost 3 years of work ; and again i thank my friend , the gentleman from alabama ( mr. davis )  for his leadership .  one of the best kept secrets in america today is that umbilical cord-blood stem cells and adult stem cells are curing people of a myriad of terrible conditions and diseases .  one of the greatest hopes that i have is that these current-day miracles , denied to many because of an insufficient inventory and inefficient means of matching cord-blood stem cells with patients , will now become available to tens of thousands of patients as a direct result of the stem cell therapeutic and research act of 2005 , h.r. 2520 .  amazingly , we are on the threshold of systematically turning medical waste , umbilical cords and placentas , into medical miracles for huge numbers of very sick and terminally ill patients who suffer from such maladies as leukemia and sickle cell anemia .  and because this legislation promotes cord-blood research as well , we can expect new and expanded uses of these very versatile stem cells .  for the first time ever , our bill establishes a nationwide stem cell transplantation system .  it also authorizes the national bone marrow transplant system and combines both under a new program , providing an easy , single-access point for information for doctors and patients and for the purpose of collecting and analyzing outcomes data .  the new program created in our legislation is named for our distinguished colleague , the gentleman from florida ( mr. young )  , because of all of his great work on bone marrow transplantation over the last 2 decades .  mr. speaker , cord-blood stem cells are already treating and curing patients .  unlike embryonic stem cell research that has not cured one person , cord-blood stem cells are treating patients .  the new york blood center , for example , has treated thousands of patients with more than 65 different diseases , including sickle cell disease , leukemia and osteoporosis .  some of those patients came and told their stories yesterday at a press conference , and they are in the gallery watching this debate right now .  one of those men , a young man named keonne penn was here to tell his story of how he was cured of sickle cell anemia , and he said , `` if it was n't for cord-blood stem cells , i would probably be dead by now .  it is a good thing i found a match .  it saved my life. '' stephen sprague , another man who was cured of leukemia , said he too was lucky to find a cord-blood match .  and 22-year-old jaclyn albanese , who just graduated from rutgers university from my state , said , `` if the new york blood center had not been there , i do not know what kind of shape i would be in. '' she is thankful as well .  mr. speaker , i say to my colleagues , cord-blood has also been used to treat hurler 's disease and krabbe 's disease , both neurological conditions , which blows away the idea that cord-blood stem cells are limited in the potential and the capacity to turn into other kinds of cells .  that is not too surprising , i say to my colleagues , when you simply read the published literature on the flexibility of cord-blood stem cells .  according to a july 2004 study published in the journal of experimental medicine , a research group led by dr .  kogler found `` a new human somatic stem cell from placental cord-blood with intrinsic pluripotent differential potential , '' which means it can become any type of cell in the body .  in addition , they found that the cells could expand to 10 quadrillion , or 10 to the power of 15 , cells before losing any pluripotent abilities .  and cord-blood stem cells are not only ahead in treating real human patients , they are also able to turn into different kinds of cells for research .  one company has already turned cord-blood stem cells into representatives of three germinal layers , including neural stem cells , nerve stem cells , liver/pancreas precursors , skeletal muscle , fat cells , bone cells and blood vessels .  last month , celgene corporation announced that cord-blood cells `` are `pluripotent ' , or have the ability to become different types of tissue. '' so we are just on the beginning of realizing the vast potential of what was formerly medical waste and has now been turned into these medical miracles .  let me just say to my colleagues that this idea that research on bone marrow and cord-blood stem cells has been researched on for decades and that embryo stem cells have only been researched for a short time is ludicrous and an unfair attack on cord-blood stem cell research .  during the entire period where research has been happening in this area of regenerative medicine , the idea that cells can change types and repair organs , both adult and embryo cells have been around in animals .  and , again , great progress has been made in the cord-blood and the adult stem cell .  my bill needs to be passed .  
R	mr. speaker , i just want to make the point that some misinformation perhaps inadvertently is being spread on this floor , that these stem cells that are derived from cord blood only have a blood application .  that is unmitigated nonsense .  it is not true .  and i pointed out in my opening comments that in the celgene cellular therapeutics first reported back in 2001 that placental stem cells turned into nerve , blood , cartilage , skin and muscle cells , and that since that time other studies have confirmed cord blood 's pluripotent capability .  surely there needs to be further research .  
R	mr. speaker , on that i demand the yeas and nays .  
R	mr. speaker , make no mistake about it , i support aggressive stem cell research and the judicious application of stem cells to mitigate and to cure disease .  that is why i sponsored the stem cell therapeutic research act of 2005 and i have been pushing it for almost 3 years .  that is why those of us who oppose h.r. 810 strongly support pouring millions of dollars into federal funds to support ethical stem cell research to find cures , to alleviate suffering , to inspire well-founded hope and to do it all in a way that respects the dignity and sanctity of human life .  i strongly oppose the castle bill , however , because it will use federal funds to facilitate the killing of perfectly healthy human embryos to derive their stem cells .  human embryos do have inherent value , mr. speaker .  they are not commodities or things or just tissue .  human embryos are human lives at their most vulnerable beginning stages , and they deserve respect .  parents of human embryos are custodians of those young ones .  they are not owners of human property , and the public policy we craft should ensure that the best interests of newly created human life is protected and preserved .  the castle bill embraces the misinformed notion that there is such a thing as left-over embryos , a grossly misleading and dehumanizing term in and of itself , that they are just going to be destroyed and thrown away and poured down the drain .  that is simply not true .  the cryogenically frozen male and female embryos that the genetic parents may feel are no longer needed for implanting in the genetic mother are of infinite value to an adoptive mother who may be sterile or otherwise unable to have a baby .  mr. speaker , just one adoption initiative , the snowflakes embryo adoption program , has facilitated the adoption of 96 formerly frozen embryos with more adoptions in the works .  i have met some of those kids .  they are not leftovers , even though they lived in a frozen orphanage , perhaps many of them for years .  they are just as human and alive and full of promise as other children .  let them be adopted , not killed and experimented on .  they are not throwaways .  
D	mr. speaker , this is a grand and glorious debate we are having today .  think of what we are doing .  we are debating the best route for achieving wonderful , healing medical possibility , possibility that would have been unheard of not many years ago .  but it is only possibility .  by definition , good research is always about possibility , about the potential of finding the answers to that which we do not know .  let me share three perspectives with you today .  first , that of a friend .  this is a picture of a family i know .  the mother , father and i trained together at the medical school in arkansas .  she was diagnosed with insulin dependent diabetes at age 7. she had early complications with retinal problems caused by the diabetes .  her husband is a doctor .  five years ago he had an accident and now has paralysis caused by spinal cord injury at the c7-t1 level .  this family has hope , realistic hope that sometime in the many years of life ahead of them , medical research may give them the possibility of cure or dramatic improvement in her diabetes and his spinal cord injury .  second , as a family doctor , i practiced medicine .  my patients and i relied on past research done by many good scientists striving in an ethical manner to end the harsh realities of so many diseases .  i know some of my friends in opposition to this bill today argue that embryonic stem cell research is junk science .  i do not share this view , but to those of you pondering this view today i say , let our gifted researchers , not us legislators , answer the unanswered scientific questions for us .  funded ethical research is not junk science .  premature conclusion is .  third , as patients , my wife and i have ventured into the world of fertility clinics .  we have met doctors and nurses all working hard to help couples have families , and we have studied and prayed over the patient consent forms .  the ultimate decision on what happens to unneeded embryos should be up to that fully informed family , and fully informed consent is part of this bill .  i support this bill today .  i do not know what , if anything , will come from this funded research .  that is why we do the research .  please vote `` yes '' for this bill .  
R	mr. speaker , i would like to share a letter from a young girl in my district : `` dear house of representatives : `` my name is kelsea king .  i am 14 years old and have been dealing with diabetes for nearly 3 years now .  there are many challenges in having this disease , both physical and emotional .  though it may be hard to believe , the emotional pain greatly outweighs the physical pain .  `` my sister , kendall , was also diagnosed with diabetes 2 years ago .  she is now 7. it is very hard going through life knowing that both our lives could be shortened by this disease .  it is also very difficult knowing what this disease makes us prone to , such as heart disease , liver problems , blindness and in extreme cases loss of limb .  but the most difficult part of all is worrying about passing out due to low blood sugars , or being hospitalized .  it is too large of a responsibility and too large of a burden for any 7-year-old and even for a 14-year-old .  `` as you can see , my need for a cure to this disease is very great .  but i do not want a cure if it takes the lives of others .  i do not support embryonic stem cell research .  i believe it is very wrong to take innocent lives for any reason , even if it benefits me .  there are other ways of a cure .  we just need proper funding .  if we work together , we can find a cure through adult stem cell research .  `` my hope and prayer is for my sister and i to be cured before we are adults so we can both live long and healthy lives .  no one deserves diabetes but everyone deserves a cure through adult stem cell research. '' the campaign for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research has been a campaign of half-truths , and at times , outright deception .  advocates of federal funding for destructive embryonic stem cell research do three things consistently : ( 1 ) obfuscate the fact that a living human embryo is killed in the process of extracting the cells .  ( 2 ) obfuscate the fact that there have been no cures , treatments , therapies , or even clinical trials using embryonic stem cells .  ( 3 ) obfuscate the fact that there is unlimited private funding allowed for embryonic stem cell research .  as chairman of the government reform subcommittee on criminal justice , drug policy and human resources , i sent a letter to the director of the national institutes of health in october , 2002 requesting a detailed report providing comprehensive information about the medical applications of adult and embryonic stem cells .  it took almost two years to get a response from the nih , and the response omitted many of the advances , applications and trials for adult stem cell research that had already been reported in peer reviewed journals .  the one thing that was complete in the nih response to our oversight request , was the listing of applications for embryonic stem cells : zero .  the applications for embryonic stem cell research was zero then , in june of 2004 , and it 's zero now .  the human applications for adult stem cells currently number 58 , and range from lymphoma to chrones disease to heart damage to immunodeficiency syndrome .  finally , let me be clear : there is no `` ban '' on embryonic stem cell research .  there is no limit to the amount of private money that may be devoted to this research .  the research is being conducted throughout the country .  the critical fact is that we are responsible for the public purse , and forcing the public to fund unproven research where living human embryos are destroyed is completely unconscionable .  if private industry sees promise in embryonic stem cell research , you can be certain that investors will find it .  but the public should not be forced to subsidize a speculative venture involving destruction of human life .  fourteen-year-old kelsea king , an articulate young constituent of mine , has juvenile diabetes .  her struggle with this disease is emotionally and physically challenging , but she is strongly opposed to the idea of developing a cure that would involve the destruction of human life .  as she wrote in a letter to me , `` i believe it is very wrong to take innocent lives for any reason , even if it benefits me. '' i am submitting miss king 's letter in its entirety for the record .  h.r. 810 requires the public to pay for destructive embryonic research that has no current applications .  it 's an empty promise to the millions who suffer with disease , and would surely pave the way for embryo cloning .  i am voting against h.r. 810 , and i urge my colleagues to do the same .  avila , in , may 23 , 2005 .  dear house of representatives , my name is kelsea king .  i am fourteen years old and have been dealing with diabetes for nearly three years now .  there are many challenges in having this disease , both physical and emotional .  though it may be hard to believe , the emotional pain greatly outweighs the physical pain .  my sister , kendall , was also diagnosed with diabetes two years ago .  she is now seven .  it is very hard going through life knowing that both our lives could be shortened by this disease .  it is also very difficult knowing what this disease makes us prone to , such as heart disease , liver problems , blindness , and in extreme cases , loss of limb .  but the most difficult part of all is worrying about passing out due to low blood sugars , or being hospitalized for ketoacidosis ( which is caused by blood sugar being too high ) .  it is too large of a responsibility and too large of a burden for any seven-year-old , and even for a fourteen-year-old .  as you can see , my need for a cure to this disease is very great .  but i do not want a cure if it takes the lives of others .  i do not support embryonic stem cell research .  i believe it is very wrong to take innocent lives for any reason , even if it benefits me .  there are other ways of a cure ; we just need proper funding .  there is no proof that embryonic stem cell research is better or more successful than adult stem cell research .  if we work together , we can find a cure through adult stem cell research .  my hope and prayer is for my sister and i to be cured before we are adults so we can both live long and healthy lives .  no one deserves diabetes , but everyone deserves a cure through adult stem cell research .  my sister and i need this , as well as the millions of other children in america who are afflicted with this disease .  please help us -- support adult stem cell research !  sincerely , 
D	mr. speaker , i rise in strong support of h.r. 810 .  our research policies should be decided by scientists and doctors at the national institutes of health and not by karl rove and self-appointed religious gurus .  if you believe it is morally superior to discard a single cell in a freezer rather than to use it to help millions of americans with parkinson 's , alzheimer 's , and diabetes , and you are asked to donate an embryo , then by all means refuse to do so .  but do not tell my constituents that we can not alleviate their suffering because it might offend modern-day pharisees .  do not tell my constituent don reed and his son roman , who is paralyzed from a high school football accident , that scientists working on stem cell research in california will not be able to collaborate with the nih .  many in government already think they have the right to tell you whom you can marry , what kind of birth control you can use and how you die .  now they think their moral superiority extends to the single cell level .  beyond my outrage at this arrogance , i am saddened by this country 's precipitous decline in the estimation of the rest of the world .  if this bill does not pass and scientists of the world meet to discuss this rapidly advancing field , many of our key researchers will be stuck here working with the few stem cell lines that are considered inoffensive .  the flat earth society will tell you that the u.s. has to show moral leadership , and just because the overwhelming majority of the world 's scientific community supports research , it does not mean it is the right thing to do .  frankly , mr. speaker , i do not need a lecture from the majority leader on moral and ethical leadership .  i do not look to those that will not acknowledge the existence of global warming for scientific and ethical leadership .  i do not think the politicians who so eagerly decided they knew what was best for terry schiavo know much about life , dignity , or suffering .  i stand proudly with millions of americans on behalf of this country 's tradition of scientific leadership , and i urge a `` yes '' vote for h.r. 810 .  
D	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. speaker , this debate we are having surrounding h.r. 810 , the stem cell research enhancement act , is really one of the most fundamentally important debates that this body can undertake .  regrettably , this discussion will only last a few hours on the floor of the house of representatives today .  there have been no hearings on this bill or on the previous stem cell bill .  h.r. 810 addresses the most fundamental , basic , ethical issue : life , and when does it begin ; when should life , including human embryos , be open to experimentation and scientific research .  those of us who believe in the sanctity of life from conception to our last breath , find the logic of the proponents of embryonic stem cell research flawed .  h.r. 810 allows research and science to triumph philosophy and values .  this country seeks to be a world leader militarily , economically and scientifically , and culturally .  but what about morally and ethically ?  what about leading the world in ethics and morals by declaring human life off limits to research and to manipulation through stem cell research ?  what about leading the world in ethics and morals by declaring human life from embryonic stage to old age as valued ?  we , as a nation , believe that all life is precious and there is an ethical line that we as a people , as a nation , will not cross .  we should lead by declaring that human life , even at the embryonic stage , is not open to manipulation , experimentation , or research .  we can not mask the efforts to manipulate human life under the guise of science or medical research .  you and i , each of us , we all share one thing in common : we were all embryos at one time .  the embryos that were you and me were allowed to grow to become congressmen , congresswomen , police officers , factory workers , soldiers , government employees , lawyers , doctors , scientists .  we were all embryos at one time .  we were all allowed to grow .  whether an embryo , a human life , is or is not allowed to grow , to become a unique individual , is a discussion this country really should have , a meaningful discussion , not just a few hours of debate in this chamber .  it is my hope that families , individuals , couples and our children will have a discussion on human life and when it begins .  is an embryo life ?  at what point does an embryo become life ?  at what point does our nation shelter life with the constitutional , legal , and governmental safeguards ?  are there other ways to do promising medical and scientific research without destroying human embryos ?  this is an ethical discussion i hoped would take place in the halls of congress , in the congressional committee rooms , in homes and workplaces all across america .  whether it is at the watercooler or in the cloakroom , these ethical and moral issues should and must be discussed as a nation , as a people , as a culture , and as a world leader .  instead , this will only be discussed for a few hours on the house floor .  the other body has just gone through public , political , and senatorial debate on the use of a filibuster in our democracy .  because of this debate , a healthy discussion occurred in america .  i , for one , do not wish to avoid the moral and ethical issues of stem cell research debate .  yesterday in a news show , the commentator asked me why not allow stem cell research on discarded medical waste .  is that what we have come to , to viewing embryos , which if allowed to grow and divide would become human beings , being treated as medical waste ?  why are proponents of h.r. 810 so adamant that we do research specifically using embryonic stem cells ?  according to the proponents of this legislation , these stem cells are our best hope of finding cures .  they can develop into all cells of the body .  they say medical science can unlock the keys to life .  we can cure any disease or injury .  they argue we must create life and then kill it to unlock the mysteries of life for scientific medical research .  create and clone the building blocks of life so we can manipulate and experiment ?  is that the line we wish to cross today ?  we will hear today about other research with adult stem cells , cord and placenta cells , bone marrow , fetal tissue , and unraveling our dna through mapping of genome , all in the pursuit of finding medical cures for the dreaded diseases , illnesses , and injuries we all wish to cure .  but where do we draw the line on medical research and say we as a nation , we as a people will not cross that line ?  this question has not been adequately addressed in this legislation .  when do embryos become life ?  if you read the materials , after 40 hours , less than 2 days , the fertilized egg begins to divide and the embryos are checked after 40 hours .  or is it 5 days when embryos are called blastocysts ?  at this stage there are approximately 250 cells .  or do we allow the blastocysts to survive in a laboratory culture for up to 14 days and still not call them human life but blastocysts so they are still open to research and experimentation ?  when does life become scientifically nonexistent ?  i ask these questions because h.r. 810 is silent on these issues .  it does not specify how long these embryos are allowed to grow before they are killed -- 2 days , 5 days , 14 days or more .  proponents of h.r. 810 will claim that their legislation will address the ethical manner in which this research will be conducted .  yet their legislation is silent on the ethics , other than subsection c that directs the secretary of hhs to create guidelines within 60 days .  two presidential bioethics advisory panels have given us differing guidance on when and how research should be conducted .  if this nation , through its elected leaders , allows embryonic stem cell research , then we as representatives of the american people should have the courage to state unequivocally where we stand and answer the ethical questions presented before us here today .  as elected leaders , we should set some basic guidelines , not leave the guidelines to unelected and unnamed administrative officials .  i know many members on both sides of the aisle , of all political philosophies , have struggled with questions of morality , questions of life and questions of faith this past week .  many of us have asked ourselves that same question , and i have concluded that this legislation is unethical and unnecessary .  h.r. 810 mandates federal tax dollars to be used to destroy human embryos .  these embryos , if allowed to live , would grow into beautiful children like the snowflake children visiting the capitol today .  they are human life .  you , i and they were embryonic stem cells that were allowed to grow .  congress should not take lightly the destruction and manipulation of human life .  it is clear that the american public does not .  forty-three percent of the american public clearly opposes more federal funding for human embryonic research .  fifty-three percent clearly support more federal funding , according to cnn .  as i said before , this legislation has no limits as to how long the embryo can grow .  the national academy of sciences ' guidelines recommends allowing them to grow for no more than 14 days .  again , this legislation is not necessary .  human embryonic stem cell research is completely legal today in the private sector .  embryonic stem cell research is eligible for state funding in several states , california and new jersey , and is funded through millions of dollars in private research money , $ 100 million alone at harvard university .  since august 2001 , 128 stem cell lines have been created .  and still human embryonic stem cell research is funded by the federal government today .  the national institute of health spent $ 24 million on embryonic stem cell research in fiscal year 2004 , the last year that data was available .  twenty-two human embryonic stem cell lines are currently receiving federal funding .  these lines are sufficient for basic research according to the nih director .  former secretary of health and human services tommy thompson has said that these lines should be exhausted first before we move any further .  finally , embryonic stem cell research remains unproven .  not a single therapy has been developed from embryonic stem cell research .  instead of cures , embryonic stem cell research has led to tumors and deaths in animal studies .  the gentleman from florida ( mr. weldon )  has had his staff scour the medical journals for real proof of therapeutic benefit of embryonic stem cell research , but has come up empty handed .  there have been zero published treatments in human patients using embryonic stem cells .  while the promise of embryonic stem cells is questionable , the promise of adult stem cell research is being realized today .  adult stem cells are being used today to save lives .  recognizing this , the national institutes of health spent $ 568 million in fiscal year 2006 on adult stem cell research .  adult stem cells are being used today in clinical trials and in clinical practice to treat 58 diseases , including parkinson 's , spinal cord injury , juvenile diabetes , brain cancer , breast cancer , lymphoma , heart damage , rheumatoid arthritis , juvenile arthritis , stroke , and sickle cell anemia .  i am pleased the house is passing legislation today , the stem cell therapeutic and research act , to promote adult stem cell research .  but we are faced now with a bill that is unethical and incomplete .  h.r. 810 says nothing about human cloning , which is still perfectly legal today .  i introduced legislation with the gentleman from florida ( mr. weldon )  and senators brownback and landrieu to ban all human cloning .  the inevitable truth is that if we pass this bill today , the cloning of a human baby will only come sooner .  there is no room for shades of gray on this issue .  the , quote , therapeutic cloning that will result from this legislation will make reproductive cloning even more likely .  we should not allow the creation of life for the purpose of destroying it .  that is what happens with this bill .  let me be clear .  i am committed to funding scientific research that will unlock the origins of disease and develop cures that can help my constituents .  again , 58 conditions are being treated using placental and adult stem cells , and we can not begin to imagine the promising new treatments and drugs on the horizon .  but we can not let science leapfrog our ethics , our morals and our legal system .  this is not a partisan issue , and it is bigger than a right-to-life issue .  it is clear that adult stem cell research has opened the door to the dreams of lifesaving treatments and cures for our most deadly and debilitating diseases , but i do not believe it is time to open the door to more embryonic stem cell research and open the floodgates to human cloning .  i urge my colleagues to vote against h.r. 810 .  mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. speaker , as this debate has gone on , and it has been a good discussion here today , i think it is worthwhile to come back to where we are on this whole issue here .  the embryonic stem cell research we are debating here today is controversial because of the means of obtaining these cells .  research involving most types of stem cells , those derived from adult tissues or the umbilical cord , is uncontroversial except , as we saw , the second issue here today is , how effective is it ?  is embryonic more effective than cord ?  are embryonic stem cells more effective in treating injuries and illnesses than the adult tissue stem cells ?  so we sort of have a two-pronged argument here yet : how do you obtain the stem cells and , secondly , the effectiveness of adult versus embryonic stem cells .  but i think in this whole issue here , we sort of lose questions .  before we even get to those questions , i think we should look at it and say , what is the ethical consideration of the human nature , and that should be the first question we should ask , not what are the means we obtain it by , what is left over when we obtain the embryonic stem cells , or what is its effectiveness .  i think we have to look at the ethical considerations .  because cloning is one method to produce embryos for research , the ethical issues surrounding cloning are also relevant .  in fact , i believe those ethical issues should really be the first question we should ask before we debate the means of obtaining , or even the effectiveness of the proposed treatment .  i would hope that life would triumph hope and the question is really before we even get into effectiveness or means , but what is the human nature consideration ?  that should be the first question we should answer .  mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	mr. speaker , i have one more speaker and then i plan on closing .  
D	mr. speaker , i yield myself the balance of my time .  mr. speaker , there has been a lot of discussion today about the quality of adult stem cells and they are not as versatile as embryonic stem cells .  there are a number of things that show adult stem cells are highly versatile and just as effective if not more effective than the predicted embryonic stems .  the list of these studies is as follows : myth : adult stem cells are not as versatile as embryonic stem cells .  fact : a number of studies show adult stem cells are highly versatile .  1 .  professor alan mackay-sim of griffith university in australia published a study showing that olfactory stem cells could develop into heart cells , liver cells , kidney cells , muscle cells , brain cells and nerve cells .  ( murrell w et al. , `` multipotent stem cells from adult olfactory mucosa '' , developmental dynamics published online 21 march 2005. ) 2 .  dr .  douglas losordo at tufts university showed that a type of bone marrow stem cell can turn into most tissue types , and can regenerate damaged heart .  `` this discovery represents a major breakthrough in stem-cell therapy , '' said dr .  douglas losordo .  `` based on our findings we believe these newly discovered stem-cells may have the capacity to generate into most tissue types in the human body .  this is a very unique property that until this time has only been found in embryonic stem cells. '' 3 .  in july 2004 , research conducted in germany , led by dr .  peter wernet found a type of umbilical cord blood stem cell , they call ussc 's ( unrestricted somatic stem cells ) , that they showed can turn into several different cell types , including brain , bone , cartilage , liver , heart , and blood cells .  it showed that the cells can turn into all three germ layers , showing they are pluripotent .  ( kogler g et al. , `` a new human somatic stem cell from placental cord blood with intrinsic pluripotent differentiation potential '' , j. experimental medicine 200 , 123-135 , 19 july 2004. ) 4 .  in june 2004 , researchers showed that human bone marrow stem cells have pluripotent potential .  ( d'ippolito g et al. , `` marrow-isolated adult multilineage inducible ( miami ) cells , a unique population of postnatal young and old human cells with extensive expansion and differentiation potential '' , j. cell science 117 , 2971-2981 , 15 july 2004 ( published online 1 june 2004 ) 5 .  this study shows that blood stem cells can form cells from all 3 primary germ layers , including endothelial cells , neuronal cells , and liver cells .  ( zhao y et al. ; `` a human peripheral blood monocyte-derived subset acts as pluripotent stem cells '' ; proceedings of the national academy of sciences usa 100 , 2426-2431 ; 4 march 2003 ) 6 .  researchers found bone marrow stem cells in females that received transplants from male donors .  researchers found the y chromosome in the brain , showing that bone marrow stem cells generated neurons .  ( mezey e et al. ; `` transplanted bone marrow generates new neurons in human brains '' ; proceedings of the national academy of sciences usa 100 , 1364-1369 ; 4 feb 2003 ) 7 .  another group of researchers showed that bone marrow stem cells can form all body tissues .  ( jiang y et al. ; `` pluripotency of mesenchymal stem cells derived from adult marrow '' ; nature 418 , 41-49 ; 4 july 2002 ) 8 .  in 2002 , catherine verfaille has turned these bone marrow stem cells into skin , brain , lungs , heart , retina , muscle , intestines , kidney and spleen .  university of minnesota researchers found a certain type of bone marrow stem cell ( called a multipotent adult progenitor cells ( mapcs ) ) that could be turned into the three primary germ layers ( endoderm , ectoderm , ectoderm and mesoderm ) .  ( nature advance online publication , 23 june 2002 ( doi : 10.1038/nature 00870 ) 9 .  a single adult mouse bone marrow stem cell can form functional marrow , blood cells , liver , lung , gastrointestinal tract , skin , heart and skeletal muscle according to researchers dr .  neil theise of ny univ .  school of medicine and dr .  diane krause of yale univ .  school of medicine ( krause ds et al. ; `` multi-organ , multi-lineage engraftment by a single bone marrow-derived stem cell '' ; cell 105 , 369-377 ; 4 may 2001 ) mr. speaker , we have heard a lot of arguments .  in fact , we just heard again that in fact we throw these cells away when we are done .  we do not want them .  there is nothing we can do with them so we should use them for medical research or else it will just be medical waste .  i must ask again , is that what we have come to as a nation that in viewing embryos , that if allowed to grow and divide could become human beings but we will just treat them as human waste ?  the proponents of h.r. 810 are so adamant that we do research specifically using embryonic stem cells .  and why embryonic stem cells ?  because they are the best hope according to proponents of finding cures .  they say medical science can unlock these keys to life .  we can cure any illness , any disease , or any injury .  the proponents argue we must create life , the embryo , and then destroy the embryo through research to unlock the mysteries of life ; create and clone the building blocks of life so we can manipulate and experiment .  i believe as a country and as a culture that is a line we should not cross .  we heard today about other research with adult stem cells , cord , placenta , bone marrow , fetal tissue , and how about unraveling our dna through the mapping of the genome , all in the pursuit of finding medical cures .  but where do we draw a line on medical research and say we as a nation , as a people , will not cross that line ?  this question has not been adequately addressed in this legislation .  when do embryos become life ?  we have heard all kinds of figures today .  after 40 hours ?  that is less than 2 days after fertilization when we are able to check embryos for division and fertilization .  or is it 5 days when the embryos may be called blastocysts ?  at this stage , they are approximately 250 cells .  or do we allow the blastocysts to survive in the laboratory culture for up to 14 days and still then not call them human life , but blastocysts so they are open to experiment and research ?  when does life become scientifically non-existent ?  that is the question as elected representatives we have not yet answered .  h.r. 810 does not answer that .  vote `` no '' on h.r. 810 .  
R	mr. speaker , it is important that i give voice to the important issue of stem cell research .  this is not an issue that anyone takes lightly .  life is precious in all forms , and it is important to do all that we can to ensure issues surrounding life and quality of life are given the highest priority .  millions of americans suffer from debilitating diseases like juvenile diabetes , parkinson 's disease , alzheimer 's and a host of other diseases that reduce the quality of life or cause loss of life .  stem cells derived from embryos have shown tremendous promise in the fight to rid society of many of these diseases .  in 2003 alone there were 1 , 681 , 339 deaths from diseases that could benefit from this research .  many couples across america struggling to have children benefit from in vitro fertilization , a process where embryos are created to provide couples with the potential to have children .  in many cases , couples have left over embryos that would be destroyed .  this legislation simply provides the opportunity for those embryos to save lives already being lived .  lives being lived by people like tambrie alden from glens falls , ny .  tambrie has had juvenile diabetes for 28 years .  she goes through 10 daily finger sticks a day and has worn an insulin pump for 10 years .  each day brings a different battle for tambrie ; she must constantly monitor the highs and lows of her condition .  tambrie has had over 200 laser eye surgeries due to juvenile diabetes , which also continues to attack her organs ability to function properly .  on sunday , tambrie turns 47 .  she celebrates every birthday to the fullest , because when she was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes , the doctors told her she would not live past 43 .  tambrie lives on borrowed time and worries about losing her sight and not being able to see her grandchildren grow up .  she knows that embryonic stem cell research probably wo n't help her , but she prays the promise it holds will ensure that her grandchildren do n't have to suffer as she has .  that 's why we are here today , to make sure that people like tambrie can live their lives to the fullest .  this action is limited to promoting responsible research with embryos that would be destroyed otherwise .  congressional oversight on this ethically sensitive issue is the right balance to ensure that our nation remains diligent in our approach to medical research , while taking important steps to improve the quality of life for those who suffer from debilitating diseases .  the bill establishes strict standards for use of fertility clinic embryos .  first , written permission is required of the couple donating the embryo .  second , there can be no financial compensation , much like organ donation .  finally , the legislation requires the national institutes of health to establish strict oversight for the scientific community to ensure ethical guidelines are adhered to .  embryonic stem cell research is a new form of research in the early stages .  i am fundamentally opposed to cloning embryos or creating embryos for scientific research .  this legislation does not a ow cloning , it merely ensures that embryos already created and unused serve a higher purpose than being destroyed .  
R	mr. speaker , 58 to zero .  today we are asked to sear our conscience and harden our heart towards human life so we can experiment on fertilized human embryos because we are told it holds such great promise .  the results from testing are far from promising , though .  they are very disappointing .  but there is an alternative .  the adult stem cell research has been very successful compared to embryonic stem cell research , and this success was accomplished without the destruction of human life .  in fact , more than 58 diseases have been treated using adult stem cells in contrast to no diseases having been treated by using living embryonic stem cell research .  fifty-eight to zero .  mr. speaker , how do we know the score ?  well , embryonic stem cell research is being conducted in america with private funding , but that funding is lacking .  so the labs have come to us for more money .  apparently , venture capitalists invest only in projects that are profitable , and you can see it is far from profitable here : 58 to zero .  so now we are asked to support embryo stem cell research because it is so promising , when the facts are it is not promising : 58 to zero .  
D	mr. speaker , i rise today as a cosponsor and strong supporter of h.r. 810 , the stem cell research enhancement act .  i am pleased that the house leadership brought this important legislation to the floor and am proud to be a part of the important debate occurring today .  mr. speaker , embryonic stem cells have the ability to develop into virtually any cell in the body , and many believe they may have the potential to treat many illnesses such as parkinson 's disease , juvenile diabetes , alzheimer 's , blindness , sickle cell anemia and many other medical conditions , including spinal cord injuries .  like many other issues facing us today , however , stem cell research forces us to confront the challenge of balancing long-standing ethical questions with the possibilities presented by scientific and technological advancements .  the remarks made on the floor today by my colleagues have reflected the difficulty in dealing with this issue , as many members wrestle with their beliefs and emotions .  most familiar with this issue know that in august 2001 , president bush announced that federal funds for the first time would be used to support research on human embryonic stem cells .  however , the funding would be limited to `` existing stem cell lines. '' the national institutes of health ( nih ) has established the human embryonic stem cell registry , which lists stem cell lines that are eligible for use in federally funded research .  although 78 cell lines are listed , 22 embryonic stem cell lines are currently available .  scientists are concerned about the quality , longevity , and availability of the eligible stem cell lines .  that is why i am a cosponsor of h.r. 810 , and strongly support its passage .  this important legislation increases the number of lines of stem cells that would be eligible to be used in federally funded research .  it does so , however , by requiring that the stem cells meet certain requirements .  specifically , the stem cells must be derived from human embryos donated from in vitro fertilization clinics .  they also must have been created for the purpose of fertility treatment , but were in excess of the clinical need .  the embryos must also not have been intended for use in fertility treatment , and would otherwise be discarded .  finally , under h.r. 810 , the embryos must have been donated by individuals seeking fertility treatment with informed written consent and without any financial payment or other inducement to make the donation .  mr. speaker , i have listened as member after member has come to the floor to tell a personal tale of a loved one suffering from a disease that , with additional research , stem cells could help cure .  we all have our stories mr. speaker .  my uncle , morris k. udall , who served in this body for decades , suffered from parkinson 's disease .  there are too many people across the world suffering from devastating diseases for which stem cells hold great hope and promise .  we need to foster additional research that is conducted in an ethically responsible way .  h.r. 810 does just that .  i urge my colleagues to support this legislation .  
R	mr. speaker , i rise in support of this bipartisan bill , and i will submit today 's column in the wall street journal written by dr .  david a. shaywitz , an endocrinologist in stem cell research at harvard , for the record .  i would call to the attention of my colleagues this column and particularly a couple of lines that he wrote today .  i must say that i am one that will be voting for both bills today , the cord bill as well as the castle/degette bill ; but as you compare these two bills , let me note a couple of things that this noted researcher says .  he says : `` presently , only the few lines established prior to the date , '' this is in reference to the president 's initial plan back in 2001 , `` are eligible for government support , a prohibition that has had a crippling effect on researchers in this emerging field. '' it further says , it relates to the cord bill , in essence : `` it seems extremely unlikely that adult blood cells or blood cells from the umbilical cord will be therapeutically useful as a source of anything else but blood. '' mr. speaker , there are few families that i know that have not been impacted by a myriad of these diseases .  we need help .  we need to find a cure , and that is why we need to support both pieces of legislation this afternoon .  the stem cell debate perhaps themost underrated achievement of the modern conservative movement has been a renewed appreciation for the danger of `` junk science '' -- unsubstantiated scientific research that is exploited for political gain .  how sad , then , that in the ongoing debate over stem cell research , many conservatives have chosen to abandon their well-founded skepticism and to embrace dubious but convenient data for the sake of advancing their cause .  the latest tempest has emerged from remarkably modest congressional legislation , proposed by republican michael castle and democrat diana degette and scheduled for a vote today , which would permit federal funds to be used on human embryonic stem cell lines derived after aug .  9 , 2001 .  presently , only the few lines established prior to this date are eligible for government support , a prohibition that has had a crippling effect on research in this emerging field .  human embryonic stem cells have the potential to develop into any adult cell type .  if this process of specialization could be achieved in the lab , scientists might be able to create replacement pancreas cells for diabetics , or neurons for patient with parkinson 's disease ; these treatments are likely many years away .  for some opponents of embryonic stem cell science , the argument is fundamentally one of faith : the human embryo should be held as sacrosanct , and not used for the pursuit of any ends , regardless of how nobly intended .  the trouble for such dogmatic critics of embryonic stem cell research is that most americans hold a less extreme position ; given a choice between discarding frozen , excess embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics or allowing the cells to be used for medical research -- specifically , the generation of new embryonic stem cell lines -- most of us would choose the second .  consequently , conservative stem cell opponents have now begun to argue in earnest that embryonic stem cell research is not just morally wrong , but also unnecessary , an argument that relies on suspect science and appears motivated by even more questionable principles .  first , the science : opponents of the castle-degette legislation assert that embryonic stem cells are unnecessary because adult stem cells , as well as umbilical cord blood stem cells , will perform at least as well as embryonic stem cells , and have already demonstrated their therapeutic value .  this argument appears very popular , and has been articulated by almost every member of congress who has spoken out against the new stem cell bill .  to be sure , one of the great successes of modern medicine has been the use of adult blood stem cells to treat patients with leukemia .  the trouble is generalizing from this : there are very strong data suggesting that while blood stem cells are good at making new blood cells , they are not able to turn into other types of cells , such as pancreas or brain .  the limited data purported to demonstrate the contrary are preliminary , inconclusive , unsubstantiated , or all three .  thus , it seems extremely unlikely that adult bloodcells -- or blood cells from the umbilical cord -- will be therapeutically useful as a source of anything else by blood .  moreover , while stem cells seem to exist for some cell types in the body -- the blood and the intestines , for example -- many adult tissues such as the pancreas , may not have stem cells at all .  thus , relying on adult stem cells to generate replacement insulin-producing cells for patients with diabetes is probably an exercise in futility .  for true believers , of course , these scientific facts should be beside the point ; if human embryonic stem cell research is morally , fundamentally , wrong , then it should be wrong , period , regardless of the consequences to medical research .  if conservatives believe their own rhetoric , they should vigorously critique embryonic stem cell research on its own grounds , and not rely upon an appeal to utilitarian principles .  instead , there has been a concerted effort to establish adult stem cells as a palatable alternative to embryonic stem cells .  in the process , conservatives seem to have left their usual concern for junk science at the laboratory door , citing in their defense preliminary studies and questionable data that they would surely -- and appropriately -- have ridiculed were it not supporting their current point of view .  in fact , there is little credible evidence to suggest adult stem cells have the same therapeutic potential as embryonic stem cells .  conservatives often speak of the need to abide by difficult principle ; acknowledging the limitations of adult stem cell research would seem like a good place to start .  human embryonic stem cell research represents one of the most important scientific frontiers , and also one of the most controversial : our national debate on it deserves to be informed by our loftiest ethical aspirations -- but also grounded in our most rigorous scientific standards .  
D	mr. speaker , as a cosponsor of the stem cell research enhancement act of 2005 , i believe that stem cell research holds the promise of scientific breakthroughs that could improve the lives of millions of americans .  this bi-partisan legislation would provide federal funding for a wider range of research while establishing ethical guidelines .  the most compelling arguments for expanding federal funding for stem cell research can be heard in the heart wrenching stories of individuals suffering from debilitating diseases for which there are currently no cures or treatments .  while it is too late for the countless americans who have passed away from terrible diseases , it is not too late for the millions of other americans hoping this house will support funding for this potentially life-saving resource .  for these patients and their families stem cell research is the last hope for a cure .  this bill provides that embryos that are otherwise likely to be discarded can be used to help develop treatments for debilitating diseases and life saving cures .  we should allow federally supported research to proceed to find such treatments and cures .  
D	mr. speaker , the gentleman that just preceded me , speaking to the house , said that he did not think this experimentation would work .  well , there is no way it will ever work if we do not allow the research to take place .  there can be nothing that is more pro-life than trying to pursue research that scientists tell us will lead to cures for ms and diabetes and parkinson 's and other terrible diseases that people now suffer and die from .  some people have said , well , let us have an alternative ; let us use the stem cells from the umbilical cord .  mr. speaker , that is not a replacement for embryonic stem cell research that would occur if we passed h.r. 810 , the stem cell research enhancement act .  we need to ensure that scientists have access to all types of stem cells , both adult and embryonic .  rather than opening the doors to research , the president 's policy of stopping this work at nih has set the united states back .  it has meant that researchers who see the promise are leaving the national institutes of health .  it means the edge that this country has had as a leader of research is now falling behind and we look to other countries who are going to take our place .  for the sake of those who are suffering , for the sake of what science can bring to us , for the sake of life , i urge the adoption of this legislation .  i do not think it is a good enough excuse to hold up a clump of cells and say , this we value and this we will protect , and then to look at our friends and our colleagues , people we know and people we do not even know , and tell them their lives we do not value .  the united states is poised to assume a role of leading the world in this promising field .  vote for this legislation that will make it possible .  
R	mr. speaker , i commend the chairman of the committee on energy and commerce and his staff , as well as the gentleman from new jersey ( mr. smith )  , for their diligent work on bringing this very , very good bill to the floor of the house .  what we are going to be voting for here will help create a banking system so that if a patient comes in to see me with a particular illness that is amenable to treatment with stem cells , i can enter their genetic information in a computer , find a match of cord blood that would be kept in a freezer , and actually treat the patient .  it is really exciting , i have to say .  i never thought i would live to see the day where we would be curing sickle cell anemia .  and for those of my colleagues who do not know about sickle cell anemia , sickle cell is a terrible disease .  you get these young people , kids , coming in your office with these horrible , painful crises where their bones are aching and you end up having to give them narcotics and transfuse them .  it stunts their growth , horrible condition .  we now have 10 , 10 kids that have been cured of sickle cell anemia .  just yesterday i was flying up here , and as i often do , i grabbed some medical journals to read on the plane .  i was reading the may 19 issue of the new england journal of medicine and , lo and behold , another research article , this one on transplantation of umbilical cord blood in babies with infantile krabbe 's disease , a rare disease , a terrible disease , the babies die ; and this cord blood study shows if you catch it early , you can actually cure these kids .  i know there have been a number of members coming to the floor talking about the embryonic bill that we are going to take up later ; the embryonic stem cells have never been shown to be successfully useful in a human model .  they do not even have one case .  we have thousands of people who have been treated with adult stem cells and these cord blood treatments .  i just want to correct the gentleman from alabama .  he has implied some of us are against stem cell research .  that is not the case at all here .  we are just for ethical stem cell research .  
R	mr. speaker , i rise again to set the record straight .  there have been some people who have implied there is limited capacity for these cord blood stems to be used successfully .  they have been shown to be pluripotent .  they can become all different cell types , and they have shown a tremendous amount of plasticity .  this poster is of a young lady who was paralyzed for years and had an adult stem cell transplant .  she is able to stand up .  but i just want to clarify on the cord blood , it has been used to treat leukemia , adrenoleukodystrophy , burkitt 's lymphoma , chronic granulomatous diseases , congenital neutropenia , digeorge 's syndrome , fanconi 's anemia , and these are just some of them , gaucher 's disease .  hodgkin 's disease , cord blood has been used successfully to treat hodgkin 's disease ; idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura , which is a really bad disease .  i used to see some of those .  krabbe 's disease i mentioned earlier , that was just in the new england journal this month .  lymphoma ; lymphoproliferative syndrome ; myelofibrosis ; neuroblastoma , which is a form of brain tumor which has been successfully treated with cord blood .  osteopetrosis has been successfully treated .  reticular dysgenesis , severe aplastic anemia .  the list goes on and on .  there are 65 different medical conditions that have been successfully treated with cord blood .  people have mentioned diabetes .  embryonic stem cells have not been successfully used to treat diabetes either , but actually in animal models adult stem cells have been used successfully to treat diabetes .  i think most of the hope and success is in this cord blood .  that is why this bill is very , very important .  
R	mr. speaker , as most of my colleagues know , i practice general internal medicine and i still do it .  i have treated a lot of patients with diabetes , parkinson 's ; indeed , my father died of complications of diabetes .  my uncle , his brother , died of complications of parkinson 's disease .  let us just talk a little bit about how we got here , okay ?  this body voted years ago , no federal funding for research that involves the destruction of a human embryo .  and president clinton , towards the tail end of his administration , did an end run around the congressional prohibition , and they were having outside labs destroy the embryos , get the embryonic stem cells and send them over to nih .  and i sent the president a letter telling him , you are violating the spirit of the law , if not the letter of the law .  when president bush became president , a lot of us alerted him to this problem , and he came out with his policy .  and i thought it was really like a solomon-like compromise .  he said , we will not allow any more federal funds to be used that involve the killing of human embryos , but we will allow research to proceed on the existing cell lines .  and i sit on the committee that funds this .  we have funded this research to the tune of $ 60 million over the last 3 years , embryonic stem cell research , what you are asking for more of .  and the only place that i can find the research results printed is , i have to go to the rat-and-mouse journals .  and the results are bad .  these things tend to form tumors .  the plasticity that some of you extol in these embryonic stem cells make them genetically unstable .  they tend to form tumors .  we call them teratomas in the medical profession .  they grow hair and they grow teeth .  they are genetically unstable .  meanwhile , on the adult stem cell line it is breakthrough after breakthrough after breakthrough .  indeed , the gentlewoman from colorado said in her opening statement , there is no , no scientific evidence that will show that cord blood or adult stem cells will cure alzheimer 's , parkinson 's or type 1 diabetes .  parkinson 's disease was successfully treated 6 years ago in dennis turner using an adult stem cell .  he had an 80 percent reduction in his symptoms .  this was described at the american association of neurological surgeons annual meeting in april of 2002 .  in 2003 , science-published harvard researchers announced they had achieved a permanent reversal of diabetes in mice .  this is now under human clinical trials today , while we speak .  by the way , they tried to repeat that study using embryonic , mouse embryonic stem cells and it failed .  and this lady was in a wheelchair and she can now stand up with adult stem cells .  we do not need this bill .  it is ethically wrong .  we should be voting `` no . '' 
R	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman for yielding time to me , and i commend the gentleman for his leadership on this issue .  we have heard a lot of discussion of the three known forms of stem cell therapies that are hypothesized to treat all these diseases .  one of the nice things about adult stem cell treatments and why i think they have been embraced , and part of the reason they have been so successful is , if you use a cell from your own body , there are no tissue rejection concerns .  if you use a cord blood or placental blood stem cell , there are tissue rejection concerns ; but it is felt by the advocates of the gentleman from new jersey ( mr. smith 's ) bill , such as myself , that by obtaining the bank , we would be able to enter all of your genetic information and come up with a match .  and one of the questions i have for my colleagues who have been an advocate for the castle/degette bill is , how , if these embryonic cells were ever proven to be useful , and that has yet to be demonstrated in the literature , how would you override the tissue rejection concerns ?  mr. speaker , it takes us to a very important part of this debate that we really have not dwelled on very much .  they say there are 400 , 000 embryos in the freezers , but the truth is the vast majority of those embryos are wanted , and their own studies suggest only 275 cell lines will be available if this bill becomes law .  mr. speaker , the place we are going to have to go to make embryonic stem cell work , if it ever can be demonstrated to work , is creating human embryos for this purpose .  and that really brings me to my point .  if you are going to go down the road of creating human embryos , you really only have two options .  you are going to need tens of thousands of women to donate their eggs , or you are going to have to clone .  and that is why people like myself have been saying , wait to see what is next , because that is going to be the next debate .  if this becomes law , we are going to be asked to embrace federal funding for creating human life for this research .  no longer using the so-called excess embryos , but either exploiting women for their eggs or worse , we are going down the path of cloning .  and i assure you , if you find those options objectionable , they will be cloaked with the same kind of arguments that have been used to support this bill .  people will say it is for the purpose of helping the sick and suffering .  and what i have been saying over and over again , if you actually read the medical journals , the promise and the potential appear to be in the ethically acceptable alternatives of adult stem research and cord blood research .  reject this bill .  vote `` no '' on castle/degette .  
R	mr. speaker , this is a difficult issue for me .  i am a diabetic .  i have diabetes in my family .  i am cochairman of the congressional diabetes caucus .  my wife is a full-time diabetes educator .  she has spent her entire time as a health care professional educating and working with diabetics .  the gentleman from delaware ( mr. castle )  and the gentleman from massachusetts ( mr. langevin )  are very good friends of mine .  i have studied all their information .  i have tried to be as open about this as i possibly can be .  but i can say , mr. speaker , that in the end it comes down to not eliminating any type of research , because that is allowable in this country ; it is whether or not we should use federal funds .  california is using some $ 3 billion right now on what this bill is attempting to deal with .  in the end , mr. speaker , this is a very personal decision .  it is one that i agonized over .  i am not a medical professional .  i consulted with all four of my friends who are medical doctors in this chamber .  they have studied medicine , they understand medical research , they understand bioethics far better than i ever will , and i come down on their side .  i come down on the side of life .  i will oppose the bill that is being offered by my friend , the gentleman from delaware ( mr. castle )  and my friend , the gentlewoman from colorado ( ms. degette )  and i will support the alternative that is being offered by this conference .  
R	mr. speaker , i oppose this bill and support the president 's position on embryonic stem cells .  let 's be clear .  embryonic stem cell research is legal in america today , and nothing in the administration 's current policy has affected the legality of this research .  the administration 's policy simply provides that federal taxpayer dollars not be used to destroy human embryos .  i believe most americans , when they understand this , agree with the administration .  but this rule does not in any way limit the private sector from pursuing embryonic stem cell research .  but ultimately , mr. speaker , no one can deny that this debate involves profound ethical and moral questions .  this is a matter of conscience for millions of americans who are deeply troubled by the idea of their own funds being used to destroy another human life .  for many of my colleagues , and for me , this is a vote of conscience .  let the private sector go forward , if it must , with the destruction of embryos for ethically questionable science .  but spend the people 's money on proven blood cord , bone marrow and adult stem cell research .  
D	mr. speaker , i rise today in support of this bill and all of the promise that comes with funding embryonic stem cell research .  this bill represents an important step forward for the scientific and medical communities in our country , offering hope to the millions of americans who suffer from diseases that stem cell therapies may be able to cure .  unfortunately , president bush has threatened to veto this bill when it arrives on his desk .  i am appalled that a president who talks so much about embracing a `` culture of life '' would deny funding for a possible cure that could save a child from suffering from juvenile diabetes ; repair a damaged spinal cord to allow a person to walk again ; save a grandparent from the onset of alzheimer 's disease ; or put a halt to the ravages of parkinson 's disease .  the potential benefits from embryonic stem cell research are almost boundless and would certainly touch the life of a friend or family member of everyone in america .  mr. bush 's ban on providing federal funds for stem cell research has seriously damaged our nation 's efforts to be a leading voice in the development of this new technology .  allowing federal funding for research on stem cells is vital to making real progress as quickly as possible to find real cures .  i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill that will certainly have long-lasting effects in improving the health and well being of millions of americans .  
D	mr. speaker , i rise in strong support of this stem cell research bill .  the science will go on with or without the united states .  diabetes , alzheimer 's , lou gehrig 's disease , these diseases will be cured either here in the united states or somewhere else in the world .  this bill is not about human cloning , which i oppose .  an embryo is special tissue .  we should not create them with the intent to terminate them later .  but here , the embryos were created with the intent to bring more children into the world .  many eggs were fertilized in this process and , once a baby is born , many fertilized eggs are left over , created with the intention to create a baby .  as oliver wendell holmes stated , even a dog can tell the difference between a stumble and a kick .  juries determine intent all the time and , here , intent is crucial .  these cells were created with the intention of creating human life , and the only alternate fate for them now is disposal .  let us not waste potential human life ; let us not waste these fertilized eggs by destroying them .  let us use them to save human lives through stem cell research .  support the castle-degette bill .  
R	mr. speaker , i rise in strong support of h.r. 2520 , which combines legislation i introduced and passed in the 108th congress to reauthorize the national bone marrow registry with legislation by my colleague from new jersey , mr. smith  to authorize a federal investment in building an inventory of 150 , 000 umbilical cord blood units .  this life-saving bill is good for patients , good for transplant doctors , good for researchers and it represents good policy for our nation .  i would like to take this opportunity to thank many colleagues for bringing this legislation to the floor .  let me thank the chairman of the energy and commerce committee , mr. barton  for providing the leadership to advance this important bill .  his commitment to providing sound national policy in this area of stem cell transplantation has produced an excellent legislative design that will benefit thousands of patients immediately upon enactment .  i would also like to thank my friend , mr. this legislation builds on the investment made by congress 18 years ago when we established a national bone marrow donor program to save the lives of patients with leukemia and many other blood disorders .  countless dedicated doctors , patients , families , and research scientists have continued to pioneer new approaches to saving lives using these blood stem cells from bone marrow and now umbilical cord blood cells .  this bill authorizes funding for 5 years to continue federal support for bone marrow , peripheral blood and umbilical cord blood transplantation and research .  with this legislation , transplant doctors and patients will have an enhanced , single point of electronic access to the full array of information on possible bone marrow matches , as well as matches with cord blood units from the new national inventory which would be created .  in a matter of minutes , physicians can review the options and reserve the best possible sources for their patients .  in addition , the new effort will facilitate accreditation of cord blood banks , stimulate research , and collect and share data on the outcomes of all transplants .  last month , at the request of our appropriations committee direction , the institute of medicine released its report on cord blood and how the inventory should be built and integrated into the existing national registry .  this bill before us has been shaped by the guidance provided through the iom process and during the past year-and-a-half a consensus has been building for moving forward to combine our activities in bone marrow and cord blood .  that consensus has formed the basis for this legislation .  mr. speaker , this literally is life saving legislation .  through the efforts of the national marrow donor program -- which this congress initiated in 1987 -- many lives have already been saved .  to date , the program has facilitated almost 21 , 000 unrelated transplants involving bone marrow , cord blood or peripheral blood .  that means 21 , 000 individuals -- both children and adults who are otherwise suffering from terminal disease -- received the gift of life through this national program .  when the program first started , our goal was to build a national registry of 250 , 000 individuals willing to donate marrow .  mr. speaker , we found that the human spirit responded to our efforts in ways that we could not imagine .  i am proud to say that as of this month , the national bone marrow registry has more than 5.6 million potential bone marrow donors signed up .  in addition , the program has an additional 41 , 666 units of umbilical cord blood in reserve for transplant through its network of 15 affiliated cord blood banks throughout the country .  total transplants from all sources for last year alone exceeded 2500 .  let me repeat -- we have 5.6 million volunteer bone marrow donors signed up in the national program .  these are true volunteers in every sense of the word .  they have given of their time to take a simple blood test to be listed in the national registry .  for more than 20 , 000 who have been called upon to donate bone marrow , they have undergone a relatively simple surgical procedure to donate their bone marrow to save the life of a man , woman or child with anyone of more than 85 different diseases .  another 41 , 000 women have donated umbilical cord blood which can be used in the same way as bone marrow , to transplant life giving cells to cure disease .  this legislation will provide the funding to greatly increase the number of cord blood units that can be collected and stored .  nineteen million dollars has already been appropriated for this purpose over the past two years and this legislation will allow that immediate infusion of funds into building up reserves of umbilical cord blood .  the scientific reason for this is clear .  thanks to research , cord blood has now become another very important source for obtaining and transplanting the particular cell found in bone marrow and peripheral blood that can restore health to those suffering from so many different diseases .  in addition , by building up the cord blood inventory , the overall resource will be much more likely to meet the needs of patients from genetically diverse , ethnic populations .  it is estimated that adding 150 , 000 new cord blood units to the number of existing bone marrow donors will provide potential cell matches for about 95 percent of all americans .  mr. speaker , this national effort is a true modern miracle and this new legislation will reinforce and strengthen the program .  today , our national bone marrow program is affiliated with 156 transplant centers , 82 donor centers , 15 cord blood banks , 102 transplant marrow collection centers and 82 apheresis centers .  of these , 72 are international facilities .  having had the great pleasure to meet with hundreds of donors and patients , i can tell you that donating bone marrow or cord blood can be a true life-changing experience .  the experience of giving life to another human being is beyond mere words .  mr. speaker , there are many people who have been heroes in this effort and need to be recognized for their contributions .  the first is a little 10 year old girl who died of leukemia at all children 's hospital in my home district of st .  petersburg 18 years ago .  brandy bly might have been saved from leukemia back in 1987 if matched bone marrow or cord blood cells had been available .  it was during her treatment that i first learned from doctors how difficult it is to find a compatible , unrelated bone marrow donor .  her death inspired me , and her doctor -- dr .  jerry barbosa -- inspired me to help find a way to build a national bone marrow program .  there were other early medical pioneers , like the late dr .  robert goode , dr .  john hansen and dr .  donnell thomas -- all who helped perfect the science of marrow transplantation and who assisted us in our legislative quest to establish there have been many members of congress , past and present , who have stood together with me over the years to develop and fund the program that we reauthorize and enhance today .  i thank each and every one for your dedication .  we must recognize the staff and members of the board of the national marrow donor program and the marrow foundation who have volunteered their time to establish and grow a finely tuned international registry program .  and we must recognize the dedicated doctors and medical teams at transplant and donor centers around the nation who use their medical expertise to perform the transplants and save lives .  dr .  joanne kurtzberg , the head transplant doctor at duke university 's blood bank center , is the epitome of a dedicated , caring and highly knowledgeable physician who works hard to save lives .  we must recognize the pioneering cord blood research of dr .  pablo rubenstein and dr .  cladd stevens at the new york blood center , and dr .  claude lenfant , the former director of the national heart , lung and blood institute at nih who initiated the major coblt study on cord blood banking and transplantation .  the ultimate true heroes of the national effort are the patients and donors .  every patient who has sought a marrow or cord blood transplant has helped in the overall effort to gain more scientific knowledge on perfecting the transplant process .  every patient helps all those who will follow .  and every donor who has rolled up his or her sleeve to sign up for the national bone marrow program , or every family that has decided to donate umbilical cord blood , are heroes for taking part in giving the ultimate gift of life .  mr. speaker , in closing let me again thank chairman barton and mr. smith for their leadership in enhancing this great national program .  let me thank every member of this house for their support for the efforts we started 18 years ago on behalf of patients everywhere .  with your support , we will provide hope -- and a second chance at life -- to thousands of patients today and into the future .  
R	mr. speaker , i rise today in opposition to h.r. 810 , but in strong support of adult stem cell research as it respects life .  an embryo is a human at its earliest stage of life and deserves the same respect that we give infants , adolescents and adults .  during this debate , some would attempt to justify embryonic stem cell research on the basis that we are dealing with something other than real human beings .  we use the words stem cell , but we could also use the words nathan and noah .  these are justifications based on definitions of life that are purely arbitrary .  indeed , a human at the embryonic stage may look a little different than a human at the adult stage , but that does not make the embryo any less a human .  the embryo possesses the genetic identity as it will as an adult .  it is merely at an earlier stage in life .  just as we find it unconscionable and unethical to exploit human life in the name of science during the latter stages of life , neither should we accept the exploitation of human life at its earliest stages .  instead , we should focus our resources on supporting medical research such as cord blood and adult stem cell research that respect human lives and have an actual track record of creating cures .  vote against h.r. 810 .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time .  i rise in support of h.r. 2520 , which i really view as a noncontroversial , bipartisan piece of legislation that we should all be able to agree on .  i think one speaker a moment ago talked about science and our obligation to promote science .  i would agree with him , but with this caveat : science tells us what we can do ; science does not tell us what we should do .  that is an ethical dimension , and we are called upon oftentimes to decide what the ethical thing to do is .  here we have a piece of legislation dealing with an emerging area of science , but one that has already proven itself to be effective in human application and one that also shows itself to be easily obtained , that is , we either throw away umbilical cords , throw away the umbilical cord and the placenta at the time of birth , or we save the blood that can be captured at that time to make it available such that the stem cells can be taken from that and utilized in this therapeutic fashion .  this bill would also allow us to do research with these stem cells .  there is a tremendous frontier out there .  there is a tremendous frontier that shows tremendous opportunity for success .  i do not want to overhype it .  i do not know far it will go , but certainly it has not gotten the attention that needs to be given it .  when we talk about stem cells , we can talk about how we obtain the stem cells .  we can do it in several ways .  and there is an ethical dimension , an ethical dilemma that exists with respect to the second bill that will be up today .  there is no such dilemma that exists with respect to this bill .  we can obtain this in very easy ways , voluntarily , asking mothers at the time their children are born to donate these units such that others might be helped .  we have been laggard in our approach to this particular area of science .  again , i say , where we have no ethical question , where we have strong support from the scientific community , we should do no less than to support this bill strongly .  
R	mr. speaker , just in response to what was said on the floor , this is a statement that has appeared on the floor , and also in print , which says that the bill before us prohibits federal funding used for the destruction of embryos .  by its very definition , it requires the destruction of embryos when it does the research .  that ought to be very clear .  the process talked about requires the destruction of embryos .  
R	mr. speaker , i am one of seven children .  i am the second oldest .  my older brother john is 2 years and 2 days older than i. we grew up together closer than any other members of the family .  after i left this house on the first occasion , within 2 years , my brother developed parkinson 's .  he has now suffered with it for 15 years .  i have learned a lot of things from my brother , but one of the things i learned most of all was there is a difference between right and wrong .  there is a moral dimension in most of the serious issues that we must face .  would i like to support embryonic stem cell research without a question of ethics because it might assist my brother ?  sure .  would i like to see embryonic stem cell research in the area of cancer where it might have helped one of my sisters who has had cancer ?  yes .  would i like to see it in terms of research of cancer that plagues 4-year-old children like my nephew ?  of course .  but can we divorce all of that from the ethical norm that we must present here ?  we look back in history and , yes , america has oftentimes promoted science .  but america has made mistakes in the past .  the worst mistakes we have ever made in the history of this nation have been when we have defined a part of the human family as less than fully human and then done things to them that we would not allow done to ourselves .  we have done it with slavery .  we have done it with the tuskegee medical experiments .  other countries have done it as well .  the commonality among all of those mistakes , the greatest mistakes in our nation 's history , has been the ease with which we defined members of the human family as less than fully human .  we are talking about embryonic stem cell research that requires the destruction of the embryo , the destruction of part of the human family .  we should remember that as we talk here today .  we should resolve doubt in favor of life as we do in our criminal justice system , as we do in our civil law system .  
D	mr. speaker , i rise today to express my support for the stem cell research enhancement act , h.r. 810 .  i would like to thank representatives castle and degette for their leadership on this important issue .  recent advancements in medical technology have created hope for the millions of people , and their families , who suffer from the effects of diseases like alzheimer 's , parkinson 's , and diabetes .  stem cell research may hold the key to better treatment options , and even a cure , for diseases like these and others .  many of us will have lasting images of president ronald reagan and christopher reeves as their frail bodies deteriorated over the years .  and i will never forget my own father 's battle against alzheimer 's and how his slow deterioration and passing impacted our family .  their personal health battles took on a new meaning as the public debate heated up over the merits and ethics of embryonic stem cell research .  as we look towards the future of medical research , we must always proceed with strict ethical caution .  i believe the castle/degette legislation meets this criteria by establishing strict requirements for which new embryonic stem cell lines would be eligible for federal funding .  federal funding of embryonic stem cell research would mean that research could advance at a faster pace while providing stringent requirements and oversight of the research .  national and international involvement is needed to ensure research institutions and companies do not intentionally or unintentionally overreach their bounds .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank the chairman for yielding me time .  i want to congratulate the chairman and the gentleman from new jersey ( mr. smith )  and the gentleman from alabama ( mr. davis )  for their leadership .  what we are doing with this legislation is that we are celebrating life and we are celebrating science .  our debate today and this bill , this bill is so very important because it is not often that politicians get it right when dealing with health care or science .  i know .  as a physician i have seen government inject itself in places it ought not go and spend countless dollars on fanciful and distorted claims .  however , h.r. 2520 will save lives and improve the quality of life for millions .  and i know this because it will increase the use of a science that has already been proven .  as a new member of congress , i am proud to stand before you and lend my support to a positive and productive piece of legislation that will bring sunlight to those who have experienced too many clouds , and it will do so in an unquestionable and ethical manner .  i commend the gentleman from texas ( mr. barton )  , the gentleman from new jersey ( mr. smith )  , and the gentleman from alabama ( mr. davis )  for their persistence , their cooperation , and their leadership .  
R	mr. speaker , as a physician , i know that respected scientists believe that misrepresentations and exaggerated claims in this debate are not only scientifically irresponsible , they are deceptive and cruel to millions of patients and their families who hope desperately for cures .  it seems to me that there is one unmistakable fact .  many in our society have sincere , heartfelt , passionate , ethical questions , worthy of our respect , regarding the scientific or medical use of embryonic stem cells .  if our goal is truly to cure diseases and help patients , science tells us that today the use of adult and cord stem cells has successfully treated or holds real potential for treating nearly 60 diseases .  the same can not be said for embryonic stem cells , and adult stem cells carry none of the ethical questions or dilemma of embryonic stem cells .  i support stem cell research , active , aggressive and scientifically based , with respect for the difficult ethical questions we face today .  i urge my colleagues to join me in respecting science , in respecting ethical concerns .  if we do , we will recognize that stem cell research and treatment of disease should actively proceed with those adult and cord stem cells that are providing and will increasingly provide excellent and exciting cures for patients in need .  
R	mr. speaker , as a physician i 'm certain of one thing : science is not republican or democrat , science is not conservative or liberal .  science is science .  decisions in science should be based on the scientific method -- a standardized method of evaluation and implementation of a solution or treatment of a disease .  when followed , it allows for the greatest amount of critical thinking about any issue .  if followed , it results in the best outcome .  this would be true in public policy as well .  if not followed in a legislative body , then decisions tend to be made based upon who has the largest group of supporters or greatest passion and emotion .  now there is nothing wrong with numbers , passion or emotion , it just may not get you to the correct solution -- especially in the scientific arena .  there has been significant misrepresentation of science today and in this debate , because `` science is not a policy or a political program .  science is a systematic method for developing and testing hypotheses about the physical world .  it does not promise miracle cures based on scanty evidence .  ... ..  statements ... ..  made regarding the purported medical applications of embryonic stem cells reach far beyond any credible evidence , ignoring the limited state of our knowledge about embryonic stem cells and the advances in other areas of research that may render use of these cells unnecessary for many applications .  to make such exaggerated claims , at this stage of our knowledge , is not only scientifically irresponsible -- it is deceptive and cruel to millions of patients and their families who hope desperately for cures and have come to rely on the scientific community for accurate information .  ... ..  non-embryonic stem cells '' on the other hand have a history `` very different from that of embryonic stem cells. '' cord and adult stem cells are `` producing undoubted clinical benefits and ... ..  ( b ) one marrow transplants '' have benefited `` therefore ... ..  to declare that '' embryonic stem cell research `` will ... ..  receive any particular amount of federal funding , regardless of future evidence or the usual scientific peer review process -- is ... ..  irresponsible .  it is , in fact , a subordination of science to ideology .  `` because politicians , biotechnology interests and even some scientists have publicly exaggerated the `` promise '' of embryonic stem cells , public perceptions of this avenue have become skewed and unrealistic .  politicians may hope to benefit from these false hopes to win elections .  ... ..  the scientific and medical professions have no such luxury .  when desperate patients discover that they have been subjected to a salesman 's pitch rather than an objective and candid assessment of possibilities , we have reason to fear public backlash against the credibility of our profession .  we urge you not to exacerbate this problem now by repeating false promises that exploit patients ' hopes for political gain. '' i have quoted from a letter signed by 57 scientists -- md 's and phd 's -- written during last year 's presidential campaign .  it expressed real concern about a cavalier public posture and policy during a debate on such a sensitive ethical matter .  it seems to me that there is one unmistakable fact : many in our society have sincere , heartfelt , passionate , ethical questions , worthy of our respect , regarding the scientific or medical use of es cells .  if our goal is truly to cure diseases and help patients , science tells us that today the use of adult and cord stem cells has successfully treated or holds real potential for treating nearly 60 diseases .  the same can not be said for es cells .  and adult stem cells carry none of the ethical questions or dilemma of es cells .  i support stem cell research -- active , aggressive , scientifically based -- with respect for the difficult ethical questions we face today .  i urge my colleagues to join me in respecting current science -- in respecting ethical concerns .  if we do , we will recognize that stem cell research and treatment of disease should actively proceed with those adult and cord stem cells that are providing and will increasingly provide excellent and exciting cures for patients in need .  october 27 , 2004 .  dear senator kerry : recently you have made the promotion of embryonic stem cell research , including the cloning of human embryos for research purposes , into a centerpiece of your campaign .  you have said you will make such research a `` top priority '' for government , academia and medicine ( los angeles times , 10/17/04 ) .  you have even equated support for this research with respect for `` science , '' and said that science must be freed from `` ideology '' to produce miracle cures for numerous diseases .  as professionals trained in the life sciences we are alarmed at these statements .  first , your statements misrepresent science .  in itself , science is not a policy or a political program .  science is a systematic method for developing and testing hypotheses about the physical world .  it does not `` promise '' miracle cures based on scanty evidence .  when scientists make such assertions , they are acting as individuals , out of their own personal faith and hopes , not as the voice of `` science '' .  if such scientists allow their individual faith in the future of embryonic stem cell research to be interpreted as a reliable prediction of the outcome of this research , they are acting irresponsibly .  second , it is no mere `` ideology '' to be concerned about the possible misuse of humans in scientific research .  federal bioethics advisory groups , serving under both democratic and republican presidents , have affirmed that the human embryo is a developing form of human life that deserves respect .  indeed you have said that human life begins at conception , that fertilization produces a `` human being. '' to equate concern for these beings with mere `` ideology '' is to dismiss the entire history of efforts to protect human subjects from research abuse .  third , the statements you have made regarding the purported medical applications of embryonic stem cells reach far beyond any credible evidence , ignoring the limited state of our knowledge about embryonic stem cells and the advances in other areas of research that may render use of these cells unnecessary for many applications .  to make such exaggerated claims , at this stage of our knowledge , is not only scientifically irresponsible -- it is deceptive and cruel to millions of patients and their families who hope desperately for cures and have come to rely on the scientific community for accurate information .  what does science tell us about embryonic stem cells ?  the facts can be summed up as follows : at present these cells can be obtained only by destroying live human embryos at the blastocyst ( 4-7 days old ) stage .  they proliferate rapidly and are extremely versatile , ultimately capable ( in an embryonic environment ) of forming any kind of cell found in the developed human body .  yet there is scant scientific evidence that embryonic stem cells will form normal tissues in a culture dish , and the very versatility of these cells is now known to be a disadvantage as well -- embryonic stem cells are difficult to develop into a stable cell line , spontaneously accumulate genetic abnormalities in culture , and are prone to uncontrollable growth and tumor formation when placed in almost 25 years of research using mouse embryonic stem cells have produced limited indications of clinical benefit in some animals , as well as indications of serious and potentially lethal side-effects .  based on this evidence , claims of a safe and reliable treatment for any disease in humans are premature at best .  embryonic stem cells obtained by destroying cloned human embryos pose an additional ethical issue -- that of creating human lives solely to destroy them for research -- and may pose added practical problems as well .  the cloning process is now known to produce many problems of chaotic gene expression , and this may affect the usefulness and safety of these cells .  nor is it proven that cloning will prevent all rejection of embryonic stem cells , as even genetically matched stem cells from cloning are sometimes rejected by animal hosts .  some animal trials in research cloning have required placing cloned embryos in a womb and developing them to the fetal stage , then destroying them for their more developed tissues , to provide clinical benefit -- surely an approach that poses horrific ethical issues if applied to humans .  non-embryonic stem cells have also received increasing scientific attention .  here the trajectory has been very different from that of embryonic stem cells : instead of developing these cells and deducing that they may someday have a clinical use , researchers have discovered them producing undoubted clinical benefits and then sought to better understand how and why they work so they can be put to more uses .  bone marrow transplants were benefiting patients with various forms of cancer for many years before it was understood that the active ingredients in these transplants are stem cells .  non-embryonic stem cells have been discovered in many unexpected tissues -- in blood , nerve , fat , skin , muscle , umbilical cord blood , placenta , even dental pulp -- and dozens of studies indicate that they are far more versatile than once thought .  use of these cells poses no serious ethical problem , and may avoid all problems of tissue rejection if stem cells can be obtained from a patient for use in that same patient .  clinical use of non-embryonic stem cells has grown greatly in recent in the case of many conditions , advances are likely to come from sources other than any kind of stem cell .  for example , there is a strong scientific consensus that complex diseases such as alzheimer 's are unlikely to be treated by any stem cell therapy .  when asked recently why so many people nonetheless believe that embryonic stem cells will provide a cure for alzheimer 's disease , nih stem cell expert ron mckay commented that `` people need a fairy tale '' ( washington post , june 10 , 2004 , page a3 ) .  similarly , autoimmune diseases like juvenile in short , embryonic stem cells pose one especially controversial avenue toward understanding and ( perhaps ) someday treating various degenerative diseases .  based on the available evidence , no one can predict with certainty whether they will ever produce clinical benefits -- much less whether they will produce benefits unobtainable by other , less ethically problematic means .  therefore , to turn this one approach into a political campaign -- even more , to declare that it will be a `` top priority '' or receive any particular amount of federal funding , regardless of future evidence or the usual scientific peer review process -- is , in our view , irresponsible .  it is , in fact , a subordination of science to ideology .  because politicians , biotechnology interests and even some scientists have publicly exaggerated the `` promise '' of embryonic stem cells , public perceptions of this avenue have become skewed and unrealistic .  politicians may hope to benefit from these false hopes to win elections , knowing that the collision of these hopes with reality will come only after they win their races .  the scientific and medical professions have no such luxury .  when desperate patients discover that they have been subjected to a salesman 's pitch rather than an objective and candid assessment of possibilities , we have reason to fear a public backlash against the credibility of our professions .  we urge you not to exacerbate this problem now by repeating false promises that exploit patients ' hopes for political gain .  signed , rodney d. adam , m.d. , professor of medicine and microbiology/immunology , university of arizona college of medicine .  michael j. behe , ph.d. , professor of biological sciences , lehigh university .  thomas g. benoit , ph.d. , professor and chairman of biology , mcmurry university , abilene , tx .  david l. bolender , ph.d. , department of cell biology , neurobiology and anatomy , medical college of wisconsin .  daniel l. burden , ph.d. , assistant professor of chemistry , wheaton college .  william j. burke , m.d. , ph.d. , professor in neurology , associate professor in medicine , associate professor in neurobiology , saint louis university medical center .  mark w. burket , m.d. , professor of medicine , division of cardiology , medical college of ohio .  w .  malcolm byrnes , ph.d. , assistant professor , department of biochemistry and molecular biology , howard university college of medicine .  steven calvin , m.d. , assistant professor of ob/gyn and women 's health , co-chair , program in human rights in medicine , university of minnesota school of medicine .  james carroll , m.d. , professor of neurology , pediatrics , and biochemistry and molecular biology , medical college of georgia .  john r. chaffee , m.d. , assistant clinical professor , department of family medicine , university of washington .  robert chasuk , m.d. , clinical assistant professor , department of family medicine , tulane university .  william p. cheshire , jr. , m.d. , associate professor of neurology , mayo clinic .  richard a. chole , m.d. , ph.d. , professor and head of otolaryngology , washington university in st .  louis , school of medicine .  maureen l. condic , ph.d. , associate professor , department of neurobiology and anatomy , university of utah school of medicine .  keith a. crist , ph.d. , associate professor , department of surgery , medical college of ohio .  keith a. crutcher , ph.d. , professor , department of neurosurgery , university of cincinnati medical center .  frank dennehy , m.d. , faafp , assistant clinical professor of family medicine , virginia commonwealth university .  kenneth j. dormer , m.s. , ph.d. , professor of physiology , university of oklahoma college of medicine .  lawrence w. elmer , m.d. , ph.d. , associate professor , dept .  of neurology director , parkinson 's disease and movement disorder program , medical director , center for neurological disorders , medical college of ohio .  kevin t. fitzgerald , sj , ph.d. , david p. lauler chair in catholic health care ethics , research associate professor , department of oncology , georgetown university medical center .  raymond f. gasser , ph.d. , professor , department of cell biology and anatomy , louisiana state university school of medicine .  hans geisler , m.d. , clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology , indiana university medical center .  donald a. godfrey , ph.d. , professor of otolaryngology , department of surgery , medical college of ohio .  samuel hensley , m.d. , assistant clinical professor , school of medicine , university of mississippi .  david c. hess , m.d. , professor and chairman , department of neurology , medical college of georgia .  paul j. hoehner , m.d. , ma , ph.d. , faha associate professor , department of anesthesiology , the university of virginia school of medicine .  c .  christopher hook , m.d. , consultant in hematology and internal medicine , assistant professor of medicine , mayo clinic college of medicine .  elizabeth a. johnson , m.d. , consultant , hematology/oncology , mayo clinic jacksonville assistant professor of oncology , mayo clinic college of medicine .  nancy l. jones , ph.d. , associate professor of pathology , wake forest university school of medicine .  c .  ward kischer , ph.d. , emeritus professor , cell biology and anatomy , specialty in human embryology , university of arizona college of medicine .  kirsten j lampi , m.s. , ph.d. , associate professor of integrative biosciences , school of dentistry , oregon health sciences university .  john i. lane , m.d. , assistant professor of radiology , mayo clinic school of medicine .  david l. larson , m.d. , professor and chairman , department of plastic surgery , medical college of wisconsin .  micheline mathews-roth , m.d. , associate professor of medicine , harvard medical school .  roger r. markwald , ph.d. , professor and chair , department of cell biology and anatomy , medical university of south carolina .  victor e. marquez , ph.d. , chief , laboratory of medicinal chemistry , center for cancer research , national cancer institute , frederick , maryland .  ralph p. miech , m.d. , ph.d. , associate professor emeritus , department of molecular pharmacology , physiology & amp ; biotechnology , brown university school of medicine .  mary ann myers , m.d. , associate professor , medical college of ohio .  rimas j. orentas , ph.d. , associate professor of pediatrics , hematology-oncology section , medical college of wisconsin .  robert d. orr , m.d. , cm , clinical ethicist and professor , university of vermont college of medicine .  jean d. peduzzi-nelson , ph.d. , research associate professor , department of visual sciences , university of alabama at birmingham .  edmund d. pellegrino , m.d. , emeritus professor , medicine and medical ethics , center for clinical bioethics , georgetown university medical center .  john a. petros , m.d. , associate professor , urology and pathology , emory university .  david a. prentice , ph.d. , affiliated scholar , center for clinical bioethics , georgetown university medical center .  paul j. ranalli , m.d. , frcpc , lecturer , division of neurology , department of medicine , university of toronto .  john f. rebhun , ph.d. , adjunct scientist , indiana university school of medicine .  leonard p. rybak , m.d. , ph.d. , professor of surgery , southern illinois university school of medicine .  dwayne d. simmons , ph.d. , director , inner ear research core center , department of otolaryngology , washington university school of medicine .  joseph b. stanford , m.d. , msph , associate professor , family and preventive medicine , university of utah .  john m. templeton , jr. , m.d. , facs , adjunct professor of pediatric surgery , university of pennsylvania school of medicine .  claire thuning-roberson , ph.d. , vice president , product development and compliance , sunol molecular corporation , miramar , florida .  anton-lewis usala , m.d. , chief executive officer and medical director , clinical trial management group , greenville , north carolina .  richard a. watson , m.d. , professor of urologic surgery , the university of medicine and dentistry of new jersey medical school .  dennis d. weisenburger , m.d. , director of hematopathology , dept of pathology and microbiology , university of nebraska school of medicine .  h. joseph yost , phd. , professor of oncological sciences , university of utah .  joseph r. zanga , m.d. , faap , fcp , president , american college of pediatricians , professor of pediatrics , brody school of medicine , east carolina university .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank the majority leader for yielding me this time .  mr. speaker , i rise to vigorously oppose h.r. 810 .  it is ethically wrong to destroy human life , and h.r. 810 would allow for federal funding to destroy human embryos .  as a heart surgeon , i have dealt with life and death .  i have held damaged hearts in these hands , and i have seen how powerful human emotions , coupled with hope , can be ; but human emotions coupled with false hope and misinformation are dangerous .  embryonic stem cells have not produced a single human treatment and have significant limitations .  they are prone to transplant rejection , prone to tumor formation , and there is a significant risk for contamination with animal viruses .  proponents of embryonic stem cell research are certainly aware of these problems , and that is why they view h.r. 810 as a stepping stone to human cloning .  adult stem cells have been used to treat 58 human diseases , and they do so without taking away what we are trying to preserve in the first place : life .  yes , life .  for example , heart disease , the number one cause of death in the united states , coronary artery disease , has been successfully treated with adult stem cell therapies ; and there have been 10 clinical trials that have been completed in human patients using bone marrow-derived adult stem cells to treat heart attack patients , damaged hearts .  and in one trial , patients who were bedridden , not able to walk , were found to be jogging on the beach or climbing eight flights of stairs after successful treatment .  mr. speaker , it is irresponsible to spend scarce federal dollars on false promises when there are certainly alternatives with existing treatments that do not create an ethical dilemma .  and for these reasons , i oppose h.r. 810 and urge my colleagues to vote `` no '' on this as well .  
R	mr. speaker , i have been a physician for 41 years ; and like my good colleagues who will not be supporting this bill , i would expect we could tell the members stories of all the blood and gore and problems that we have waded through in those years and done our very best .  i also consider myself a guy who is pretty much pro-life .  this bill is not cloning .  it is not somatic cell nuclear transfer .  it is sound science .  for those who have an ethical problem with the bill , i accept the fact that they have that problem and hope that at some point in the future we can sit down and discuss this issue .  but for now they will have their position ; i will have mine .  stem cell research , especially embryonic stem cell research , is going to go on apace very rapidly in all parts of the world , whether it is singapore or korea or japan or china or the united kingdom or canada , other places on continental europe .  we are being left behind in this .  we have the finest universities in the world , the finest researchers , the ability to bring stem cell research to a point where we will , indeed , have cures for everyday problems such as diabetes , such as parkinson 's , such as alzheimer 's , and perhaps even being able to create neuronal cells to take care of people who have spinal cord injuries .  science will march on .  i believe this bill helps the living .  can there be any doubt that the potential of relieving widespread suffering with embryonic stem cells is morally superior to simply destroying the excess embryos ?  how can we call ourselves a culture of life when we ignore the living , when we ignore the infinite potential of embryonic stem cells ?  
D	mr. speaker , i want to thank the gentleman from delaware ( mr. castle )  and the gentlewoman from colorado ( ms. degette )  for their leadership on this issue .  like millions of american families , my own has been impacted by the loss of loved ones with debilitating diseases .  my grandmother , alvana carpenter , died of cancer , and my first cousin betty stolz , to ms .  we lost them too soon .  that is one of the reasons i have joined this unparalleled and growing bipartisan coalition to cosponsor h.r. 810 , along with over 200 democrats and republicans in this house .  people from the show me state were polled not too long ago , and three-fourths of them were in support of this research continuing .  just like polls around the country , when nancy reagan called to lift the bush administration ban on this research in 2004 , three-fourths of americans have come to the support of this cause .  there is great promise in this research .  since its isolation of the embryonic stem cell in 1998 , research has made dramatic progress in the u.s. we can not and we must not abandon our leadership role in the scientific community and in establishing strong ethical standards for this research , which are incorporated in this bill .  i also became involved in this debate because of the extraordinary citizens that have come to advocate on its behalf , advocates like bernie frank , an accomplished st .  louisian who has volunteered for the parkinson 's action network ; advocates like dr .  huskey from washington university , who suffers with ms and continues her advocacy ; advocates like rabbi susan talve and her young daughter , adina , who suffers from a congenital heart defect .  early stem cell research shows the potential to discover ways to grow new heart muscle cells .  mr. speaker , the promise of stem cell research is real .  science , not politics , should determine the future of this vital research .  we stand here with the tools in our hands to ease the pain and suffering of so many across the country and around the world .  to forgo potential life-saving cures is simply unacceptable and unconscionable .  
D	mr. speaker , in missouri 's 5th district there are two individuals , jim and virginia stowers , who did not seek a federal grant , but who used $ 2 billion of their own money to begin some very vital research .  they founded the stowers institute .  and the stowers institute employs brilliant researchers from more than 20 countries around the world , and they are working with the most advanced tools to answer the questions and build the bridges between diseases and cures .  our nation is blessed with the greatest minds and researchers on this planet .  but to whom much is given , much is required .  and so , mr. speaker , this nation has a wonderful opportunity right now to respond to the needs and the interests of its people .  two boys , twin boys were in bed .  one fell out of the bed in the middle of the morning , and when the parents went in to see him and asked what happened , he said , as he looked up to the bed , i think i was sleeping too close to where i got in .  and that is where we are , mr. speaker .  even after the president has spoken , we are , as a nation , still sleeping too close to where we got in with regard to research on stem cells .  
R	mr. speaker , i was recently asked by a kind and gentle lady my position on stem cell research .  this is always a difficult question .  but i told her , i am in favor of stem cell research , research that uses stem cells from cord blood and adult stem cell sources , research that is already showing great medical promise and avoids the ethically divisive issue of the destruction of an unborn human embryo , an unborn human person .  frankly , i did not know how she would respond .  and she went on to tell me that she had ms herself .  and she told me that if research found a cure using unborn human embryos , that she would not take that cure , that she could not in her conscience take that cure that sacrificed a human life .  mr. speaker , let us set a new standard , one that aggressively promotes good research to help the sick and injured , one that respects the consciences of tens of millions of americans who do not wish to see their tax dollars used in the destruction of unborn human life , one that supports a consistent life ethic and gives true hope to those who are suffering in our communities .  
D	mr. speaker , i rise in strong support of h.r. 810 , to provide for human embryonic stem cell research .  the measure is a crucial first step toward helping millions of people who suffer today from diseases that are currently without treatment .  by broadening the federal government 's investment in this nascent technology , i am confident that we will be able to offer help to these men , women , and children that would be impossible by conventional means .  the room for growth in embryonic stem cell research is exponential .  according to the national institutes of health , this work may one day be used in gene therapy and to overcome immune rejection .  heart disease , alzheimer 's , krabbe disease and stroke are just a few of the maladies that this research could help to treat and eventually cure .  my region in western new york has a number of great research institutes that boast a rich history of tackling devastating health afflictions .  for example , roswell park cancer institute ( rpci ) , located in buffalo , implemented the nation 's first chemotherapy program .  rpci 's center for pharmacology and therapeutics is one of few in the nation capable of all phases of drug development , from the conceptual stage through manufacturing and testing .  this year , rpci 's strong basic and clinical research programs attracted major research grants and contracts totaling more than $ 75 million .  the institute has sponsored or collaborated on more than 350 clinical trials of promising new cancer treatments and its developing cancer genetics program will rival the world 's leading programs in that field .  the institute has also made significant contributions to the landmark human genome project , and its new center for genetics and pharmacology will adjoin the university at buffalo 's center of excellence in bioinformatics and life sciences and the new 72 , 000 sq .  ft , $ 24 million hauptman-woodward medical research institute building that opened less than two weeks ago .  the three centers form a state-of-the-art life science cluster in downtown buffalo that will transform lives in my district and across the world through the cutting edge stem cell and genomic research .  western new york has made a commitment to curing disease , caring for the sick and preventing the needless loss of life wherever possible .  our innovative institutes , led by some of the best researchers in the world , can make an immeasurable difference in people 's lives .  it would be unconscionable , now that we are so close to the ability to use stem cells to fight off the diseases and maladies that plague us , for us to turn our backs and withhold that care .  mr. speaker , i urge the house to pass h.r. 810 .  we have the tools to save lives ; it is now our duty to use them .  
R	mr. speaker , as stewards of hard-working americans ' tax dollars , we can not ask our constituents to fund the killing of human embryos .  like the rest of my colleagues joining me today , i am strongly in support of scientific research to save and improve human life .  but to fund federal research on stem cells derived from killing human embryos is unethical and irresponsible .  while stem cell research has never been prohibited in the private sector , president bush permitted the usage of embryonic stem cell lines sufficient for extensive government-funded research nearly 4 years ago .  in these 4 years , government and private research on those stem cells have produced nothing , cured no one ; and there is no indication that that will change .  in the meantime , ethical research not derived from embryos in the public and private sectors has helped cure almost 60 diseases .  the private sector has proven the superiority and promise of cord blood in adult stem cell research by choosing to fund those areas .  let us learn from their example and not squander taxpayer dollars on unethical research .  mr. speaker , we do have the power of the purse , and we can not misuse it by funding the slaughter of human life .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank the distinguished majority leader for yielding me this time .  we are here debating h.r. 810 , which directs the federal government to spend tax dollars on embryonic stem cell research .  this bill , therefore , implies that stem cell research is not already going on , but stem cell research is alive and well in america .  adult stem cells are currently being used to treat people , and successfully .  this bill 's approach , however , will remove stem cells from human embryos .  this will kill the embryo .  and whether we like to think about it or not , embryos are indeed human beings .  every human life begins as a human embryo ; and by extracting their stem cells , this bill uses american tax dollars to destroy human life .  the embryonic stem cell research in this bill destroys human life , and i believe that we as the american people should not destroy human life with american taxpayers ' dollars , not even in the name of research .  
R	mr. speaker , i rise in support of h.r. 810 .  mr. speaker , i rise today to speak on behalf of h.r. 810 , the stem cell research enhancement act of 2005 .  today there have been bills presented that discuss , among other things , the merits of embryonic stem cell study versus cord blood cell utilization .  this discussion , while interesting , misses the point of promoting stem cell research in general : scientific breakthroughs that may originate from stem cell examination have the power to better , and even save the lives of our fellow citizens afflicted with terrible diseases .  stem cell research holds out hope for those suffering with , for example , diabetes , parkinson 's , and coronary heart disease , the number one killer of adults in this country .  we must encourage this research , and the legislation offered by my colleagues from new jersey and delaware is an important step forward in our attempts to find cures for these diseases .  moreover , the stem cell research enhancement act promotes the establishment of ethical standards with regard to the procurement of embryos utilized in the research .  the only embryos that can be utilized are ones that were originally created for fertility treatment purposes and are in excess of clinical need .  further , the individuals seeking fertility treatments for whom those embryos were created have determined that these embryos will not be implanted in a woman and will be otherwise discarded .  finally , these same individuals have provided written consent for embryo donation .  the development of standards , both ethical and clinical , is an important aspect of stem cell research .  this bill directs that the national institutes of health develop guidelines to insure that researchers adhere to the highest possible principles in scientific inquiry .  here we have a unique opportunity to establish national standards that will become the benchmark for scientific study throughout the world .  by encouraging scientific breakthroughs while at the same time observing the highest possible standards of ethical and clinical behavior , we can go a long way towards battling genetically-based diseases that have ended the lives of so many .  
R	mr. speaker , on the birthday of my daughter , katy , who was born 8-10 weeks prematurely , but still lives and blesses my life .  there are so many well-meaning people who want to see others cured .  we , everyone of us in this body , want that .  we know that .  it is being said that no one will be harmed by the use or destruction of human embryos that were going to be waste anyway .  dear friends , when you use the product of the callous mistreatment of life , even though you use sterilized gloves , you nonetheless are an accomplice after the fact in encouraging future such destruction and mistreatment -- even though you have the very very best of intentions .  how many times as a judge have i heard , `` but , i never meant to hurt anyone .  i thought i was just helping. '' in the recent past , we lost a great american who had been injured in an accident and who encouraged the use of embryonic stem cells .  that man had a heart as big as all outdoors and is an inspiration to so very many of us .  his strength and courage and perseverance in the face of unsurmountable odds should be an encouragement for all who face adversity .  he is quoted as saying something that others have said , but as a justification for embryonic stem cell usage -- basically that we should be about doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people .  that is the utilitarian way .  it is worth noting that if a society only did what was the greatest good for the greatest number of people , that society would kill off the elderly who were no longer productive and kill off the young who were not likely to ever be very productive .  that would also be a society that did not spend time trying to fix something that had been extremely broken .  that is a society that would simply weigh the cost to repair a human , decide that such person was `` totaled '' then clone a new one to replace it .  that society would be killing its very soul .  that is not the american way .  we want to be a help to the helpless , and speak for those who ca n't speak .  a moral society should do that .  to demand money from american taxpayers so that we as a congress can encourage the destructive use of life under the guise that it may be thrown away anyway , is not a direction that this america should go .  our history has been that , rather than destroying life , we go to all kinds of extremes to save it .  if a child is in a deep hole , america sends all the resources it has to try to save it regardless of cost .  when someone may not return from a trip to the moon , we use every available resource to try to bring them home .  when a soldier is captured or out on the battlefield wounded , many others often risk their lives to save the one .  that has been , that should be our legacy .  it is a bit offensive that some would come forward and assert that we are telling individuals with lou gehrigs disease and other terribly debilitating diseases that we will not look for a cure -- that we basically do not care .  we are looking for cures and we are doing so with the most promising avenues available and that is with stem cells that do not destroy life .  it is extremely offensive that some would come forward and say basically that in the name of religion , christian and jewish groups support the federal government 's certain destruction of embryos under the possibility that at some point it somehow may lead to possibly saving a life or lives .  if we are going to invoke the thought of , as our forefathers ' put it , our creator , then let 's at least invoke our creator 's unwavering honesty .  the truth is that this bill is not determining whether embryonic stem cell research will go on .  if it is so incredibly and amazingly promising , do you know who would be all over this ?  private pharmaceutical and health care industries would be in pursuit knowing that if they find a cure , they will be the most profitable company on the face of the earth .  but it is not private investment capital that is being sought .  it is people wanting grants that will be torn from the pockets of taxpayers against the will of perhaps half of them or more ( polling data from those with an agenda is not all that trustworthy ) and putting it into someone else 's pocket in the name of destroying embryos .  embryonic stem cell research can go on and has gone on with billions of dollars from some states and from some private money .  what many of us are saying about this legislation is , if it is so promising , you go raise the capital privately by buying stock to use in embryonic stem cell research , and let our tax dollars go to the stem cell research that seeks to both save and make lives better .  i know this is a matter of conscience , and i do so know and believe in the integrity and great intentions of many of those who disagree , but please do not take my tax dollars for money to destroy life .  let those who feel so compelled , spend your own , but i would hope even then you would spend your own money on the lines with the most promise and not take life in the name of helping life .  may god not only bless , but have mercy on us all .  
D	mr. speaker , i rise today in support of h.r. 2520 , as well as the stem cell research enhancement act , as both bills are part of today 's larger debate on stem cell research and the hope being offered with them .  as samuel smiles said , `` hope is the companion of power and the mother of success ; for who so hopes has within him the gift of miracles. '' that is what today 's debate is about , because at its core , stem cell research is about the idea of hope and miracles , a hope which has become quite personal for me .  as you know , my husband bob , who worked with all of you for so many years , suffered from a rare bone marrow disorder .  i saw what this disease did to him .  i saw his life cut short .  and it is my hope that by expanding stem cell research , other families will have more than just a hope for a cure for this disease , as well as many , many others .  but to be effective , hope and optimism need to be based on a possibility .  this is what we are talking about today , whether or not this country will close the door on hope on the unexplainable , on what is truly a miracle .  it is clear that by passing this bill and the stem cell research enhancement act we will not be reading articles in next week 's paper that we found the cure for cancer or any other disease , that we hope to be effected .  but i feel strongly that the effects of federal dollars and involvement in stem cell research will make an unquestionable difference .  our country has been a leader in so many areas of medicine .  now is not the time to cede our role to countries like south korea , france or great britain .  by doing so , we will not only diminish the contributions of americans , but also our ability to shape and impact the ethical debate .  both bills are an important step in harnessing the power of optimism .  i hope we will not ignore this opportunity .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time .  mr. speaker , i rise today to defend the flag of the united states of america .  throughout the history of our nation , our flag has stood as the ultimate symbol of our freedom .  from yorktown to fort mchenry , from iwo jima to baghdad , our troops have fought behind our flag in the defense of liberty .  their dedication and their sacrifice in defense of freedom demands that we take this action today .  and who can forget on september 11 , 2001 , when firefighters in new york pulled our flag out of the rubble of the world trade center and hoisted it in defiance of terror ?  and who can forget the flag that hangs in the american history museum here in washington , d.c .  that was draped over the scarred pentagon as a show of our nation 's resolve ?  we should not , we must not , and we can not allow the desecration of our national and , mr. speaker , as was mentioned , 50 states have already passed resolutions indicating that they want to ratify this resolution we are debating today .  let the majority of americans ratify their allegiance and pledge their allegiance to our flag .  
D	mr. speaker , i will control the time .  
D	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  so , in other words , if one desecrates a flag to make a nice point , that is a good context .  if they desecrate it to make an unpopular point , that should be jailable .  i thank the gentleman from indiana ( mr. sodrel )  for making my point .  
R	mr. speaker , symbols matter .  certainly the cross has special meaning for millions of people .  the menorah , the koran , we saw that recently where false reports on desecration of the koran led to riots and hundreds of people dying .  the statue sometimes has special meaning .  the symbolic meaning of the toppling of the statue of saddam hussein was not lost on the iraqi people or the other people around the world .  buildings have symbolic value .  the buildings that were destroyed or attempted to be destroyed during 9/11 were not randomly chosen .  the world trade center symbolized the u.s. economy .  the pentagon symbolized our military might ; and probably this building was also targeted because it symbolized the government .  and so for millions of americans , the flag symbolizes the very essence of this country .  it is more than fabric .  it is what gives this nation meaning .  millions have fought under this banner .  hundreds of thousands have died under the banner .  many have died on the battlefield simply protecting the flag itself , keeping it from being captured or from even hitting the ground .  and so for 200 years , this was a commonly accepted understanding of the importance of the flag , the symbolic meaning of the flag .  and then came two 5-4 supreme court decisions in the 1980s which allowed flag desecration under the banner of free speech , which has really offended a great many people in this country .  i think an overwhelming number of states , more than 80 percent of u.s. citizens , disagree with those supreme court decisions .  so i urge my colleagues to support h.j. resolution 10 , which states , `` the congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the united states of america. '' mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman from wisconsin ( mr. sensenbrenner )  for his stand on this issue and for giving me this time to express my views .  
R	mr. speaker , i ask unanimous consent that all members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h. j. res. 10 .  
R	mr. speaker , reserving the right to object , would the gentleman restate the unanimous consent request .  
R	mr. speaker , i make a point of order against the motion to recommit .  
R	mr. speaker , i make a point of order against the motion .  
R	mr. speaker , the points of order that the gentleman from wisconsin has been raising have been pursuant to house rules , and we should not be waiving the rules relative to the germaneness of motions to recommit .  should the gentleman from mississippi offer more nongermane motions to recommit , then i think it is incumbent upon me , as the manager of the bill , to raise a point of order , should the rules of the house be violated by the motion to recommit , as they have been in the past .  
R	mr. speaker , on that i demand the yeas and nays .  
D	mr. speaker , i offer a motion to recommit .  
D	in its present form .  
D	mr. speaker , given the nature of this motion , i ask unanimous consent that the clerk read it again .  
D	mr. speaker , i ask unanimous consent , given the gravity of this motion , that the clerk read the motion again since , apparently , no one on this floor , other than i , know what is in it .  
D	mr. speaker , what we are talking about today is a fairly simple thing .  the text of the original bill is to give the 50 states the legal authority to , on a state-by-state basis , prevent the desecration of the flag , a symbol of our country .  there is something a heck of a lot more serious going on than the desecration of the flag : it is the desecration of our nation .  in the last 4 years alone , the national debt has increased by $ 2.1 trillion .  we have taken money out of the social security trust fund , $ 632 billion out of that trust fund , and used it to run the country , leaving nothing there but an iou .  money has been taken out of the federal employees retirement system , now a total of $ 614 billion .  mr. speaker , if any business in america had taken that money out of the employees ' trust fund -- -- 
D	mr. speaker , the point of order is , why would we take the time to protect the symbol of our country if we will not take the time to protect the financial future of our country as well ?  that is my point .  
D	mr. speaker , what is the procedure to appeal the ruling of the chair ?  i would like the ability to speak to that , please .  
D	mr. speaker , i am appealing the ruling of the chair , and i would like to speak to that point .  
D	mr. speaker , is that debatable ?  
D	mr. speaker , it is my understanding under the rule passed by the committee on rules that the minority is guaranteed a motion to recommit .  
D	mr. speaker , i demand a recorded vote .  
D	mr. speaker , i have a parliamentary inquiry .  
D	mr. speaker , having read the rule , it said that the minority was to be given a motion to recommit .  if that motion to recommit was ruled out of order , does the minority still have the right to offer another motion to recommit ?  
D	mr. speaker , i offer a motion to recommit .  
D	mr. speaker , i am opposed to the bill in its present form .  
D	the point of order is to my colleagues , if you think it is wrong to desecrate the flag , i would hope that you would think it is wrong to misspend money taken out of people 's wallets that we promised to spend on their social security and to protect that money in the constitution .  
D	mr. speaker , i appeal the ruling of the chair .  
D	mr. speaker , i demand a recorded vote .  
D	mr. speaker , in the interests of moving things along , i ask unanimous consent to engage the gentleman from wisconsin ( mr. sensenbrenner )  in about a 3-minute colloquy .  
D	mr. speaker , how much time remains ?  
D	mr. speaker , i object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present .  
R	mr. speaker , on rollcall no .  293 , i was unavoidably detained .  had i been present , i would have voted `` nay . '' 
R	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time .  mr. speaker , the resolution before us represents a promise , a promise by the house of representatives to the american people that not only are we aware of the hindrances to prosperity now existing in the national economy but that we are committed to removing them as soon as possible .  we are aware that compliance with federal regulation costs american companies $ 850 billion a year .  we are aware those costs are passed along from american businesses to american consumers in higher prices to the tune of $ 8 , 000 per family per year .  we are aware that exports account for one-sixth of our economic growth , and that one in five american factory jobs and one in three american crop acres depend on customers in foreign markets and that many markets are still closed to our goods .  we are aware that 1 million american jobs rely on research and development conducted by private businesses and through our world-class university system .  we are aware that 60 percent of american businesses are impeded in their growth by the lack of advanced training in the workplace .  we are also aware that health care is too expensive , coverage too limited , and that small businesses are at a disadvantage in covering their employees .  we are aware that our tax system is unfair and inefficient , and that it costs families and businesses billions of dollars and hours every year .  we are aware that our economy is dangerously dependent on foreign sources of oil , and that it is overrun with frivolous lawsuits that abuse our legal system .  and , starting this week , mr. speaker , the house is going to do something about it .  we are going to take up major legislation addressing these eight sources of economic friction and tear down these eight walls now surrounding the american dream .  the debate about these eight issues : trade freedom and fairness ; bureaucratic red tape ; innovation and investment ; health care security ; lifelong learning ; tax relief and simplification ; lawsuit abuse reform ; and energy independence are over .  we all know these impediments to prosperity need reform , and we know what we have to do to reform them .  with this resolution , mr. speaker , the house will take a first step toward enacting these needed economic reforms to help small businesses create not just jobs but long-term , rewarding careers for the american people .  
D	mr. speaker , the issue of competition is one that is lived out and dealt with daily in my congressional district , silicon valley .  as this resolution states , high-tech industries drive economic growth around the world .  every day my constituents tell me that the united states is falling behind our competitors in europe and asia .  this resolution identifies some of the challenges for u.s. competitiveness .  but this is not enough .  the resolution is not binding .  it does not set into motion any legislative action to address the key issues relative to competition .  one of the top issues in silicon valley today is stock options .  broad-based employee stock options plans drive innovation and competitiveness .  the house overwhelmingly passed legislation i authored with rep .  baker to protect employee stock options almost a year ago , but the administration has refused to lift a finger to get this bill through the senate and to the president 's desk .  for many , many years the high-tech industry has begged congress to make the r & amp ; d tax credit permanent .  it has n't happened .  what has happened is a decline in investment and a diminishment of innovation .  the president has said that the u.s. should have universal broadband access by 2007 .  we 've yet to see the administration 's plan for achieving this .  today the united states has fallen to 16th in broadband penetration , down from 4th in 2001 .  this resolution correctly points to education as a critical issue of competitiveness , but once again this administration and the congressional majority have underfunded critical education programs .  no child left behind is funded $ 39 billion below its promised level .  pell grants will be eliminated for 90 , 000 college students , and an additional 1.3 million students will have their scholarships reduced this year .  these figures do not meet the standards of a great nation serious about her technological and competitive future .  the resolution states that energy is a major problem , yet the department of energy 's independent analysts have said that the provisions in the house energy bill will have a `` negligible '' impact on prices , production , consumption , and imports of energy .  the administration continues to underfund critical federal research programs , flat-funding civilian research and development and reducing total federal research by $ 400 million .  this underfunds our collective future .  what is missing in the congress is the commitment to reshape the critical policies which will renew our nation 's competitiveness in the 21st century .  
D	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman from new york for his leadership in defense of our economy , workers ' rights , and our desire to build on an american economy that can provide opportunity for all .  mr. speaker , if the congress were to take up legislation for the purpose of removing barriers to the competitiveness of the u.s. economy , i do not believe , respectfully , it would read like h. res. 352 .  but , it might read something like this : whereas , u.s. trade with foreign countries is so imbalanced that the u.s. has a trade deficit with every continent in the world except australia and with nearly every country in the world ; whereas , before nafta , the u.s. exported about an equivalent amount to mexico as it imported to mexico .  but , after nafta , imports from mexico increased 195 percent , more than double the increase in exports .  nafta caused a balanced trade scenario with mexico to become unbalanced , to the disadvantage of the u.s. ; whereas , exports create jobs ; imports destroy jobs .  and when imports outpace exports , more jobs are destroyed than created .  so while increased exports after nafta may have created almost 800 , 000 jobs , according to the economic policy institute in 2003 , increased imports due to nafta destroyed almost 1.7 million jobs .  every state in the nation lost jobs due to nafta ; whereas , congress will soon be compounding the damage with consideration of cafta , which is modeled on nafta ; whereas , china 's seemingly endless supply of dollars to acquire ibm , maytag , and now unocal is supplied by america 's huge trade deficit with china .  in fact , since congress agreed to admit china to the wto , granting it permanent most favored nation status , the u.s. trade deficit with china grew by 50 percent in only 2 years .  now , if congress was to take up legislation for the purpose of removing barriers to the competitiveness of the u.s. economy , it might read like this : whereas , america needs a new trade policy based on the principle that what the u.s. buys from a country should roughly match what it sells to that country ; whereas , the cost of private , for-profit health care is a serious impediment to competitiveness ; whereas , the u.s. paid $ 5 , 270 per capita for health care in 2002 , and two countries with the closest level of spending were germany at $ 2 , 820 and canada $ 2 , 930 , both of which provided universal health care ; whereas , the ceos of ford motor company of canada , gm canada , daimlerchrysler canada wrote in a 2002 letter that `` publicly-funded health care thus accounts for a significant portion of canada 's overall labor cost advantage in auto assembly versus the u.s. which in turn has been a significant factor in maintaining and attracting new auto investment to canada. '' the resolution that we need to hear would say : whereas , h.r. 676 , the u.s. national health insurance act , which has 50 cosponsors , would provide less expensive , high-quality , single-payer health care systems like many u.s. competitors ; whereas , the current course of u.s. economic and health policy is unsustainable , and a day of reckoning could involve the bursting of the housing price bubble , rise of interest rates , budget austerity and the shredding of the social safety net , mass unemployment , and a loss of economic sovereignty .  therefore , be it resolved , congress has once again lost the opportunity to change the course , correct the trade imbalance , lift up living standards in the u.s. and the world , and set the country on a more sustainable economic course .  the coming readjustment will be painful indeed while this administration and congress drive the u.s. economy over a cliff .  vote `` no '' on h. res. 352 .  
D	mr. speaker , when i looked at today 's floor schedule , i was pleasantly surprised to see an item addressing the issue of declining united states competitiveness in the world .  the fact is the issue of competitiveness has not been a priority for republican leaders in this congress or in any preceding one in the last 10 years , and i thought perhaps finally the republicans had woken up .  unfortunately , i was very disappointed when i read the text of the proposal because this plan is nonbinding ; it has really nothing that will make the united states more competitive .  that is what i have come to expect in this congress , this republican-led congress : more talk and no action .  and once again this resolution has failed to propose specific policies that would actually boost technological innovation or our commitment to education .  as many know , i represent silicon valley , along with the gentlewoman from california ( ms. eshoo )  and the gentleman from california ( mr. honda )  , the most creative and innovative place on earth ; and if i were to bring your resolution back to the leaders of the silicon valley , the engineers , the techies , ph.d.s , venture capitalists , educators , ceos , i think i would be laughed all the way back to d.c .  i suspect that you did not consult with any of the people in the tech industry because , if you did , we would have had something with a little meat on it that meant something .  we need a sustained commitment to federal funding of r & amp ; d .  the 2006 budget proposed by president bush continues to cut r & amp ; d .  it underfunds the national science foundation by billions of dollars ; and the fact is if we do not count weapons research , this administration has sharply reduced federally funded scientific research , and this nonbinding resolution will not do a darn thing to change it .  we need to dramatically improve our math and science education in our country .  we know that we are falling short , and meanwhile we are continuing to fail in our funding promises to no child left behind .  we need to reform our immigration policies so that the best and brightest students can come and study in the united states and not be poached by universities who are benefiting in australia and england and elsewhere through our short-sighted and bureaucratic policies ; and we need a sustained commitment to science research and education .  we can not afford to sit back and pass nonbinding resolutions that do nothing .  we could at least enact the gentlewoman from california 's ( ms. eshoo )  bill for stock options .  with an exploding deficit , reduced support for education of americans , a door shutting on nobel-level scientists from abroad , no energy policy that will lead to energy independence , this proposal is worse than nothing because the right wing will not take action on competitiveness and will probably say they did something if this stupid and meaningless resolution is permitted to pass .  republicans are like the guy in court who killed his parents and now pleads for mercy as an orphan .  they have controlled the house of representatives for 10 years .  their policies for the last 10 years have shorted education .  they have shorted science .  they have eliminated protection for tech innovation .  these words do not change those failed policies , and i hope that we turn down this resolution and tell the truth that our policies are threatening the competitiveness of our united states , and this mere meaningless resolution will do nothing , nothing , to solve that .  
D	mr. speaker , i voted for h. res. 352 because i agree that there are barriers to keeping and creating jobs within the united states and that federal agencies ought to review their rules and policies to improve the competitiveness of our economy .  but i do not associate myself with the sense of the `` whereas '' clauses that america must adopt foreign values and standards in order to compete economically .  i also note that the `` whereas '' clauses include partisan distortions and falsehoods that are an ill-considered disservice to the cause of american competitiveness .  
R	mr. speaker , in america , the road to opportunity is a fast-moving highway .  any american with creativity and simply a desire to work hard can achieve their dreams .  anyone can succeed .  anyone can start a business .  our road to opportunity has been an open road .  but unfortunately , our government , sometimes with very noble intentions , is putting up red lights , stoplights and dead ends on the road to opportunity .  the heavy burden of needless governmental regulation is slowing down hard-driving americans , americans whose diligence and hard work is needed to secure our nation 's economic future .  let us consider a few numbers for a moment .  the regulatory burden on united states businesses is more than $ 850 billion each and every year .  the small business administration says that complying with all of the government 's rules and regulations costs small businesses a staggering $ 7 , 000 per employee .  american taxpayers spend an estimated $ 250 billion a year every year just trying to comply with the american federal income tax code .  this crippling over-regulation can destroy the entrepreneurial spirit .  it is a hidden tax on our businesses and on our citizens .  simply put , the cost of doing business in america is quickly rising .  and make no mistake , our foreign competitors are capitalizing on it .  our trade deficit is now an unbelievable $ 670 billion and growing .  it is time for america to reopen the road to opportunity , and it is imperative that this congress and this nation enact a competitiveness agenda .  it is unacceptable that the cost of frivolous litigation now exceeds $ 230 billion a year .  that interpolates to $ 2 , 000 for every american household .  our citizens , business owners and entrepreneurs face enough hurdles as it is .  our government does not need to raise new ones .  we need to focus on eliminating some of the ones we have .  we must and will make america more competitive in the global marketplace .  i know by working together we can do the right thing for the american people , for american business and for america 's future .  let us remove the red lights , remove the stop signs and the dead ends and reopen the road to opportunity .  i urge my colleagues to support this resolution .  
D	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman very much for yielding me this time .  and i must say that never have i seen a resolution that demonstrates so completely the lack of understanding by the other side of what is necessary to maintain and improve america 's competitiveness in the world economy .  they go through all of their whereases , but when they get to the therefores , this resolution does nothing , does nothing .  they ignore what those people who are on the cutting edge of trying to improve america 's competitiveness , those companies that are on the cutting edge of competing in a world economy , their recommendations , one of the first of which is to fully fund no child left behind .  they are $ 40 billion behind the curve .  but that is what the american electronics association says should be done first and foremost in education .  improve math and science teaching , you do nothing to improve math and science teaching .  they go on to say support research and development .  the permanent , the permanent r & amp ; d tax credit , not the year-to-year funding that you provide , but the permanent , so companies can count on this , can make their economic decisions , can make their financial decisions .  improve the business climate , the stock options , which your side failed to provide for .  stop having the raids on the patent and trademark offices of the united states government to fund the general fund .  the fact of the matter is that this provides nothing , provides nothing that the industries that are on the cutting edge identify as their most important objectives , their most important priorities , and that is to provide for a dramatic and sustained improved investment in education ; a dramatic and sustained improvement in the r & amp ; d of this country , nondefense related , basic r & amp ; d on a permanent basis , something you have not done in 6 years .  and also they recommend , after doubling the national science foundation , a sustained effort at doubling the national science foundation .  you thought it was a one-time target , and now you are cutting .  you thought sequencing the human genome was a one-time event .  that is the beginning , not the end of the story .  that is the beginning , is the doubling of the national science foundation , then maintaining it .  what we are talking about and what the companies have constantly recommended to us is a sustained effort and investment in education , in innovation , in health care .  universal access to health care , universal access to affordable health care , something not discussed in this resolution , something not done in the 6 years .  more people are without health care now than in the 5 years that this administration has been in office .  this resolution so completely misses the mark that we wonder why we would spend an hour of our time on the floor dealing with this when there are such important items .  the problem is that the other side of the aisle already voted for a budget that does not make the r & amp ; d tax credit permanent , voted for a budget that cuts higher education , voted for a budget that cuts elementary secondary education .  a budget that does not even get close to funding no child left behind , as , again , the companies who are out there competing , not the political rhetoric on the floor , but what they have made after years of discussion .  it does not even get close to an immigration policy that allows our universities to continue to attract the highly skilled students that we were before 9/11 .  that is not working .  those young people now are going to india .  they are going to china .  they are going to france .  they are going to germany .  the are going to england , and they are not coming to the united states because this administration failed to take that action .  finally , the protection of our intellectual properties .  the protection of our intellectual properties is so terribly important .  we continue to see them hijacked on a daily basis from the automotive industry , to the film industry , to the music industry , to the computer industry , and the effort has not yet been made .  that is the report on what has happened over the last 4 or 5 years in this country .  that is the report of what this republican-led congress has done .  and what does the republican-led congress do ?  they give us a resolution with a lot of `` whereases , '' a lot of `` whereases. '' no action , just `` whereases . '' 
D	mr. speaker , i yield myself 5 minutes .  mr. speaker , none of us could be against removing barriers .  however , the definition of barriers allows room for a lot of disagreement .  it is very interesting that the thrust of this resolution is that regulations in the united states are barriers to competitiveness , and yet our economy is linked to a nation which has the maximum number of barriers in terms of regulatory procedures , the economy of china .  china is still a communist government .  china is still an economy ruled by a communist government , which means they can set up regulations as they see fit and change the rules as they see fit , and yet we are linking our economic fate to china .  our industries have moved on a wholesale basis to china .  obviously , regulation is not ruining the situation in the chinese economy , and our propensity for dealing with this communist/capitalist country , this mongrel , whatever economy we want to call it , our greedy manufacturing industry has gone there .  retail and wholesale industries are bringing back the consumer goods .  we just love china .  wall street loves china , and china is a very tightly regulated economy .  the greatest barrier one can imagine is there , and yet they thrive .  i want to run through a few of the whereases in this very interesting resolution which covers a lot of territory .  one can not disagree with some of the whereases : whereas our technology is driving economic growth around the world , as shown by the fact that the global market for high-technology goods is growing at a faster rate than the rate for other manufactured goods .  i agree with that whereas .  whereas more than 1 million american jobs are dependent upon research and development ; whereas the cost of medical care in the united states regularly outpaces general inflation .  how can i disagree with that ?  that is a fact .  whereas 90 percent of americans who are under age 65 and covered by health insurance currently obtain that insurance through employers .  maybe that is a barrier we want to remove by having a national health care plan which takes some of the burden off employers .  i would be in favor of that , certainly .  whereas 85 percent of the jobs are classified as skilled jobs , and in 1950 , only 20 percent were so classified .  that is a fact .  whereas 80 percent of the 50 fastest-growing occupations require education beyond high school .  let us pause there .  is that fact going to lead to a recommendation that we expend more money to improve our education system , that we catch up with some of the nations in the world ?  do members know that the richest nation in europe now is ireland ?  ireland .  ireland is the richest nation in europe .  in terms of per capita income , ireland has the highest per capita income .  why , because the irish decided a couple of decades ago to invest wholeheartedly into a state-of-the-art public school system .  now they have moved beyond that , and they are providing free higher education .  so an irish youngster can develop in the free system right up to the end of his higher education .  so that is a barrier that we would like to remove .  so we agree that this is significant , that 80 percent of the 50 fastest-growing occupations require higher education beyond high school , and yet we are shortchanging our education .  no child left behind has been shortchanged by $ 20-some billion over the last few years .  whereas , despite spending $ 60 billion per year on training , 60 percent of the united states companies are prevented from upgrading technologically by the low education and technical skills level of their workforce .  that is a fact .  we can agree with that .  our public school system ought to be doing a better job .  whereas , in 2002 , trial lawyers received approximately $ 40 billion from litigation , more than the annual revenues of microsoft and intel , and twice the revenue of coca-cola .  what does that have to do with anything ?  why did they take a swipe at the trial lawyers in the midst of the whereases ?  the money received by the trial lawyers was money used to defend ordinary americans .  how about the corporate lawyers ?  you do not have a whereas about the corporate lawyers , or a whereas about the tremendous amount of corruption in corporate america that the republican party refuses to even hold hearings about .  enron , worldcom , a whole series of criminal activities that have been unveiled by the attorney general of new york state , nobody wants to deal with that corruption .  that is a barrier to our success and our competitiveness .  i hope that you will address some of these whereases that i have just mentioned in terms of some answers as to why we do not pursue the obvious , commonsense solutions .  
D	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  i certainly look forward to working with the gentleman also .  mr. speaker , in closing , i would like to just cite a few examples of how republican policies have shortchanged the initiatives which they talked about today .  instead of having an aggressive policy on math and science education , the bush administration has underinvested in proven math and science instruction .  today , china graduates four times as many engineers as the united states .  and south korea , which has one-sixth of the population of the united states , graduates the same number of engineers as the united states .  instead of keeping the republican promise on education , president bush has already underfunded no child left behind , his own legislation , his own innovation , he has underfunded by more than $ 40 billion .  instead of investing in research and development to keep the u.s. on the cutting edge of technological advancement , republicans have cut $ 877 million in federal science and technology funding .  instead of having a national broadband policy , the bush administration has allowed access to broadband to lag .  instead of passing the 21st century bill to increase energy independence through advances in cutting-edge technology , the republicans have failed to enact any energy bill at all .  this resolution before us is a mulligan stew that has been allowed to spoil ; it is a spoiled mulligan stew .  it is not serious .  we have 40 minutes to discuss items which would require really 40 days .  if we were serious , we would have a long discussion of these items before we move on and prepare some real legislation to deal with the shortcomings .  
D	mr. speaker , on that i demand the yeas and nays .  
D	mr. speaker , there is really nothing terribly , terribly wrong with this resolution .  talking about a need to invest in greater innovation , research and education , certainly makes sense .  the vexing thing for me is this republican congress and white house has systematically unfunded almost all of those items .  we heard the numbers from my colleagues , and i will not go back over them , except to remind folks of the recent debate we had over the appropriations bills .  repeatedly , throughout the debate , as democrats talked about spending more money on a variety of different items , the republican appropriators said , you know , this is the money we have , this is the best we can do with what we have .  well , let us look at the decisions that left us in the position where `` this is what we have. '' one of the consequences of those decisions is we do not have enough money to fund the research , education and innovation that is necessary .  all of the items that are ticked off , the national science foundation , the national institutes of health , no child left behind , we all know what they are .  we know how important in the global economy innovation , research , education and skills training is .  yet the programs that fund those vital needs , vital needs particularly for blue-collar , middle-class and lower-class workers , are consistently cut , reduced , not funded like they should be because of the budget decisions of this congress .  part of it certainly is the tax cut .  that has been the decision of this congress ; supply-side tax cuts for people making a lot of money at the expense of all of these programs we are talking about today .  it is incredibly vexing to hear the republican majority stand up and talk about how much they care about these programs .  at a minimum , i wish they would make a choice , they would say : supply-side tax cuts for people making a lot of money , that is what we support ; that is what we are going to do .  that being done , we can not afford to do these other things , and that is okay .  but to stand up today and say that you care about them when you have created a budget environment where they can not be funded is disingenuous , to say the least .  if these are priorities , then let us change the budget .  and it is not just tax cuts .  we can look at the spending decisions of the last 6 years that have seen massive increases in overall federal spending while , at the same time , underfunding these critical items .  the budget priorities of the republican congress are responsible , and an empty `` sense of congress '' resolution is not going to fix that .  
R	mr. speaker , the united states has the number one economy in the world .  for almost two centuries , we have been the envy of the world : a dynamic economy ; a hardworking , motivated workforce ; truly the land of opportunity where innovation has thrived .  the status is changing , though .  we are running a $ 670 billion annual trade deficit which is contributing to our federal budget deficit and slowed economy over the past few years .  this development is not a temporary blip on the radar screen .  it is the culmination of a generation of increased regulation , unsound tax policies , languishing emphasis on math and science education , unchecked health care costs , rampant lawsuit abuse , unfocused research and development funds and a weak trade policy enforcement .  in short , our government has made it difficult and undesirable to do business in the united states .  we have put roadblocks to keeping and creating jobs in america , and we have done this to ourselves .  if these current trends continue , our economy will continue to lag and we will no longer remain the most dynamic economy in the world .  meanwhile , china , india and other nations are preparing for the future .  they are educating their students in math , science and technology , and pumping out record numbers of engineers .  they are reducing tax rates and other economic barriers to entice investments in their nations .  they are pursuing aggressive trade policies to reduce america 's dominance in world trade .  without attention to these matters , the united states is headed towards a third-rate economy ; 5 , 10 , 20 years down the road , we will no longer be the world 's leader or even second place .  we will become a third-rate economy .  that is why we need to take this issue seriously .  last year , we began the competitiveness legislative agenda on the floor , and over a period of 8 weeks , we discussed and voted on issues related to keeping and creating keeping jobs in america .  later this summer , the jobs action team will again bring legislation to the floor to combat this problem .  we need to take a longer-term vision .  for this reason , i am initiating the house economic competitiveness caucus .  the caucus will carefully examine the issues facing our ability to compete economically over the coming years .  we will work to focus congressional efforts to removing the barriers to american economic competitiveness and develop economic goals for the future and find paths to get there .  i encourage my colleagues to join me in finding ways to guarantee a vibrant , internationally competitive american economy now , 5 , 10 , 15 and 20 years down the road .  our goal is to ensure high-quality and high-paying jobs for all americans today and in the future .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman from louisiana for yielding me this time .  i welcome the comments from the gentleman from california ( mr. george miller )  .  he talks about a lot of issues that are more important to making america more competitive .  we may disagree on the track , but i think it is important that we do move forward with an r & amp ; d tax credit that is permanent .  i think it is important that we do move forward to protect intellectual property rights .  but he does make an additional point , and that it is always easy to be against something instead of for something .  if we are going to make progress , we need to work together ; so i would welcome him to join the economic competitive caucus because i think together we could find ways to fund technology grants and technology schools .  and i would like to point out that we have doubled the funding for the national science foundation , and we continue the strong funding of that .  the gentleman from new york ( mr. owens )  also mentioned a couple of things that i think are important to be addressed in this debate .  one is the effect that china is having on our economy , and i think the point was made by the gentleman from new york that regulation is not holding them back .  but let me tell the members what is happening in china .  they have focused on technology .  they graduated 350 , 000 engineers last year .  they graduated more english-speaking electrical engineers than america did , and they have done that because they want to target certain areas .  in kansas they have targeted several industries : the hand truck industry , the auto lift industry .  they are trying to run american businesses out of business so that they can have a corner on the market , and that is why we need to have enforceable trade policy , which is part of this resolution .  the gentleman from california ( mr. george miller )  addressed education .  that is why education and lifelong learning is part of this resolution .  but let me just tell the members what china is doing that i think is important to the debate and why i think they should understand why we need to address these issues today instead of putting them off .  the regulation barriers that we have are keeping us from doing wonderful things that could help create and start jobs .  in china they are trying to create a silicon valley .  they have set up a top-notch university .  they have given venture capital to the area .  they have office space available .  they have property management for anybody who has a good idea .  they have legal advice , patent advice .  they even allow professors and students to start businesses on their own .  the way to address that is by changing our system and removing the barriers .  the gentleman from new york ( mr. owens ) mentions the trial lawyers , the $ 40 billion that came out of our economy for trial lawyers .  just think , if we apply some commonsense reforms , we can make jobs in america .  one example is in 1995 when the statute of repose was passed , which put commonsense limits on the manufacture of airplanes , and the following year 4 , 000 jobs were created in kansas alone , plus additional jobs all across the united states .  all we are saying in this resolution is let us step back from what we are doing today and say if we were going to start this system tomorrow , would we do the same thing ?  will it impact jobs ?  can we work together to create and keep jobs in america instead of seeing them slide off to other countries ?  so i think this is a good resolution , and i would welcome the suggestions from the other side , and i think together we can help bring jobs back to america .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman from louisiana for yielding me this time .  the gentleman from washington ( mr. smith )  did talk about some issues that i think are very important , especially when he talked about education .  i think education is very important for the future of this economy .  if we look at education spending over the last 5 years , we have had dramatic increases in education , as far as the spending is concerned .  what we need to do now is focus on math , science , engineering and technology .  we know this is the direction the future economy is going .  the world is getting more technically complex , not less technically complex .  yet we have fewer people going into engineering .  we have fewer young women going into science .  we have fewer people going into the technologies , the maths and the sciences .  it should be concerning to us , and we need to take steps today .  i would welcome their support as to how we do that .  national science foundation money , the nsf has come up several times here .  we increased the nsf again this year , again .  over $ 5.6 billion will go into nsf this fiscal year and we have plans to increase that funding in the future , too .  innovative research is very important .  we need help from the other side of the aisle to get research and development tax relief permanent , and i think we can do that .  i just want to mention the supply-side tax cut did stimulate the economy .  we have more people working today than ever before in the history of our nation .  the average wage is higher than it has ever been in the history of this nation .  we have more people owning their own homes today than ever before in the history of this nation , and we have done it because we cut taxes .  more money got into the economy , and jobs started increasing .  but does that mean we should be satisfied ?  no .  we have barriers that need to be removed so that we can increase the number of jobs and the number of opportunities in america in the future .  i think it is important that we work together .  i look forward to working with the gentleman from new york ( mr. owens )  on issues like we addressed with sarbanes-oxley , corporate corruption , we had hearings .  we had hearings ; we had legislation on the floor .  we made progress .  we passed sarbanes-oxley .  and now there are white collar criminals in jail today .  corporate corruption was addressed and needs to be addressed in the future .  but certainly we made some movement .  but i welcome them .  i know we can agree on creating more jobs .  i think it is important that we work together to do that .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman from louisiana ( mr. boustany )  for his leadership on the floor today and his help in these very important issues of making america more competitive tomorrow .  mr. speaker , you know , when i listened to the debate today , i find that there are areas both republicans and democrats can agree on .  and there are ways that we can work together to make a more solid economy in the future so that we can retain our number one status in the future instead of falling into a second or third-rate economy .  the danger is out there .  we heard talk from the gentleman from ohio ( mr. kucinich )  that it is all because of nafta .  that we have lost all jobs to nafta .  yet we have more jobs than ever before in the history of our nation .  we have heard that we do not spend enough money on r & amp ; d , that the tax credits are not permanent .  we need your help in making them permanent .  we need to make these tax credits permanent .  there are eight issues that we have confined the problems that we are facing tomorrow in , and these eight issues are health care , security , bureaucratic red tape termination , lifelong learning , energy self-sufficiency and security , spurring innovation , trade fairness and opportunity , tax relief and simplification , and ending lawsuit abuse .  today we are going to take a giant step forward in dealing with regulation .  the gentleman from georgia ( mr. norwood )  is going to lead the effort to reform osha .  and let me just tell you a little bit about why it is important that we take on these agencies and try to change the environment .  in the past we have had this adversarial relationship between the government and the private sector .  there are fines , there are citations , there are unnanounced intrusions into companies .  employers are unable to deal with this without high expenses , without high cost , without hiring individuals to take care and track what the increasing regulation burden is .  today we are going to start with osha , and we are going to deal with that today .  we are going to try to create an environment where we work together .  you know , we could work together .  in fact this happened in wichita , kansas , where osha targeted sedgwick county , and said we are going to go to the homebuilders and we are going to make it a safe place .  they stood off .  they took pictures .  they fined , they created citations , and the housing industry shut down .  we got the wichita builders association together with osha and we said , why do we not work together ?  why do you not come in on an announced basis , make a list of the violations , let the company have time to make the safe environment at the work area , and then come back and see how they are doing ?  well , they did that .  the housing industry went back to work .  and they created a safe work environment by working together , working together instead of against each other in an adversarial relationship .  that is what we are talking about in changing the environment in america so that we can create and keep jobs in the future , working together and not against each other .  now , this environment here on the floor of the house is an adversarial environment .  but yet we can work together .  that is what we are advocating here , the government working with private sector to make more jobs in the future .  
D	mr. speaker , i am not voting for this resolution , because i think it does not make a constructive contribution to the problems facing our country and the national economy .  the resolution says that trade restrictions and inequality are barriers to keeping and creating jobs in the united states -- but it does nothing about them , just as it does nothing to make it easier for americans looking for work to find good jobs .  the resolution says that bureaucratic red tape is a barrier to economic progress , but it does nothing to reduce that barrier or to require the bush administration to exercise leadership in reducing red tape .  the resolution says there is need for more innovation and investment , but it offers nothing substantive to promote innovation or to encourage more productive investment .  the resolution correctly says there is a need to overcome barriers to health care security , but it does nothing to help the millions of americans who lack health insurance or to make good health care more affordable .  the resolution says we need to promote lifelong learning , but is silent as to how to go about achieving that desirable result .  the resolution mentions taxes and the complexity of the tax laws , but provides no useful suggestions as to how to reduce that complexity or to promote tax fairness .  the resolution complains about `` lawsuit abuse '' and seems to support `` litigation management , '' but says nothing about the extent to which the courts can protect individual rights and the essential role of law in our society .  and while the resolution correctly says there is a need for greater energy self-sufficiency and security , it does nothing about it .  while that actually is an improvement over the energy-policy bill the house passed earlier this year , with its many wrong-headed provisions , it falls far short of what is needed .  in short , this resolution is not serious .  it deserves neither the time consumed in debating it nor approval by the house .  i will not vote for it .  
R	mr. speaker , i move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution ( h. res. 352 ) providing that the house of representatives will focus on removing barriers to competitiveness of the united states economy .  
R	mr. speaker , i ask unanimous consent that all members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h. res. 352 .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself 30 seconds .  mr. speaker , i would like to respond to the gentleman with regard to ireland .  surely they have improved their public education system .  and , furthermore , they have lowered their regulatory burden and cut taxes .  i think those two areas are largely responsible for their growing economy and the increased opportunity in ireland .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  first i want to respond to a few comments made by the opposition here .  there is a lot of talk about a nonbinding resolution , but this house today is going to take up four bills to reform osha that will help small businesses and their enterprises be more competitive and their employees be more competitive in the global economy .  health care , the gentleman from california ( mr. george miller )  brought up health care , and he very well knows that the committee on education and the workforce that he sits on as the ranking member is addressing health care .  we recognize that health care is a problem .  we recognize that the plight of the uninsured is a problem .  and yet i will say as a physician , as someone who has dealt with health care on a daily basis , universal government-run health care is not the answer .  we need to continue to address this problem and support solutions like association health plans , something that we have already taken up in committee and will be coming to the floor soon .  this will help get people who are uninsured back on to the rolls of being insured .  this will help small businesses provide insurance for those who lack insurance today .  we need to continue to expand health savings accounts .  these have already begun to help many americans , but we need to continue to work on this .  this is the future of health care .  this is how we are going to create a competitive health care environment that will bring down the cost and make it affordable for all americans .  and we need medical liability reform .  we need medical liability reform .  no question about it .  and this congress will address these issues .  so to say this is a nonbinding resolution , surely it makes a statement about some of the needs that we need to work on , but at the same time this congress is addressing all of those issues ; and we ask our colleagues across the aisle to join us to pass these bills so that we can help those americans in need and we can increase our competitiveness on the global market .  i support this resolution , and i want to thank the gentleman from texas ( mr. delay )  and the gentleman from kansas ( mr. tiahrt )  for their tireless work to remove barriers on u.s. companies , to ensure that america can be competitive in the global economy .  american businessmen and -women are second to none in resourcefulness , entrepreneurial spirit , business ingenuity ; and the government should foster , not stifle , these qualities .  i mentioned , as a member of the committee on education and the workforce , that we are going to work on osha reform and ahps .  these are commonsense good measures that will improve our competitiveness .  frivolous lawsuits , costly health insurance , an overly complicated tax code , skyrocketing energy costs , compliance with innumerable federal and state regulations result in small businesses spending more time just trying to comply with government and government laws and regulations than growing their businesses , creating jobs , and generating revenue .  yet because of the entrepreneurial spirit of these americans and many small businesses that we have out there , they do survive and even thrive despite all these adversities .  let me talk about my district in southwest louisiana for a moment , which has been known for its entrepreneurial spirit .  today , it is a spirit that continues to grow our agricultural influence , despite many adversities , and build small businesses that are grabbing the eye of the global market .  we have a port , the 11th largest port in the country , the port of lake charles .  once known as a regional provider , it has grown into an economic engine for our state and our nation .  and as it continues to increase in size , it is moving larger numbers of products into the united states and out into the world .  our economic developers are finding ways to attract businesses that have never before known the advantages of doing business in louisiana .  let me give an example .  lafayette economic development authority is a prime example of showcasing the educational and technological benefits of louisiana 's seventh congressional district to attract companies to our area .  gregg gothreaux heads up this organization and has strived to capitalize on an outstanding workforce to make lafayette a competitive force in the business world .  in fact , in the year 2004 , inc .  magazine named lafayette , louisiana , one of the best places to do business .  and 3 months ago , entrepreneur magazine named lafayette one of the top technology centers in the south , based on its appeal and ability to attract high-tech companies .  another great example from my district is a small business with 15 employees headed up by rick broussard , and he has been able to attract the united states marine corps with a service by building these drone airplanes .  and he is hoping to build his business , employing hopefully in the near future 100 employees , so that he can improve his competitiveness and raise his revenue and contribute to the competitiveness of our country and our defense initiatives .  he is not an isolated example .  there are many examples in louisiana and around this country that are competing , despite the regulatory burden , the tax burden and other added costs of doing business .  mr. speaker , it is our job , it is our job as elected officials to ensure that our businesses have the necessary tools to compete in this global economy , and this congress will address these issues .  mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself 30 seconds to respond .  i would remind the gentleman that these tax cuts have led to an economic growth of 3.8 percent and significant job growth , so i would remind him that these are pro-economic growth policies .  
D	mr. speaker , i regret that i missed two votes on july 21 , 2005 .  had i been present i would have voted `` no '' on rollcalls 401 and 402 .  
D	mr. chairman , i rise today to oppose h.r. 3199 .  as the gentleman just mentioned , i was a member of the committee on the judiciary on september 11 , 2001 .  and in the weeks that followed , i joined my colleagues in committee to carefully craft a bill to give law enforcement personnel additional and powerful tools to fight terror .  but as many of you recall , the work product of our committee was rejected at the eleventh hour in favor of a far more expansive act which has continued to raise concerns among those who cherish our constitutional liberties .  through the patriot act and other anti-terrorism measures , we have become a country that permits secret surveillance , secret searches , denial of court review , monitoring of conversations between citizens and their attorneys , and searching of library and medical records of citizens .  this does not sound like america to me .  mr. chairman , reauthorization of this act is an opportunity ; it is an opportunity to restore the checks and balances that must exist in a free society .  i urge my colleagues to vote `` no '' to allow us that chance .  
D	i think underlying the gentleman from michigan 's question , is this not about the difference between the fbi and law enforcement using a national security letter to ask a bank to give it the financial records of all of its customers versus asking the bank to give it the financial records of the specific individuals it suspects might be involved or that it is interested in ?  i think that is at the heart of the question of the standard .  that is why relevance to a terrorist investigation is not an adequate standard .  you want the focus on something specific , rather than all of the bank 's records of everybody who uses that bank .  you want the people who might have had contact with the terrorist or suspected terrorist .  
D	the bank is , not the customers of the bank .  
D	mr. chairman , i demand a recorded vote .  
D	mr. chairman , the patriot act was enacted in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks , rushed through the house as a suspension bill the day after it was introduced .  this process did n't permit the public , let alone congress , to fully understand it .  the original bill was rewritten in the rules committee instead of the bipartisan bill that was unanimously passed out of the judiciary committee .  luckily , there were a few sunset provisions that were intended to help keep people honest and evaluate the impacts on the public .  we have now been fighting the war on terror longer than world war ii with no end in sight .  the policy decisions we make affect the lives of everyday americans .  it is important to keep these policies narrowly focused on items that are necessary for dealing with terrorism and today 's modern communication developments while not encroaching on american 's fundamental rights .  this version is a missed opportunity to narrow the provisions and time limit their applications .  the good news is the public is becoming more aware and involved .  thirteen municipalities in oregon , including portland , have already passed resolutions expressing their opposition to the patriot act .  it seems that the majority of congress has at least some reservations about this bill .  there were more `` no '' votes than four years ago and a bipartisan effort to provide more checks and balances is growing .  the senate version will be better , making it likely that the fiscal legislation will be an improvement over the existing law .  i will continue working to give voice to the concerns and the experiences of oregonians , as together we fight against terrorism and protect the rights of each american .  
D	madam speaker , with the patriot act set to expire at the end of the year , congress has once again missed an opportunity to narrow and tighten the legislation.i opposed the original patriot act , as it was rushed into law in the wake of 9/11 , and i strongly oppose the current conference report .  the conference report tries to appease both sides of the debate by extending sunsets on the two most controversial provisions , library records and `` roving '' wiretaps , while making 14 of the existing 16 provisions permanent thus limiting congress ' ability to exercise checks and balances .  this is a step backwards .  but for the existing sunset provisions , we would not have been exercising our oversight function for this sensitive area .  it puts the administration on too long of a leash and does not force congress to review and modify the act as needed .  we can keep america safe without compromising our civil liberties .  
R	madam speaker , i thank the chairman for yielding and for the incredible hard work he has done to bring this bill to the floor , both to help create this legislation 4 years ago , to review it time after time after time for the last 4 years and to extend it into the future with the safeguards that have been discussed here on the floor today .  in terms of the review process , i think the attorney general today in some information he put out suggested that there were at least 23 separate hearings last year of oversight , this is last year alone , of oversight on this act ; witness after witness after witness called to testify about what was happening with the act .  this oversight work that the chairman has been largely responsible for has made a difference in the way the law was implemented , has made a difference in the way we offer it to be extended today and has made a difference , frankly , in the safety and security of america .  there is nothing in this law , nothing in the law the last 4 years , nothing in the law as we look to the future that was not available to law enforcement for organized crime .  what crime could be more organized than terrorism ?  no one has come up with a single instance where someone 's rights were impacted by the patriot act , because of the patriot act .  there is no evidence that there are problems , and we all could easily be aware of a number of instances , where there is no concern about the fact that the patriot act made a difference in the safety and security of america .  another thing that the chairman worked hard to put in this act is some legislation that i originally introduced that deals with the problem of methamphetamine , and methamphetamine does become a security issue .  it particularly becomes a bigger issue as our borders become more secure .  people turn to this drug as the drug for funding of illicit activities , as the drug of choice when imported drugs are not available .  that is an important addition to the bill today .  but the patriot act with two provisions that need to be reviewed in 4 years , the patriot act with a judiciary committee and an oversight responsibility that will continue to be , as it has been , extensive in ensuring that the executive branch does what the patriot act intends it to do with the maximum protection for individual freedom and the maximum protection for the security of our nation .  we do n't want to face 9/11 again , and we certainly do n't want to face a 9/11 that could have been prevented .  if the law enforcement techniques and tools that are available for organized crime continue to be available for terrorism , this allows that to happen .  i come to praise the chairman and his committee and to seek a `` yes '' vote on this bill today .  
D	i am , mr. speaker .  
D	mr. speaker , i rise this evening to ask that the house retain its oversight authority by inserting 4-year sunsets into h.r. 3199 .  in the past year , we have asked the department of justice how it is using the authority granted to it under the patriot act .  some of our questions simply went unanswered .  other questions were rebuffed , and we were told that the information was classified .  and still others were avoided by telling us that the information simply was not available .  however , all of that changed in april of this year when the justice department realized that a straight reauthorization of the patriot act would not happen without serious answers to our reasonable questions .  suddenly , numbers and examples were no longer unavailable .  suddenly , the information we had long been seeking was provided .  i have no doubt that if 16 provisions of the law were not scheduled to sunset at the end of this year , we would still have little information about how these authorities have been used .  members of the majority have stressed today that the committee on the judiciary has held 12 patriot act hearings in recent months .  that extensive inquiry would not have occurred had the sunsets in the law not been in place .  for these reasons , we should reinstate the sunsets for an additional 4 years .  all 16 of the sunsets that were contained in the original law would be reinserted through this motion to recommit .  the fbi will still have all the powers that the bill gives it .  it will simply have to come back 4 years from now and answer our legitimate questions about how those powers have been used .  reinstating the sunsets is about accountability .  our colleagues across the aisle will say that no abuses have occurred by the powers granted to the government under the patriot act .  that point i think is open to debate .  i think most would agree that the breadth of many of these provisions creates , at a minimum , the potential for abuse and we , therefore , have an obligation to conduct rigorous oversight to ensure that civil liberties are protected .  inserting the sunset provisions into the law once again will be the way to ensure that we can conduct that vigorous oversight .  i urge approval for this motion , which will simply assure that we remain in that strong position .  
D	mr. speaker , on that i demand the yeas and nays .  
D	madam speaker , i yield myself 4 minutes .  madam speaker , i rise today in support of the boucher-rohrabacher-mack motion to instruct the conferees to recede to the senate with respect to sunsetting in 4 years the libraries and book stores , roving wire taps and loan wolf provisions of the usa patriot act .  the most effective way for congress to maintain oversight of the most controversial powers that the patriot act conveys is to sunset those provisions within a reasonable period of time .  in past years , well before the december 2005 sunsets contained in the original patriot act , we asked the department of justice how it was using the authorities that had been granted to the department by the original act .  some questions simply went unanswered .  other questions were rebuffed , and we were told that the information was classified .  and still others were avoided by telling us that the information simply was not available .  all of that changed in april of this year when the department of justice realized that straight reauthorization of the patriot act would not happen without serious answers to our reasonable questions .  suddenly , numbers and examples were no longer unavailable .  suddenly , the information we had long been seeking was provided .  i have no doubt that if 16 provisions of the original act were not scheduled to sunset at the end of this year , we would still have little information on how these new authorities were being used .  if we have learned one thing over the last 4 years , it is that we will not get answers to our questions unless the justice department is compelled to come before us and justify its use of the more dangerous and intrusive powers that the law confers .  remember , sunsets do not in any way hinder law enforcement 's use of the powers the patriot act confers .  they merely ensure accountability and oversight , which are particularly important with respect to the three controversial provisions that are at issue today .  section 215 of the law puts personal records , including library , bookstore and medical records , up for grabs by law enforcement with no requirement that the person whose records are sought be suspected of involvement in a crime .  all law enforcement has to say is that the information is relevant to an investigation .  it could be an investigation of someone the person has never met and about whom the person has no knowledge .  moreover , an organization may not tell someone they have turned over his private information .  so people have no way of knowing when their privacy has been intruded upon .  earlier this year , the house , by a wide margin , voted to bar enforcement of this overly broad provision .  but the house bill reauthorizing the act with some changes perpetuates it for 10 years , and i think that that is inappropriate .  the senate bill sunsets this provision in 4 years .  our motion to instruct directs conferees to adopt the 4-year sunset provision .  section 206 , john doe roving wiretaps , allows law enforcement to obtain a single court order to tap any phone it believes a foreign agent would use , instead of getting separate orders for each phone .  moreover , the government is not required to name the target which allows wiretaps on phones of virtually anyone meeting the description of a john doe .  the combination of allowing blanket tapping of , for example , all of the pay phones in a target 's neighborhood or the phones of all of his friends and relatives , combined with the ability to wiretap a vaguely described john doe , means that roving john doe wiretaps require so little specificity that they can easily be abused .  sunsetting this provision in 4 years will allow congress to revisit how this authority is being used and whether it continues to be necessary .  reinstating is about accountability .  this motion to instruct would simply assure that we have the authority to carry it out .  madam speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	madam speaker , i yield myself 30 seconds .  for basis of clarification , the motion to instruct that we have put forward applies to lone wolf , as the gentleman from wisconsin indicates .  but it also applies to sections 206 and 215 .  the house sunsets those in 10 years , and we would instruct conferees to adopt the senate 4-year sunset .  i wanted to be sure that was well understood .  madam speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	mr. speaker , i yield myself the balance of my time .  mr. speaker , first of all , i want to commend the gentleman from california ( mr. rohrabacher )  and the gentleman from florida ( mr. mack )  for partnering with us and structuring this motion to instruct conferees .  i want to express appreciation to the gentleman from wisconsin ( mr. sensenbrenner )  for his constructive comments and for his support of the motion to instruct .  the motion to instruct promotes accountability .  it assures that we remain in a strong position in our oversight function .  recent history clearly shows that in the absence of a near-term sunset we will not get answers to our questions about how controversial law enforcement powers are being used .  in the absence of a near-term sunset , we can not ensure that civil liberties are being protected .  this is not a matter about what the department of justice has done in the past , and i differ with the gentleman from wisconsin on this matter .  this is all about what the department of justice may do in the future .  and having near-term sunsets will ensure that we can perform oversight over that performance .  sunsets do not prevent law enforcement from using the broad powers the patriot act confers , but sunsets promote accountability .  they ensure we get the information necessary to conduct oversight and to make decisions about whether powers that are subject to abuse should be contended .  adopt this motion , let us adopt the senate 's 4-year sunsets and , in doing so , further the cause of protecting americans ' civil liberties .  mr. speaker , i urge approval of the motion to instruct .  
R	mr. chairman , i certainly want to thank the gentleman from wisconsin ( chairman sensenbrenner ) for putting together this excellent extension and reauthorization of the usa patriot act .  mr. chairman , america faced a new kind of enemy on september 11 , one that mercilessly attacked civilians on our own shores .  in response , the congress , i was not here at the time , passed the patriot act to give law enforcement agents appropriate tools to fight the new war on terror .  today , we have a great opportunity to send a strong message of support for several provisions of this bill which would have expired on december 1. i specifically want to mention the library section .  for some reason , section 215 has come to be known as that .  actually , it is one that allows law enforcement officers to gain access to business records .  why would we not want to have library records and bookstore records be available if there is a suspected terrorist ?  by doing so , we would only be making bookstores and libraries sanctuaries for these terrorists .  the purpose of this legislation was when it was originally created and now as we extend it to protect americans .  we can not afford to make libraries and bookstores havens for those bent on harming u.s. citizens .  opponents have waged a campaign of misinformation .  recently , some members on the other side have actually admitted that it has not been abused .  we want to make sure that americans are protected .  for that reason , i fully support the reauthorization of the expiring patriot act , and i thank the gentleman from wisconsin ( chairman sensenbrenner ) for his work on this issue .  
R	reclaiming my time , i thank the gentleman for his support .  mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. chairman , i demand a recorded vote .  
D	madam speaker , i rise in support of the conference report for h.r. 3199 , the usa patriot and terrorism prevention reauthorization act of 2005 .  through the patriot act congress has attempted the essential task of modernizing law enforcement tools to effectively combat the 21st century terrorist , who can now use cell phones , the internet , and e-mails to plan and coordinate attacks in the united states .  as originally enacted in october 2001 , many patriot act provisions are set to expire at the end of this month if congress takes no action .  the conference report before us extends and improves many provisions of the patriot act .  it is a substantial improvement to the bill that was passed by the house in july 2005 .  i do have significant concerns and misgivings about the administration 's use of the new powers of the patriot act , and i am pleased that this legislation addresses many of these concerns .  this legislation : includes three sunset provisions for patriot act authorities ; requires greater oversight by congress and the judiciary of the justice department ; and gives new rights to subjects of a government investigation .  given the complexity and importance of this measure , let me review these provisions in some detail .  the 4-year sunsets adopted by the conference report apply to business records , roving wiretaps , and `` lone-wolf ' terrorist suspects who operate alone rather than as an agent of a foreign power .  congress must revisit these provisions in 4 years , which will expire unless approved again .  the conference report adopts the senate position of 4-year sunsets , and rejected the house position of 10-year sunsets .  under the business records provision , section 215 of the patriot act , the bill provides that the government may seek a court order for `` any tangible item '' if law enforcement officials assert that the records are sought in an effort to obtain foreign intelligence or in a terrorism investigation .  the application to the fisa court , the foreign intelligence surveillance act court , must provide a `` statement of facts '' proving that the information sought is `` relevant '' to the investigation .  this bill provides greater protection than current law , which simply requires the government to certify the records were sought for an authorized investigation without any factual showing .  the conference report also explicitly provides -- unlike current law -- that anyone who receives a request for records under this provision may consult with an attorney in order to challenge the request in court .  the bill requires new high-level approval by one of the top three fbi officials for certain records , including library records , medical records , educational records , and tax return records .  the bill has several new requirements for the justice department , including : issuing `` minimization procedures '' which limits the retention of , and prohibits dissemination of , information concerning u.s. persons ; conducting two separate audits of the fbi 's use of section 215 orders , which will examine any improper or illegal use of this authority , and the manner in which such information is collected , retained , analyzed , and disseminated by the fbi ; and requiring the public reporting of the aggregate use of section 215 orders , and a breakdown of its use to congress -- comparisons of library , medical , educational records , for example .  the roving wiretaps provision , section 206 of the patriot act , provides that the fisa court may issue `` roving '' wiretaps to conduct surveillance on a foreign power or their agent when the target of surveillance has taken steps to thwart the investigation by changing accommodations , cell phones , internet accounts , or other forms of communications .  court orders would apply to a person or persons , not a particular device or location , so that the government does not have to return to court each time that a target changes a communications device or moves to another location .  the bill requires court orders for roving wiretaps to describe in detail the specific target in cases in which the target 's identity is unknown , higher burden than current law , and requires more detailed and timely reporting by the fbi to the courts and congress on the use of this authority .  the conference report also makes substantial improvements to the national security letter , nsl , process , which existed before congress enacted the patriot act in 2001 .  nsls allow the fbi to request customer records from communications companies and financial institutions related to an investigation .  the bill explicitly provides a new right to nsl recipients to consult with an attorney to challenge the letter in court .  the court is also given a new explicit right to review nsl requests .  the bill provides that courts may block an nsl if it is `` unreasonable , oppressive , or otherwise unlawful '' ( same standard as used to modify or quash a subpoena in a criminal case ) .  recipients are also given a new right to challenge the nondisclosure requirement in court .  congress also requires the justice department to report to congress finally , the conference reports places some new restrictions on delayed notice search warrants , commonly called `` sneak and peek '' , under section 213 of the patriot act .  this type of search warrant , which existed before the patriot act was adopted , requires that a federal judge must find that there is probable cause to believe that : ( 1 ) a crime has been or is about to be committed ; ( 2 ) evidence of those crimes will be found at the location to be searched ; and ( 3 ) immediate notice would cause harm under certain specified criteria .  the conference report restricts the government 's authority to delay notice to 30 days , and allows for an extension only if approved by a court .  the bill also requires new reporting to congress on the use of this provision .  madam speaker , we must not repeat the mistakes of the past , when the united states sacrificed the civil rights of particular individuals or groups in the name of security .  whether in times of war or peace , finding the proper balance between government power and the rights of the american people is a delicate and extremely important process .  it is a task that rightly calls into play the checks and balances that the founders created in our system of government .  all three branches of government have their proper roles to play in making sure the line is drawn appropriately , as we uphold our oaths to support the constitution .  this legislation attempts to strike a balance as we seek to prevent another terrorist attack on u.s. soil , while protecting americans ' constitutional civil liberties .  i will continue to work in congress to exercise our critical oversight responsibilities to protect our civil liberties .  
R	mr. chairman , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. chairman , i would remind my colleague from virginia that a legislative hearing was held before the subcommittee on june 30 , 2005 on which the justice department testified in favor of this bill .  
D	madam speaker , as an original cosponsor of h.r. 3899 , the combat methamphetamine epidemic act , and as a committed member of the congressional caucus to fight and control methamphetamine , i rise in support of its passage , as title vii in h.r. 3199 , the usa patriot improvement and reauthorization act of 2005 .  i would like to thank congressman mark souder , the chief sponsor of h.r. 3889 , for his leadership in addressing our methamphetamine epidemic .  last year , congressman souder visited my district in order to fully understand first-hand the unique challenges we in hawaii face , to hear of our efforts to keep drugs out of our homes and communities , and to see our successes in our fight against the scourge of crystal methamphetamine , ice .  and he just returned to address the 2nd annual national methamphetamine legislative and policy conference of the national alliance for model state drug laws , congressman souder has not just talked , but acted .  we in hawaii share many of the same concerns as others in our nation in regard to the need to support drug control , education , prevention , and treatment efforts .  however , our geographic isolation , not only from the contiguous united states but also from our neighbor islands to the island of oahu , must be taken into account as we work to end the scourge of crystal methamphetamine .  general drug abuse , of course , has plagued many of our communities for decades .  to target what is needed to prevent this abuse now and in the future , we must first understand what causes it and then focus our efforts on overcoming those causes .  and uniquely , it is up to our federal government to take the lead on the issue as it is the only entity with the resources and ability to coordinate the indispensable multi-pronged approach to stamping out drug abuse .  title vii of h.r. 3199 is essential in our efforts to address methamphetamine trafficking , both in the united states and abroad .  it would classify pseudoephedrine , ephedrine , and phenylpropanolamine , the major methamphetamine precursor chemicals , as `` scheduled listed chemicals. '' it would repeal the federal `` blister pack exemption '' that currently allows unlimited sales of pseudoephedrine pills .  the bill would also require information sharing from importers on the `` chain of custody '' from foreign manufacturer to u.s. shores of methamphetamine precursor chemicals .  title vii would also strengthen federal penalties against traffickers and smugglers .  i look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on initiatives to provide the federal resources and support we need in our fight against methamphetamine .  mahalo , thank you , for this opportunity to express support for title vii of h.r. 3199 .  
R	mr. chairman , i appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time .  over the past 3 years , the patriot act has played a key role in the prevention of terrorist attacks right here in the united states .  prior to the patriot act , the ability of government agencies to share information with each other was limited , which kept investigators from fully understanding what terrorists might be planning and to prevent their attacks .  the u.s. attorney for the northern district of indiana , joseph van bokkelen , explained , `` if an assistant u.s. attorney learned through the use of a grand jury that there was a planned terrorist attack in northern indiana , he or she could not share that information with the cia. '' the patriot act brought down the wall separating intelligence agencies from law enforcement and other entities charged with protecting the nation from terrorism .  it has given law enforcement the tools they need to investigate terrorist activities while striking a delicate balance between preventing another attack and preserving citizens ' constitutional rights .  and to date , there has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse .  mr. chairman , i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the reauthorization of the patriot act and to give our government the tools it needs to succeed in the war on terrorism .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman from georgia for yielding me this time .  mr. speaker , about 9 or 10 months ago , a constituent of mine approached me back home and he said , howard , we have got to get rid of this patriot act .  i said , give me one example of how the patriot act has adversely affected you .  he said , well , i can not do that .  i said , give me an example of how the patriot act has adversely affected anyone known to you .  he said , well , i can not do it .  i said , you are not helping me .  i am afraid , mr. speaker , that this is how the patriot act has been portrayed : accusations of compromising our freedoms , but virtually no hard facts or evidence to support these accusations .  and at the conclusion of our conversation , my constituent said to me , well , i guess maybe i have heard wrong information .  i said , well , if you can not come forward with anything other than just rank hearsay that is unsupported , i am going to have to embrace your conclusion .  the subcommittee on crime , terrorism and homeland security hosted nine public hearings .  the full house committee on the judiciary , furthermore , hosted three public hearings .  now , this is one dozen public hearings , mr. speaker , where the patriot act was the beneficiary or the target of an exhaustive , deliberate examination , in detail .  are we thoroughly and completely safe today ?  no .  are we safer today than we were prior to 9/11 ?  unquestionably .  one of those reasons , mr. speaker , in my opinion , is the presence of the patriot act .  the patriot act has indeed broadened the parameters through which and under which law enforcement and public safety officers are allowed to work .  compromising freedoms ?  no evidence of it .  the hearings indicated no abuse on the part of the federal government , the u.s. government , to protect us .  i have the fear that one of these days these evil people driven by fanaticism will attack us again , but they have not since 9/11 ; and i think for that we should all be very thankful , and i think for that we should attribute some of that to the presence of the patriot act .  i urge the passage of this rule , mr. speaker .  
R	mr. chairman , i thank the gentleman from wisconsin for yielding me this time .  mr. chairman , i will reiterate what has been previously said this date about the patriot act , and i do so for emphasis .  the first point i want to emphasize is the assurance that the house committee on the judiciary and the crime , terrorism , and homeland security subcommittee did not give the patriot act a mere wink and a nod .  we , in fact , hosted 12 public hearings ; three before the full committee , nine before our subcommittee .  it was exhaustive , it was deliberate , it was thorough .  so this matter was not accelerated and rushed through by any means , as some people seem to believe .  i mentioned during the rule debate earlier , mr. chairman , about a constituent of mine who complained about the patriot act but he had no specifics .  he said he had heard it was bad , but he could give me no specifics where in any way civil liberties had been compromised or abused .  there has been some talk about sunsetting provisions of the act ; 216 and 206 will , in fact , be sunsetted .  but in these two instances , mr. chairman , there was no evidence of abuse or any violation at all , but these two were sunsetted because , among the other sections in the act , these two seemed to attract most of the controversy .  so these are the two that stood out controversially but , i reiterate , still no evidence of abuse .  i think we in the committee on the judiciary have done a thorough job of exhausting and deliberating a very , very important act , and i believe that one reason why we have not been attacked subsequently from 9/11 is because of the presence of the patriot act .  we expanded the provisions under which law enforcement and public safety officers must operate and must stay within , and as a result we are better for it .  
R	mr. chairman , i demand a recorded vote .  
R	mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	i thank the gentleman from virginia for yielding .  mr. chairman , i will just say that i look forward to working with the chairman of the full committee and the ranking member , as well as the ranking member of the subcommittee to resolve any other issues that may remain in conference .  
R	mr. speaker , on 9/11 , evil terrorists , murderers , if you will , inspired and motivated by fanaticism and hatred attacked our country and nearly 3 , 000 innocent americans expired .  it would be a simple matter to overreact to such an attack ; but our response , for the most part , mr. speaker , has been thorough and deliberate .  the judiciary subcommittee on crime , terrorism and homeland security alone conducted nine hearings , coupled with two additional hearings before the full house judiciary committee .  other committees as well conducted hearings .  so this seems to me refutes the charge that this act has been hurriedly rammed through the congress .  i spoke earlier on this floor , mr. speaker , of a constituent who urged me to lead an effort to repeal the patriot act .  when i asked him to cite examples where civil liberties had been abused , he could offer none .  other opponents of the act have likewise been unable to document evidence of abuses .  some have said , well , these points are irrelevant .  they are not irrelevant at all , mr. speaker , when you are talking to people who oppose the act , but yet are unable to offer evidence to support their opposition .  i think it is relevant , indeed .  finally , mr. speaker , i am going to touch on a point that i think many americans have inadvertently ignored , and that is the fact that there are in excess of 360 ports in the united states and this bill provides basic and much-needed protection thereto .  it is clear that our ports and harbors are significant and appealing targets for terrorist attacks .  we can not afford to leave these areas unprotected or hamstring law enforcement efforts to provide basic security against terrorists .  mr. speaker , i am not trying to be a chicken little and shouting that the sky is falling , but just because we have not been attacked subsequently since 9/11 does not indicate to me that these terrorists , i call them murderers , they are murderers , are asleep at the switch .  they are continuing to plot , and we can not turn a blind eye to them .  is this act perfect ?  no .  not many acts that find their way through this congress are perfect .  but it is a piece of legislation that should be enacted , and i urge support .  
D	ladies and gentlemen of the house , let me say from the outset that every member of this body wants to make sure that law enforcement officials have the tools they need to protect the american people from terrorism .  i also know that all of us want to make sure that we protect our civil liberties and freedoms as we fight terrorists anywhere in the world and in this country as well .  i support the majority of the 166 provisions of the patriot act .  in fact , in the first original patriot act , i helped write many of them in a version of the bill that passed the committee on the judiciary 36-0 , but a bill we never saw after it left the committee on the judiciary .  it was replaced in the middle of the night in the committee on rules .  i did it , i wrote the provisions because i believe as technology changes , our laws need to keep up and change as well .  i believe our law enforcement officials need to be able to talk with one another and connect the dots to prevent terrorist attacks .  in some sense this is not really about the patriot act , the debate that is going on here , or even most of the 16 provisions scheduled to sunset this year .  it is about four areas that are subject to abuse and need greater checks and balances , and i would like to suggest what they are .  first , the business records , 215 , allows the fbi to obtain any record considered relevant to an investigation .  this includes library books , medical records , and bookstore purchases .  the provision has been difficult to oversee since targets of fbi investigations under the law are not permitted to tell anybody about it , even their lawyer .  the department of justice and the chairman of the committee on the judiciary say that this provision has never been used on libraries and bookstores .  however , the american library association has reported that more than 200 requests for library records have been made since september 11 .  now , concerning national security letters , the second very serious issue here , which allows the fbi to obtain financial , telephone , internet and other records relevant to any intelligence investigation without judicial approval .  again , this is for any intelligence investigation , which means it does not even have to deal with terrorism , or even a crime .  like section 215 , recipients are forever prevented from telling anyone they received a letter under penalty of law .  thank goodness a new york federal court struck down this provision as unconstitutional .  shame on an administration that keeps using it anyway .  third , under section 213 , the government can sneak and peek into your business , your office , your car , your home , anywhere , even if there is no emergency .  this means the government can break into your home and search it without telling you .  it was not in the bill originally reported by the committee on the judiciary and was slipped in by the department of justice or the administration when the bill was first written a few years back .  this provision has been subject to exceedingly widespread abuse .  it has been used more than 240 times , and it has been delayed sometimes for over a year before anybody can be told what happened , that they were broken into , they were burglarized , they had things taken out of their home .  worse yet , only 10 percent of these uses had anything to do with terrorism , which is the whole purpose of the patriot act .  finally , it is clear to me that we need to have additional sunsets in this legislation .  what is wrong with sunsets ?  that is why we are here , because the bill is being sunsetted in more than a dozen ways .  if we have learned anything over the last 4 years , the only thing that makes the administration give us any information on oversight on the use of these new powers was the sunset provision .  we have also learned of abuses during our oversight that has led to us making modifications .  given this history , it simply makes no sense to make these provisions permanent or near permanent .  and 10 years is not a sunset ; 10 years is semi-permanent .  the lessons of september 11 and london , and even today in london , are that if we allow law enforcement to do their work free of political interference , give them adequate resources and modern technologies , we can protect our citizens without intruding on our liberties .  we all fight terrorism , but we need to fight it the right way consistent with our constitution and in a manner that serves as a model for the rest of the world .  i believe that the committee-passed legislation that is on the floor right now does not meet that test .  as such , it does not warrant passage until it is corrected .  mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	mr. chairman , i thank the gentleman from virginia ( mr. scott )  for yielding me time .  could i ask the gentleman from virginia ( mr. scott )  or the gentleman from massachusetts ( mr. delahunt )  , is this not kind of unusual ?  there have been no hearings and we are combining the death penalty by putting together two substantial terrorist crimes , section 1992 and 1993 .  well , maybe i should ask the author of the bill , if he is on the floor , why this has not had committee consideration .  
D	reclaiming my time , i am sorry i was not on the committee the day they had the hearing , but normally death penalty matters are not brought to the floor this way .  normally i thought it was the jurisdiction of the subcommittee on criminal justice in the committee on the judiciary of the house that would be considering this matter .  
D	mr. chairman , i thank the gentleman .  
D	mr. chairman , i thank the gentleman for his information .  
D	madam speaker , if only what my good friend , the chairman , said was accurate , we would not be here to ask that this measure be turned down and that we pass a 3-month extension , as i have proposed and is in legislative form , so that the patriot act and intelligence reform would not be stymied .  it is like coming to a meeting and we have forgotten all the things that most of the members on my side of the aisle on the judiciary committee agreed with is wrong with the patriot act , but that we have ignored the fact that many other organizations are not for the patriot act .  now , what safeguards are being preserved is very interesting for me because the opponents of the patriot act , including seven states that have passed resolutions opposing parts of the patriot act and a number of communities that have done so , represent over 62 million americans .  additionally , numerous groups ranging across all parts of the political spectrum have come forward to oppose sections of the patriot act and demand that the congress conduct more oversight , including the american civil liberties union , the american conservative union , the american immigration lawyers association , the american library association , the center for constitutional rights , the center for democracy and technology , common cause , free congress foundation , gun owners of america , the lawyers committee for civil rights , the national association for the advancement of colored people , the criminal defense lawyers , people for the american way , and numerous other groups concerned about immigrants ' rights .  and what about the more than six death penalty additions that have been put into this build with very , very few hearings .  is that something that somebody can hold forward as protecting the rights and improving the patriot act ?  i do not think so .  and even worse has been the abuse of unilateral powers by the administration where since september 11 our government has detained and abused physically thousands of immigrants without time limits for unknown and unspecified reasons and targeted tens of thousands of arab americans for intensive interrogations .  all this serves to accomplish , of course , is to alienate many of those muslim and arab americans that would be working with us .  so , madam speaker , there are two pictures of what happened in the committee on the judiciary .  one is that the bill was made clearly worse , and we have some 92 pages of dissent about the bill itself , and much of it is still of course valid in terms of the conference report that we are examining today .  i urge members , we have been tricked once , the first time when the bill was substituted , and now we are about to be fooled again if members do not read our dissents and the reservations that we have about the patriot act .  it can be made better , and we would propose that that is exactly what happen today .  madam speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	madam speaker , i yield myself 10 seconds .  may i bring to the attention of the chairman of the judiciary committee that section 505 of the patriot act expanded the use of national security letters , so to say they are not in the bill would not be accurate .  
D	madam speaker , i yield myself 15 seconds .  let me remind my friend who returned from his california duties to the congress , did you hear the brandon mayfield case just recited by the gentleman from new jersey ?  that was an abuse that we heard in the committee .  
D	madam speaker , i yield myself 3 minutes .  i want to quote from a letter that was sent to chairman sensenbrenner from the american library association , its president , indeed , michael gorman , and a copy to myself .  it says : `` dear mr. chairman , i am writing on behalf of the american library association to express our opposition to the conference report .  we are deeply disappointed that the conferees did not take this opportunity to heed the concerns of library users across this country and to restore protections for records of library use that were stripped away by the patriot act '' itself .  it `` does not seriously address any of the library community 's concerns with section 215 .  it does not require a factual connection between the records sought and a terrorist or terrorist organization .  `` the report also leaves in place the usa patriot act standards for national security letters '' and would `` allow the fbi to continue its unfettered reach into the personal electronic records of the public , including records of their use of the internet through computers in libraries .  worse , it adds a criminal penalty for noncompliance with the order and for a knowing violation of the gag order .  and while adding an ability to challenge the secrecy of a national security letter on the one hand , it takes it away with the other by requiring the court to accept , as conclusive , the government 's assertion of harm to national security ... ..  `` madam speaker , this is the clearest description from the president of the american library association , supported by thousands of professional librarians from one end of the country to the other .  please , let us not buy into the fact that this is a new and improved version of the patriot act .  with the death penalties arbitrarily added , it is a definite reversal , a downward , backward movement in which the patriot act becomes meaner and less democratic and is far more dangerous for people who get caught up in these things who are innocent americans .  please join us in sending this bill back to committee and supporting my measure that would allow for a 3-month period of time for us to improve the bill .  
D	madam speaker , i yield myself 35 seconds .  i want to give chairman sensenbrenner the benefit of the presumption of a doubt about this section 215 business .  what happens in the report is it makes it easier to get library and other records under section 215 by creating a presumption that records of anyone to come into contact with a suspected terrorist even accidentally , innocently , is relevant to an investigation .  madam speaker , what he has done is he has moved a part of section 215 to another part of the bill , and that is why it does not operate that way .  
D	yes , i am , in its present form .  
D	madam speaker , i demand a recorded vote .  
D	mr. chairman , i rise in opposition to this bill , the usa patriot and intelligence reform reauthorization act of 2005 , h.r. 3199 .  mr. chairman , after the tragic events of september 11 , every american knows , in every nuance of the truism , that freedom is not free .  i firmly believe that in order to have security in our homeland we must have a reasonable expectation of infringement of some of our civil liberties .  the stakes are too high to maintain a pre-9/11 mentality and the threats of terrorism are too real .  however , this bill crosses the reasonableness threshold by abrogating rights guaranteed under the constitution without a corresponding increase in the real tools law enforcement needs to fight the war on terrorism .  i believe that we should focus on securing our homeland , not by infringing on civil liberties as outlined in the patriot act -- but , by securing our rail and transit systems , by securing our ports and waterways systems , by securing our airspace , and by refining our intelligence organizations for maximum outcomes , just to name a few .  but i digress .  subsequent to passage of the usa patriot act , a hastily devised bill brought to the floor 45 days after 9/11 , i received many letters from my constituents who applauded my voting against its passage .  while they were opposed to the bill , many were comforted by the fact that the provisions would sunset and congress would take a closer look when clearer heads might prevail .  as the sunset date approached for the more troubling patriot act provisions , i received even more letters concerned about the prospect of extending or making permanent the more intrusive aspects of the usa patriot act .  i also received reports from people who believed that their rights had been unduly violated under the patriot act .  that is why i held a patriot act town hall earlier this ear to further examine the extent of the problem .  mr. speaker , let me give you an example reported to my office .  some months ago , a maryland-based engineer of iranian descent was at work when the state police showed up at his employer 's doorstep and started questioning him .  without explaining the reason for their interrogation , they asked him where he had gone to school , where he had lived , how many times he traveled internationally and whether he had ever rented a car .  then , they demanded that he hand over his laptop -- equipment that belonged to his employer -- and , after some haggling , they took the device without ever obtaining a warrant .  later , the engineer ( whom i 'll call `` mr. l '' ) was told that a former police officer had seen a group of people who `` looked middle eastern '' driving around an airport and `` acting suspicious. '' fortunately , mr. l had proof that he was nowhere near the airport during the time in question .  he has since been cleared of any wrongdoing .  yet , mr. l. remains convinced that his professional reputation has been seriously damaged , and in all likelihood , he is correct .  far too many americans of ethnic descent can relate to mr. l 's story of being accused of wrongdoing based only upon a racial or ethnic `` profile. '' although our u.s. constitution protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures , we know that this guarantee has not always been uniformly assured .  sadly , the governmental intrusion into mr. l 's life seems to be one of these cases .  it was an erosion of his personal freedom clearly allowed under the patrlot act , which as americans the rest of us take lightly at our peril .  mr. l 's story is not unique ; the danger his experience illustrates is not limited to islamic americans ; and the erosion of our freedom is not confined to investigations of terrorism .  mr. speaker , the expressed purpose of the patrlot act was to assure that u.s. law enforcement agencies would possess the legal tools that they said they needed to protect us from acts of terrorism .  from the time of its initial passage , however , there has been serious concern that the wider police powers granted to our law enforcement agents by the legislation -- as well as other assertions of executive power by the bush administration -- were not adequately balanced by sufficient constitutional safeguards .  the purposes of this bill are the same and it suffers from the same infirmities as its predecessor .  as the dissenting views to accompany h.r. 1399 reports , and i paraphrase , `` there are numerous provisions in both the expiring and other sections of the usa patriot act that have little to do with combating terrorism , that intrude on our privacy and civil liberties and that have been repeatedly abused and misused by both the justice department and the administration. '' these include , but are not limited to , the inadequate judicial oversight permitted by this bill and the roving wiretaps targeting innocent americans -- americans not involved in terrorism in any way .  further , the `` sneak and peak '' provisions authorize federal agents to enter our homes , search them and even seize our property , notifying us only after the fact .  it should come as no surprise that since 2002 , 389 communities and seven states representing over 62 million people have passed resolutions opposing parts of the usa-patrlot act .  it may come as a surprise however , that groups ranging the political spectrum from the aclu to gun owners of america are equally opposed to many sections of the bill .  they are concerned , like my constituents and many other citizens around the country , that the patrlot act has been used more than 150 times to secretly search an individual 's home , with nearly 90 percent of those cases having nothing to do with terrorism .  they are concerned that the patrlot act has been used to coerce an internet service provider to divulge information about e-mail activity and websurfing of its members .  they are concerned that it has been used on innumerable occasions to obtain reading records from libraries and bookstores -- and that on at least 200 occasions has been used to solicit reader information from libraries .  they are concerned that they may be next for these unreasonable intrusions .  yet we never had a discourse on these issues .  unfortunately , again the house process has been distorted to leave us to consider a one-sided partisan bill .  instead of thoughtfully considering the tough questions like : how much governmental power is truly required to protect us and what constitutional freedoms are we going to leave in place for our children and generations yet to be born , we consider a partisan bill of which the minority members inform they never received the facts necessary to fully evaluate .  for this and other reasons , i decided to cosponsor the bipartisan bill spearheaded by butch otter and bernie sanders , the security and freedom ensured act of 2005 , h.r. 1526 , the safe act .  among other corrections to the patriot act , this bill would require `` specific and articulable facts '' ( rather than a more generalized suspicion ) that a suspect is an agent of a foreign power when the government wishes to seize records .  it would require a far more detailed justification before `` roving wiretaps '' could be utilized and it would protect our library and bookstore records from unwarranted inspection .  in addition , h.r. 1526 would re-define the new crime of `` domestic terrorism '' in far more narrow terms , making it clear that our traditional freedom to assemble and challenge governmental action must not be chilled .  although this bill does not resolve every concern about the usa patriot act , i believe it represents a better beginning for the house debate than the bill under consideration .  democrats and republicans alike are seeking to better protect the freedom of americans -- without reducing our ability to protect ourselves against terrorist threats .  since september 11 , americans have learned to accept some additional intrusions into our privacy as the price that we must pay to protect ourselves .  yet , we must also remain vigilant .  mr. l. 's experience should be a lesson to us all .  as we defend freedom against foreign terrorism and promote freedom abroad , we must be ever-mindful not to destroy the freedoms that make us america .  
R	mr. chairman , i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time .  i listened to my colleagues on the committee , the gentlewoman from california ( ms. harman )  , the gentleman from massachusetts ( mr. delahunt )  , and also the gentleman from california ( mr. rohrabacher )  , and they have legitimate concerns .  i do not think there is anybody in this body on either side of this issue that does not have concerns .  i would like to see , in particular , a sunset provision , although i do not know what the timing should be .  god willing , there should be a day we will not need a patriot act , and it is easier to vote it back than it is to get rid of it .  mr. chairman , 26 nations have been attacked by al qaeda , and we just saw today england , but look at france and japan .  it also tells us the united states is behind in its security for our mass rail and bus transportation systems , not just aviation but those as well .  let me cite an example of what happened before 9/11 and how the patriot act , in my opinion , would have stopped an event , not just may have .  agencies knew of an outspoken extremist group .  they were outspoken in support of osama bin laden before 9/11 , and they were outspoken about their ethnic intolerance and raising money for al qaeda .  agencies like cia , fbi and law enforcement had thousands of leads and limited manpower .  their primary issue at the time was getting out two agents in a foreign country that were under extreme conditions .  they were concerned also about if they questioned this group that they would be taken to court on profiling .  the rhetoric was there , but no action .  the fbi and the cia were limited in their ability to check out this group .  mr. chairman , this particular group was the group that was training in arizona , the pilots and the crews that flew into new york city , that flew into the pentagon , and that crashed in pennsylvania .  mohammed atta is another example .  his roommate , the limitations that our agencies had on questioning him , he knew about the 9/11 bombings , is another reason why i think that we need this act .  i am conflicted , just like my colleague , the gentlewoman from california ( ms. harman )  and others , because there are things that all of us are concerned about .  but khalid sheik mohammed is the guy who planned 9/11 .  we caught this rascal .  his replacement was a guy named abu al-libbi , and we caught that rascal .  and some of the documents showed that it is only a matter of time , mr. chairman , until this country is hit , so we must be diligent .  this act helps us do that , and weighing the concerns and is the reason i think all of us need to support the patriot act .  
D	i thank the gentleman for yielding .  listeners should realize that truth is not required in debate on the floor of the house .  the chairman of the rules committee stood up here and said there has not been one complaint about the use of the patriot act , or the abuse .  he should talk to brandon mayfield from portland , oregon , who was considered to be a perpetrator of the madrid bombing and they used the patriot act to accumulate the nonevidence about him .  the government has subsequently apologized , and he sued the government , but i guess that is not a complaint .  maybe we are not hearing the complaints because librarians , bookstore owners , and business owners can themselves be prosecuted if they tell anybody that there was an unwarranted gathering of records about innocent americans from them .  so , yeah , i guess there is sort of a dearth of complaints .  then there is the other gentleman .  he said , well , we can change this later .  we heard that when we passed the first patriot act , which no member of the house of representatives had read , at 10 o'clock in the morning with one copy available on each side of the aisle .  we said it sunsets ; you can change it later .  now is later .  it is time to change it .  guess what ?  they say well , no , we ca n't change it now ; we might change it later after we make it permanent now .  before it was temporary ; we are going to change it later .  now , it is permanent , maybe we will change it later .  come on .  let 's be honest about this debate .  you are jamming this through on behalf of the white house and the attorney general .  they want this .  it is bad legislation .  it threatens the civil liberties of americans , and i believe it will impinge on our investigation and finding of terrorists .  these national security letters , 30 , 000 national security letters , gathering huge amounts of data about the lives of innocent americans .  in the past , that would have to be discarded .  now they say , well , we 're going to keep it ; but do n't worry , all the information we 're going to accumulate about people , innocent americans , is going to go into a databank ; but it will only be available to the federal government , state government , local governments , tribal governments and appropriate private entities .  i guess there is one person in america who might not be able to tap into this databank .  this is going to create such a huge haystack of irrelevant information about the lives of innocent americans that the fbi , who had one terrorist in hand , musawi , and had an agent in arizona pointing at the plot , could not even see their hand in front of their face .  now we are going to create a huge mountain of irrelevant data about innocent people and this is somehow going to improve how they perform in finding terrorists in america ?  i do n't think so .  then the most cynical thing about this bill is to take a meritorious bill that deals with methamphetamine precursors and trafficking , that passed separately in this house of representatives , which i supported , and they are going to include it as part of this legislation in a cynical ploy to somehow basically force , bully , or trick people into supporting the underlying legislation with its unwarranted attack on the bill of rights , the constitution of america , the foundation of our government , the gathering secretly of information about innocent americans , and the permanent retention of that information for no good purpose .  this is bad legislation .  the time has come to change it .  it should be defeated , and we should change it now .  
D	mr. speaker , i was unavoidably absent from the vote today on h.r. 3199 , the `` usa patriot improvement and reauthorization act of 2005 '' due to a family medical emergency .  had i been present and voting , i would have voted `` no '' on this bill as i have steadfastly opposed similar versions of the patriot act when they have come up in the past .  make no mistake , like all americans i believe we should give law enforcement the tools it needs to investigate and fight terrorism .  however , we can do this without sacrificing our american values .  one of our most precious values is the right to be free from unwarranted government intrusion .  i voted against the original patriot act when it passed congress in 2001 because it went too far in creating the potential for government abuses and violations of civil liberties .  the bill today makes permanent almost all of the provisions enacted in 2001 .  while some have been altered to make them slightly less egregious , not enough has changed to allow me to lend my support to this reauthorization .  for example , section 109 of h.r. 3199 makes some changes to section 215 of the original patriot act , which expanded what the government could seize under the foreign intelligence surveillance act , fisa , of 1978 to `` any tangible things. '' these include library , medical , tax , and gun records .  the bill today maintains the weak threshold adopted in the original patriot act by again failing to require the materials requested be tied or connected to a specific terrorist or terrorist organization .  the broad standard in current law makes it dangerously easy for the records of innocent americans to be viewed by government .  additionally , recipients of requests for information under section 215 are prevented from telling virtually anyone about the request and they can not challenge this `` gag order '' in court .  while this bill at least includes a 4-year sunset for section 215 , there is no sunset for section 505 , which expanded the power of government to obtain information via national security letters , nsls .  nsls allow the government , with no prior court approval , access to financial records , credit reports , telephone records , and information from internet service providers .  as with section 215 , this bill fails to require the materials requested be tied or connected to a specific terrorist or terrorist organization .  tragically , this weak standard is made permanent .  there is no sunset .  also , as is true under section 215 , there is a `` gag order '' under section 505 .  while h.r. 3199 adds a new ability to challenge this `` gag order , '' it is a sham .  violating this gag order even carries criminal penalties .  the bill also fails to adequately reform section 213 of the original patriot act , which expanded `` sneak and peek '' warrant authority .  this allows the government to search american homes or businesses with delayed , not prior , notice .  while the bill today does change the delay in notice allowed from a `` reasonable time '' to no more than 30 days , the bill allows for unlimited extensions .  limitations on instances in which delayed notice searches are allowed to remain broad .  to protect our rights and privacy , the ability for the government to get into our personal lives and records without prior notice needs to be more narrowly crafted .  these are just some examples of the problems with h.r. 3199 .  i am confident that if we work together , we can develop laws which would allow us to combat terrorism without making it too easy for government to intrude into the private lives of americans .  
D	i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time .  mr. chairman , i want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentlewoman from california ( ms. zoe lofgren )  .  and i also want to address the issue of oversight .  and let me be very clear .  the chairman has been most aggressive when it comes to oversight , and i want to publicly commend him , not just in terms of the patriot act , but many other issues that are within the jurisdiction of the judiciary committee .  however , this is not about this particular chairman .  it is about the responsibility of future members of the judiciary committee to exercise that responsibility .  and i have a concern about oversight because , let us be honest , it is not easy dealing with the executive branch .  we have all had that experience .  we reach conclusions , but we really do not know .  i can remember when the chairman himself discussed issuing a subpoena to bring the former attorney general , mr. ashcroft , before the committee to provide us information on the so-called heavy guidelines .  that is what was necessary .  just recently , i read where the vice chair of the government reform committee , looking into the expenditures of monies involving the development for the fund of iraq , expressed frustration with the lack of cooperation coming from the pentagon .  i have served on an invitation basis under chairman dan burton investigating the misconduct of the fbi in the boston office , and again , it required the threat of a contempt petition to gain information from the department of justice .  if we need to go that far then to exercise our oversight constitutional responsibility , it is not an easy job to do .  so that is why all of the discussions today about oversight are framed in that context .  
D	mr. chairman , i demand a recorded vote .  
D	mr. chairman , this has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with sending messages about terrorism .  it is trying to find out what is happening in the federal government today , and we do not know .  we have heard a lot today about oversight and accountability .  that is what we are trying to do here .  remember the so-called total information program that was the brainchild of the former national security administrator that we funded to the tune of $ 170 million , and then defunded it ?  it was too late .  we wasted $ 170 million .  that is what this is about .  it is providing the tools to the united states congress to do its constitutional job of oversight .  mr. chairman , do you know what ?  we do not know what is happening .  that is the real secret as far as the american people are concerned .  we stumble on these things .  
D	mr. chairman , there is no greater responsibility of government than to protect its people from harm .  that was the intent of the patriot act -- legislation authored a month after the september 11th attacks 4 years ago .  and like any bill quickly passed into law , particularly one this expansive , the patriot act has worked well in some respects , but less so in others , and in some cases , with unintended consequences .  all that is understandable , but making the entire bill work well with the benefit of 4 years hindsight ought to be the challenge before us today .  but this legislation is not the entire patriot act passed into law 4 years ago -- it is only 16 provisions of that law , most of which were set to expire or sunset .  this year , we are failing to consider some of the most ineffective and overreaching provisions of the patriot act .  we are making only the most modest changes to others .  and , in the case of the so-called `` sneak and peek '' provision , we are actually making matters worse .  indeed , under this bill , judges can order searches or seizures without telling the targets for up to 6 months after the search .  this bill also expands authority to access medical records and bookstore and library records .  and even though it allows recipients of such subpoenas to consult an attorney , there is no requirement that law enforcement show that the information they are seeking is even part of a terrorism investigation .  and while this provision will be revisited again in 10 years , almost all the others are made permanent -- access to e-mail and internet records , wiretap authority , the disclosure of internet records in emergencies , the use of search warrants to seize voice mail .  these are all fundamental matters of privacy -- privacy we would all agree terrorists are not entitled to , but the average american is .  by insisting 14 of the 16 expiring provisions in this bill be made permanent , we are essentially abdicating our responsibility as members of congress to make sure we strike the right balance of giving law enforcement the tools they need to catch terrorists while still upholding the basic rights to which every american is entitled .  mr. chairman , this bill is a matter of security -- of homeland security , national security and the security of every american 's right to privacy .  let us honor our obligations and uphold each of those responsibilities .  
D	mr. chairman , i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 3199 .  this bill does very little other than to make permanent , onerous sections of an onerous law .  four years ago , congress passed and the president signed into law the usa patriot act .  substituted in the dark of night , the administration 's bill was inserted as the final bill and became law with very little congressional deliberation or consideration .  i was appalled by the process we used then and am only slightly more comforted now .  we are considering making 14 of the 16 provisions in the patriot act permanent , and making the other 2 provisions semi-permanent .  are we going to yield more of our institutional power by granting the permanency of these provisions ?  we must remain vigilant against terrorism , but we must also remain vigilant against abuses of power that curtail americans ' civil liberties in a time of war .  mr. chairman , i have heard a lot during the last four years that we will not yield to the terrorists .  that we will fight tyranny with freedom and democracy , and the power of our ideas will prevail .  i agree .  yet , today , we are considering limiting american freedoms by extending these sections of the patriot act permanently .  as a former prosecutor , i understand the need for tools to prosecute those who would do us harm .  however , the law that was passed four years ago and the bill we consider today go too far .  we must provide commonsense tools to prosecutors , but we must weigh the important needs to safeguard liberty .  we must not make these temporary provisions permanent while we remain at war .  what will generations to come think when they have seen we have permanently lowered the bar in protecting their civil liberties ?  mr. chairman , i am reminded of a very wise saying by one of our founding fathers , benjamin franklin .  he said `` they that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. '' i will vote against this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same .  
D	madam speaker , i rise in strong opposition to the conference report to h.r. 3199 .  we should go back into conference and work on a bipartisan , balanced conference report .  instead of rushing to finalize a partisan conference report that dismisses concerns for americans ' civil liberties , we should pass a 3 month extension and try to find a bipartisan balance .  unfortunately , the house leadership is unwilling to strike that balance and have put forth for consideration a conference report that no democratic conferee signed .  this is unconscionable .  madam speaker , many objectionable provisions remain in this conference report , but two issues in particular were ignored by the majority .  first , the conference report fails to provide a standard to challenge national security letters .  we recently learned that over 30 , 000 national security letters are issued every year to businesses of all types without court approval .  yet , this conference report provides little to no mechanism to allow for a citizen to challenge these letters in court , and sets no deadline for destroying the private information that has been collected .  shame on us for not allowing a citizen to redress his grievances , and , shame on us for not ensuring that private information is destroyed once it is collected .  second , this conference report fails to address the very real issue that has been of great concern to many americans : section 215 secret court orders for library , medical , and other personal records .  it leaves the standard for obtaining `` any tangible thing '' at simply a `` relevance '' standard to an investigation , basically allowing the government to conduct a fishing expedition if it deems appropriate .  as i , along with several of my colleagues , said in a letter to chairman sensenbrenner and chairman specter , there is nothing in this standard to stop the fbi from asking a library to turn over its circulation list of everyone who had checked out a book on islam since the september 11th attacks .  shame on us for allowing this to remain in the final conference report .  madam speaker , i have heard a lot of talk during the last four years that we will not yield to the terrorists .  that we will fight tyranny with freedom and democracy , and the power of our ideas will prevail .  i agree with that sentiment .  yet , today , we are considering limiting freedoms by allowing provisions such as the section 215 secret court orders and national security letters that i mentioned earlier .  as a former prosecutor , i understand the need for tools to prosecute those who would do us harm .  i also know that those same tools can be used to curtail freedoms of innocent americans .  we must provide common sense tools to prosecutors , but we must protect the liberty of all americans .  as i asked in june of this year , and as i ask again now , `` what will generations to come think when they have seen we have permanently lowered the bar in protecting their civil liberties ?  `` madam speaker , whenever we discuss the patriot act , i am reminded of a very wise saying by one of our founding fathers , benjamin franklin .  he said , `` they that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. '' i will vote against this conference report and urge my colleagues to do the same .  we should go back to conference and craft a conference report that protects all of our civil liberties .  
D	mr. speaker , true patriots need not hide behind the flag nor apply phony titles to cover the misguided purposes of their legislation .  from its origin , this grossly misnamed patriot act has cloaked its weaknesses by implying that its opponents are `` un-patriots '' as in `` unpatriotic. '' this is all part of a troubling pattern : secret prisons , sneak and peek searches , gag orders , redefining torture to exclude cruel and degrading punishment , extraordinary rendition , combing through library records , and even attempting to misuse our military to spy on religious groups .  these acts debase our american values .  this bill should be rejected because it fails to strike the proper balance between the security we demand and the liberties that we cherish .  yes , vice president cheney has suddenly emerged from his secure , undisclosed location and taken pause from his campaign to preserve torture in order to enthusiastically embrace today 's bill .  but intrusive , invasive powers in the hands of a few with little oversight and no accountability is a formula for wrongdoing .  we should not surrender our liberties to any administration .  retreating to such abusive tactics is weakness , not strength .  we should not add even more powers to an administration that has so often been willing to abuse its existing power , nor should we add more authority to an administration that has acted in authoritarian ways .  real patriots understand that an all-powerful government can undermine our security just as surely as a dangerous religious fanatic .  and all of this is occurring when the bipartisan 9/11 commission , the citizens ' commission that this administration fought every step of the way , is giving the administration and this republican congress one f after another for not protecting our families .  instead , we get this kind of legislation .  mr. speaker , authoritarianism is not born full-bodied .  it is conceived in small injustices , which tolerated over time become irreversible .  benjamin franklin understood when he said , `` those who would give up essential liberty , to purchase a little temporary safety , deserve neither liberty nor safety. '' this much is certain , each day of this administration brings more news of both deaths of true patriots abroad and more abuses of our values by those who claim to be patriots at home .  this is an administration where the ends always seem to justify the means .  but their `` ends '' too often betray our safety , and their `` means '' forsake our values .  to those who promote this misguided act , pull down your false colors ; raise the american flag of freedom .  reject this bill .  
R	mr. speaker , let me thank my friend from georgia for yielding me this time .  i listened very , very closely to the remarks offered by my good friend from massachusetts ( mr. mcgovern )  and i have to say that every member of this house is committed to the national security of the united states .  that is our number one responsibility , our priority .  but i will go so far as to say every single member of this house is committed to recognizing the civil liberties of the american people .  when this issue came to the forefront just a few weeks after september 11 , 2001 , the now director of the central intelligence agency , former chairman of the house intelligence committee and vice chairman of the rules committee , our very good friend , mr. goss , argued that he believed we should begin with permanence at that point , and i argued then that i thought it important that we focus on sunsetting provisions in the usa patriot act .  why ?  because we were looking at this issue literally weeks after the worst attack on our soil .  so , mr. speaker , as we moved ahead , we said we should have these sunset provisions , and we put them into place , and they were very important and helpful .  one of the reasons we did it is we wanted to see what kinds of civil liberties were being violated as we focused on our number one priority , that being our national security .  and i am very happy to report that , as we look at what has transpired since implementation of the usa patriot act , it is the following : we have provided every opportunity for any american to raise concern , talk about violations of their civil liberties by going on the worldwide web , filing any kind of complaint .  and there has not been one instance , not one complaint has been leveled , against the provisions in the usa patriot act as evidence of violating civil liberties .  i consider myself a small `` l '' libertarian republican .  i want to do everything in my power to ensure that we recognize the rights of our individuals .  but we have to remember that this measure is exactly what mr. mcgovern  said it should be .  it is a delicate balancing act between our goal of recognizing the importance of our national security and at the same time focusing on civil liberties .  that is why we see the 4-year sunset for the so-called lone wolf provision , for the roving wiretap provision , for the so-called library provision .  these measures that are in there are designed to force us to look at them again .  but , mr. speaker , there is nothing to say that we can not look at this again , as one of my staff members just said to me , next week if we so choose .  now , the united states congress pursues oversight with great diligence .  i was shocked last night when the distinguished ranking member of the rules committee said that there had been no oversight by the judiciary committee of the usa patriot act .  and chairman sensenbrenner , who has done a phenomenal job on this , went through the litany of oversight hearings that have gone on between first implementation of the usa patriot act and today and will continue , will continue as we see this measure pass .  so , mr. speaker , i believe that this does create that fine balancing act that we have recognized , and we do know that at the same time sacrifices have been made .  every single american who travels today has made a sacrifice , because of the fact that we are in the midst of a global war on terror , by virtue of going through the security to get on an airplane .  we have had to make sacrifices .  professor harvey mansfield of harvard wrote about the need to make those sacrifices when we are in the midst of war .  and we know that this is an ongoing global war on terror ; but we can not , as we pursue that war , move to undermine the great liberties and rights of the american people .  this measure strikes that balance , and i urge my colleagues to support the rule and to support the underlying bill .  
D	mr. chairman , i thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time .  mr. chairman , i voted for the first patriot act , and i strongly supported the creation of the homeland security department and have voted for every large increase in intelligence , homeland security funding , and defense funding .  but i am very troubled here .  i am very troubled by the fact that we are eliminating the sunsets .  i am very troubled by the fact that the administration and the leadership here are just going full steam ahead without listening to the very sincere problems that many of us have with the erosion of civil liberties .  i do not think we should be trying to save our freedom by killing the safeguards that keep our liberties .  these are very serious issues .  the fbi can get a court order to demand confidential medical and financial records and gag their doctor or banker from telling them .  they can even search people 's homes and not tell them until weeks or months later .  we have had many colleagues talk about the problems with library records and bookstore records .  these are very serious civil liberties problems .  and it is not on the abstract .  there are people like me who support a strong defense .  there are people like me who support strong intelligence and homeland security funding .  but this is a balancing act , and my fear is that we have gone too far .  the administration should listen to us , have a moderate bill , have sunsets , and then we could all vote for this bill .  
D	madam speaker , i rise in opposition to this conference report .  the patriot act provided new authorities , but it also modified long-standing laws .  one such change was the lowering of the standard for issuing government requests for financial , telecommunications credit , and other business records .  these requests commonly referred to as national security letters or nsls are issued directly by the government agencies in national security investigations without the approval of a judge .  before the patriot act , the fbi and other issuing agencies had to show there was some nexus to an agent of a foreign power or terrorist .  post-patriot act , the government only has to show the request is relevant to an investigation .  the lowering of this standard has resulted in an all time high in the number of nsls issued .  a recent washington post article alleged that over 30 , 000 national security letters have been issued by the fbi to businesses and private institutions across the nation .  even more disturbing , the article alleged that records collected pursuant to nsls are retained for an indefinite period of time , even when they are not of interest to investigators , and shared with other federal agencies and the private sector .  as a citizen , i am deeply disturbed by these allegations .  as a member of congress , i am disappointed that we have missed a critical opportunity to get the nsl standard right .  we have also missed the opportunity to ensure that nsl recipients have an opportunity to seek meaningful judicial review of the nondisclosure or gag requirements that accompany nsls and further tailor the statutory framework to ensure that privacy and civil liberties are better protected .  i will vote against the conference report .  i think the precious balance of civil liberties and security are damaged here .  
D	mr. chairman , i rise in strong opposition to the patriot and terrorism prevention reauthorization bill .  this bill tramples on the bill of rights in the name of patriotism .  to be patriotic means to be loyal and devoted to one 's country .  as thomas paine once said , `` it is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from his government. '' we are all patriots today in the finest sense of the word , but just because some of us want to ensure that congress retains its legislative oversight over these draconian provisions , some will call us unpatriotic .  to quote thomas jefferson , `` dissent is the highest form of patriotism '' .  while not one of us in the chamber takes lightly our oath to protect and defend the united states , the permanent extension of the patriot act , as the expense of our civil liberties , will not in and of itself make our country safer .  i voted against the original patriot act that was hastily passed in october 2001 .  the same concerns regarding the abuse of power still exist .  with such broad , sweeping provisions as roving wire taps and sneak and peek searches , congress must retain its ability to exercise legislative oversight to ensure the civil liberties of the people are upheld .  the provisions of the misnamed patriot act should be reauthorized periodically , not made permanent .  this administration consistently hides behind the fear of terrorism to achieve their legislative agenda .  in this case , they are trying to convince the american people that giving up their civil liberties is necessary to combat terrorism .  my constituents remain unconvinced .  in my district , the local governments of pacific grove , salinas , santa cruz , and watsonville , california have all passed resolutions expressing their concerns with the anti-privacy and anti-liberty portions of the patriot act .  mr. chairman , homeland security means protecting the civil rights of americans .  
D	madam speaker , i rise in strong opposition to the patriot act conference report .  due to concerns about civil liberties infringement , i voted against the original patriot act in 2001 and the house patriot act reauthorization bill earlier this summer .  the democratic fabric of this country was founded on checks and balances but the patriot act contains neither .  in 1775 , one of our nation 's true patriots , benjamin franklin , said `` they that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. '' this legislation tramples on the essential liberties that our founding fathers wanted to ensure .  they understood that lowering our civil liberties standards would not ensure safety ; but it would undermine the relationship of this proud democracy with its citizens .  i believe that the founders of this country would be rolling in their graves to hear the claims this administration and republican leadership make in the name of safety from terrorists .  do you really feel safer knowing that the government is allowed to investigate personal records without you knowing ?  do you feel safer knowing that the government can issue blank wire tap orders without identifying the line , place or person it wishes to investigate ?  do you really feel safer knowing that if you or your neighbor were accused that documents used against you would not be subject to judicial review ?  do you really feel safer that your library records can be considered intelligence in an investigative report ?  i can not with a clean conscience support this bill which gives government unnecessary access to the lives of innocent americans and tramples on their civil rights .  madam speaker , i urge a `` no '' vote on this piece of legislation that flies in the face of our forefathers .  
R	mr. chairman , i thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me time .  mr. chairman , i note that since the 9/11 attacks , in part we all know due to the patriot act , there have been no new attacks on america .  i also think americans ought to know there is a bookstore in london , in the leeds section , called the iqra bookstore ; and among the books that iqra learning center sells are extremist muslim materials .  we now believe that three out of four of the terrorists that attacked london 2 weeks ago and killed 56 people visited frequently this bookstore .  if the british authorities had known about the possible link and had a 215 clause , the main clause being attacked by the opponents of the patriot act , perhaps there would be 56 people alive today .  so all the scare tactics can be done away with , all the hysterical allegations .  every american needs to know that this 215 , which has been referred to as the library provision , nowhere mentions libraries .  but what 215 does do is say a federal judge must make findings before any warrant would ever be issued .  this can only affect non-americans in the first place , or americans would only be affected if there is an ongoing terrorism or intelligence investigation .  mr. chairman , every american needs to know that unless there is an ongoing terror or intelligence investigation , unless a judge makes a decision , no american can ever be affected .  to the extent that we want to create safe harbors , either in bookstores or libraries or anywhere else by eliminating 215 , we ought to be candid with americans .  we ought to be candid about the fact that we expect and are going to sit back as london-type bombings take place on our subways and bus systems .  we may not be able to prevent the next attack , but as long as americans ' liberties are protected by a judge ahead of time , as long as this is a reasonable provision affecting only non-americans or during an intelligence or ongoing terrorism investigation , it is absolutely appropriate .  i would not be doing my duty as a congressman to not fight for 215 to be reenacted .  we have added some protections .  everybody who receives one of these warrants is guaranteed to see a lawyer , and , if they want to , challenge the warrant .  
R	mr. chairman , i yield myself 1 minute .  i just wanted to say that the gentleman from indiana ( mr. pence )  brought up the point that the buck stops here , and that is what we are really trying to do with the fbi director , to ensure that that person is in charge and there is less likely to be a fishing expedition by a lower-ranking official .  when you combine that with what we already have in law , which is a requirement that the fbi director report to congress every 6 months about the use of this statute , you really have a strong provision and strong protections .  think of it : you have the fbi director himself , or herself , saying , i want to use this authority for this specific purpose , and then having to report that every 6 months to congress .  i think we really have curtailed the possibility for abuse .  mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. chairman , i demand a recorded vote .  
R	i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. chairman , what the patriot act did was to move or to change the standard to relevance .  there has to be a finding of relevance .  if it is relevant to an investigation , then it is in my view proper they should be able to compel records .  
R	mr. chairman , if the gentleman will continue to yield , there is a disagreement on what the court was actually ruling on , whether they were ruling on the access to counsel or , my understanding of it , whether or not the request itself was unconstitutional .  if that is the case , let the legal process take its course .  but i think what we need to do here is make sure that the agencies have the tools they need , offering the protections we are offering here .  
R	the bank can make the challenge itself .  the bank can challenge the scope .  they are the recipient of the national security letter .  
R	that is correct .  
R	yes .  
R	mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , by direction of the committee on rules , i call up house resolution 369 and ask for its immediate consideration .  
R	mr. speaker , may i inquire how much time i have remaining ?  
R	mr. speaker , reclaiming my time , i continue to reserve the balance of my time for the purpose of closing .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  i rise again in support of this rule and in recognition of the importance of the underlying bill .  this debate has clearly demonstrated exactly what is at stake .  this house has an opportunity to ensure that law enforcement has the ordinary , but necessary , tools to fight terrorism .  we can not , mr. speaker , and will not return to a situation that binds the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement communities .  we can not and we will not allow an ever-adapting and determined enemy to gain the advantage because our law enforcement did not have the necessary tools .  the usa patriot act and terrorism prevention reauthorization act will allow us to continue to make inroads into terrorist cells and operations .  the goal has been and will continue to be to prevent another attack .  in 2001 , the house joined together in a bipartisan way to pass the usa patriot act with 357 for , 66 against .  this house must come together again to pass h.r. 3199 and continue to fight against those who would seek to destroy us .  the legislative process for this bill has been both thorough and fair .  republicans , democrats , department of justice , the aclu , and various other organizations have been able to speak freely and openly during the development of this bill .  i believe , mr. speaker , the final product is solid and it will serve as an important framework to fight terrorism , protect civil liberties , and , ultimately , strengthen america .  i want to encourage my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying bill .  
R	mr. speaker , i demand a recorded vote .  
R	mr. speaker , by direction of the committee on rules , i call up house resolution 595 and ask for its immediate consideration .  
R	mr. speaker , for the purpose of debate only , i yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts ( mr. mcgovern )  , pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume .  during consideration of this resolution , all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only .  mr. speaker , house resolution 595 waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration .  i rise today in support of house resolution 595 and the underlying conference report for h.r. 3199 , the usa patriot and terrorism prevention reauthorization act of 2005 .  mr. speaker , i would first like to take this opportunity to thank chairmen sensenbrenner and king for all of their work in shepherding h.r. 3199 initially in the committee and then on the floor and now through the conference .  this conference report demonstrates this congress 's commitment to find common ground in order to move solid and important legislation for the good and safety of the american people .  this conference report is the culmination of 4 years of thorough hearings , extensive oversight , representing a collaborative effort to strengthen and fine tune our law enforcement needs and civil security needs as originally provided by the 2001 usa patriot act .  like most americans , i fully cherish and celebrate our constitutionally protected civil liberties , while also recognizing the need for strengthened national security with thorough and proper oversight .  and this congress has demonstrated and will continue to demonstrate a clear commitment to oversight in order to better achieve the essential and proper balance between necessary protective measures and our sacred civil liberties granted to us by the united states constitution .  as i mentioned , when the house first considered this legislation back in july , mr. speaker , h.r. 3199 , like most legislation considered before this house , is not perfect .  in an ideal world , it would not be necessary , but today 's world is sadly far from ideal .  today , america faces a grave threat from enemies who cowardly operate in the darkness of shadows , waiting with the intent to kill innocent people in the name of their hateful ideology .  therefore , we must never again be caught with our guard down .  this congress must act and must act decisively and deliberately to provide our law enforcement with the tools they need to protect and to save american lives , both here and abroad .  with respect to the provisions of this legislation , mr. speaker , this conference report will make permanent many vital law enforcement tools made available for use against suspected terrorists by the usa patriot act while establishing 4-year sunsets on a few provisions such as section 206 , fisa , foreign intelligence surveillance act , multi-point wire taps , section 215 , fisa business record provisions and finally , the lone wolf provision .  with respect to section 206 , it is important to recognize that the ability to track terrorists through the use of multi point or roving wire taps is essential because it allows law enforcement to follow a terrorist , rather than a telephone .  mr. speaker , terrorists are not reliant on two dixie cups and a piece of string to coordinate and plot terrorist attacks .  they have access to a universal and a vast array of communication technologies , and our laws must take this fact into account .  additionally , this conference report , through section 215 , ensures that law enforcement will still have the ability , under thorough and extensive oversight , let me repeat , under thorough and extensive oversight , to seek out information on terrorists without tipping them off and thereby potentially compromising security and costing lives .  again , mr. speaker , it should be emphasized to all americans that the usa patriot act did not establish any new law enforcement capabilities but rather extended techniques long available for use against organized crime or drug trafficking to be used against suspected terrorists as well .  if these are acceptable tools against some dope-pushing thug , then they should be acceptable tools against terrorists who seek to destroy american lives and rip apart the very fabric of this great nation .  without question , this congress must , and i trust , will continue to remain vigilant with thorough oversight to protect our constitution , to protect our civil liberties and to protect our national security .  mr. speaker , i encourage all of my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying conference report , and i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  in regard to section 215 , i want to remind the gentleman that section 215 , relating to investigators ' access to business records , this reauthorization requires a statement of fact showing reasonable grounds to believe that the records or other things sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or espionage .  this provides additional safeguards to the original usa patriot act , which requires the government only to certify that the records at issue were sought for an authorized investigation without any factual showing .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. speaker , i would like to remind the gentleman that in the original bill that we considered , h.r. 3199 , which 43 of his colleagues supported , there were sunset provisions not in two , but in three , sections that were of 10 years ' duration .  in their motion to instruct the conferees , the request was to abide by the senate bill , which would lower those to 4 years each .  so that is exactly what we are bringing back in the conference report , exactly what they asked for .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself 30 seconds .  mr. speaker , i just want to remind my colleagues that prior to 9/11 and before the usa patriot act in 2001 , we had this culture and legal problem where law enforcement could not communicate whatsoever with intelligence .  this bill enabled us to finally , finally connect the dots .  i think this is very important for all of us to keep in mind .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself 15 seconds .  i want to remind the gentleman from texas that this latest 9/11 commission so-called report card gave us an f for failing to reveal the amount of intelligence spending to the terrorists .  
R	madam speaker , i reserve the balance of my time for the purpose of closing .  
R	madam speaker , i yield to myself 15 seconds and want to remind the gentlewoman from california that under this reauthorization , the usa patriot act , we are not utilizing powers that were not already granted to the federal government in regard to crime prevention and drug lords and organized crime .  we are just applying it now to terrorists .  madam speaker , i continue to reserve the balance of my time .  
R	i have no more speakers .  
D	mr. chairman , to the last speaker , i agree it is good , but i think it could be a lot better .  
D	mr. chairman , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. chairman , as prior speakers on our side have made clear , we should be mending it , not ending it .  that is my view under this legislation .  
D	madam speaker , this vote on the patriot act reauthorization is tough ; it is far from being the best bill it could be .  but i will vote for it and want to explain why .  imagine a world in which terrorists make deals and connect with recruits on-line , in cabs , hotel lobbies or cafes all over the world .  communication is highly compartmentalized so few , if any , know what the big plans are .  sometimes , physical runners deliver messages to evade listening devices .  such a world is not the stuff of hollywood movies .  it is our 21st century world .  the horrific events of september 11 , and the more recent bombings in bali , britain , jordan , madrid , morocco , saudi arabia and turkey remind us that the terrorists are prepared to strike anywhere , at any time -- and with maximum destructive force .  with this as a backdrop , it has been and remains my view that the patriot act tools are needed : to track communications by email and internet , including the use of internet sites in libraries ; and to prevent and disrupt plots against us .  such powerful tools must be narrowly tailored to ensure that they do not violate the rights of innocent americans .  in reauthorizing the patriot act , congress had an opportunity to refine the law , but this conference report reflects only modest improvements .  many of us in both bodies worked hard to make this conference report better .  in the end , we asked for three things of critical importance .  first , four-year sunsets on the most controversial provisions -- section 215 orders ; section 206 roving wiretaps , and the lone wolf provision .  this request was accepted .  second , dropping the 1-year criminal penalty on divulging that a national security letter has been received , even in a case where there is no intent to obstruct justice .  this request was also accepted .  third , modifying the `` conclusive '' presumption that disclosure of an nsl would harm national security .  the legislation properly establishes that recipients of nsls have the ability to consult an attorney and challenge an nsl in a federal court .  but the `` conclusive '' presumption language makes it virtually impossible to challenge the `` gag '' order on recipients of nsls .  this is an important flaw in the bill and , sadly , our requested change was not accepted .  to remedy this , several of us will introduce legislation to replace the `` conclusive '' presumption language with a `` rebuttable '' presumption , and to incorporate critical checks and balances on the `` front end '' of the nsl process .  such changes will help ensure nsls can not be used as a `` back door '' for getting library circulation , medical , tax , educational or other sensitive records , and will help protect against other abuses .  this legislation will also ensure congress is finally provided with meaningful , detailed reports on nsls , which are critical to effective oversight .  another flaw in the report is section 215 , commonly called the library provision , which allows the government to gather a wide range of business materials , including library , medical and tax records .  this section is tightened by requiring that the records must be `` relevant '' to a terrorism investigation .  but the conference report should have explicitly required that the records be connected to a foreign power , or an agent of a foreign power -- the traditional fisa standard .  my refusal to sign the conference report was to protest the way the conference was managed .  instead of taking a few additional days to craft a strong bipartisan report that strikes the best balance , the majority rushed to file this flawed report .  that is why i have co-sponsored h.r. 4506 , to provide a 3-month extension of the patriot act to give the conferees additional time to bring to the floor a more carefully tailored bill with strong bipartisan support .  but the majority insists we proceed today .  my view of the patriot act is we need to mend it , not end it .  today we are mending it .  hopefully , soon , we will mend it further .  
R	mr. chairman , i demand a recorded vote .  
R	madam speaker , i rise in support of h.r. 3199 , the patriot act reauthorization conference report .  this is a balanced reauthorization -- protecting civil liberties and extending the necessary provisions to help us fight the war on terror here at home .  i want to thank chairman sensenbrenner for including a number of provisions from h.r. 3007 combating terrorism financing act .  funding is the lifeblood of terrorist organizations -- if we are to prevent future attacks and continue to dismantle terrorist organizations we must deny them funding .  terrorist analysts often note that it is fairly inexpensive to carry out a single act of terror -- for example , it is estimated that the attack on the world trade center cost only $ 500 , 000 .  terrorist organizations need money not just to carry out such attacks ; they also need funding to continue their operations such as recruiting and training new members and support their current members .  one of the most important lessons we have learned is exactly how terrorists and other criminal organizations transmit money through unregulated financial markets .  like the patchwork of terrorist organizations and cells , terrorism funding does not come from a single source .  terrorist networks are funded through state sponsorship , charities and businesses fronting as legitimate institutions , and exploitation of markets and financial networks .  the tough terrorism financing language in the conference report will increase penalties for terrorism financing .  in addition , the bill will add new predicate money laundering offenses to allow law enforcement to investigate and dismantle terrorist financing organizations .  finally , the original patriot act added a new forfeiture provision for individuals planning or perpetrating an act of terrorism against the united states .  the language in the conference report adds a parallel provision for individuals planning or perpetrating an act of terrorism against a foreign state or international organizations acting within the jurisdiction of the united states .  the language in the conference report builds on our current laws , to address some of the shortfalls that we have learned about since september 11 .  terrorists work to find the holes in our laws and we must make sure that we continue to be diligent to update them so that we can cut off terrorist funds and stop future attacks against us and our allies in the war on terror .  
R	mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. chairman , i yield myself the balance of my time .  the greatest responsibility of the intelligence community is to protect our country from attack .  today 's debate should flow from this simple premise which should not be controversial , contentious , or partisan .  the 9/11 attacks have led us to war , to war with an unconventional enemy that hides literally around the globe .  the full energies of the intelligence community are directed to finding and monitoring that enemy abroad , but our most pressing and immediate concern is with those foreign terrorists who may be even closer to home , those within the borders of the united states .  the usa patriot act has provided basic and fundamental tools to investigators to help them find foreign spies and terrorists who may seek to harm our nation .  the continued acts of alleged terrorism in london today should continue to highlight the urgency of these efforts and the critical nature of the patriot act authorities .  within days of the first london bombings , british authorities were able to rapidly identify the bombers and follow their trail to other terrorists .  the patriot act would be essential to do the same in the united states to investigate or prevent an attack .  by now , you have all seen the chilling photograph of the very first group of london bombers to gather in a rail station .  in the united states the authorities of the patriot act likely would have been used to obtain that photograph .  in the london investigation , there has been extensive cooperation between the london metropolitan police and the british intelligence agencies .  in the united states , that cooperation would not be possible without the patriot act .  british investigators then obtained leads from a terrorist phone to tie them to the coconspirators of the first group of bombers .  in the united states , the authorities of the patriot act likely would have been used to obtain those records .  mr. chairman , our counterterrorism investigators in the intelligence community can do truly remarkable work to find terrorists and to piece together the puzzle of their networks , but to do that they need modern legal authorities to deal with modern threats .  behind all the rhetoric , the patriot act is simple , sensible , reasonable and necessary .  i urge all members to support the intelligence community in its effort to fight terrorism .  support this bill and keep america safe .  
R	madam speaker , i rise in strong support of the conference report .  today , our country is at war .  we are at war against a global enemy , the global enemy of terrorism .  beginning long before the 9/11 attacks , our citizens have faced potential threats to our safety and security at home within the united states for the first time since pearl harbor .  we are reminded on a daily basis around the world that those threats are real , serious , and continuing .  as chairman of the intelligence committee , i want to take this opportunity to remind my colleagues that the central purpose of this bill is to provide enhanced intelligence authorities to combat spies and terrorists within the united states .  we have many national intelligence capabilities , but the authorities that are enhanced by the patriot act are among the most crucial because they protect the american people from terrorist threats here at home .  they are a crucial part of our efforts to build a strong domestic national security capability within the fbi .  i want to thank chairman sensenbrenner for his leadership in this conference and on this important legislation .  the conference report under consideration today will make 14 of 16 provisions of the patriot act permanent while also including sensible clarifications and improvements in many areas where there should be broad , bipartisan agreement .  by the justice department 's count , the bill adds 30 new safeguards to protect privacy and civil liberties .  these include a clearer standard for obtaining certain business records , clarification that that authority may be subject to judicial review , and much more specific standards with respect to the use of national security letters and roving wire taps .  in addition , the congress will continue its close and continued oversight with the intelligence committee paying particular attention to the specific manner in which these authorities are used .  madam speaker , this bill needs to be approved .  i encourage my colleagues to support this conference report and work to keep america safe .  
D	madam speaker , i thank the gentleman from michigan for all of his good work and for yielding me the time now .  i rise in opposition to the patriot act conference report .  these provisions and many others have a deep impact on the freedoms and civil liberties of all americans .  now , some will say we need these provisions to track down terrorists and build cases against them .  but what is often unsaid is that these provisions will also be used against people who have committed no crime and who are completely innocent .  it is because of that that the patriot act must be seen as something that affects all of us .  searching business records can sweep up people , most of whom are innocent .  a small number of unnecessary intrusions can have a broadly chilling effect .  proponents of the patriot bill before us will say that it is directed against terrorists , not law-abiding citizens .  but they should try to tell that to brandon mayfield of portland , oregon .  mr. mayfield , an attorney , was detained by investigators last year as a material witness under authority granted through the patriot act .  they alleged that his fingerprints were found on a bag linked to the terrorist bombings in madrid , spain .  more so-called evidence was collected when his residence was searched without his knowledge under section 213 .  however , the investigators were wrong .  the fbi has issued an apology for his wrongful detention .  but this is small conciliation for a lawyer and muslim american whose reputation was tarnished by the investigation .  of course , some mistakes will occur .  but this bill strikes the wrong balance and makes those errors more likely .  it also allows the fact , the very fact of such a search to remain undisclosed to the subject indefinitely .  i urge my colleagues to oppose this flawed conference report and protect the liberties and freedoms of our citizens that are central to what it means to be an american .  
D	mr. chairman , i rise today in opposition to h.r. 3199 , the usa patriot and terrorism prevention reauthorization act of 2005 .  while congress should be revising the flawed aspects of the patriot act , we are instead poised to make permanent the provisions that were supposed to sunset at the end of this year .  my fear is that the actions of our government pursuant to the patriot act amount to nothing short of a taking , not a taking of property , rather of our rights and our liberties .  for example , the house judiciary committee democrats have uncovered the following regarding the act : it has been used more than 150 times to secretly search an individual 's home , with nearly 90 percent of those cases having had nothing to do with terrorism .  it was used against brandon mayfield , an innocent muslim american , to tap his phones , seize his property , copy his computer files , spy on his children , and take his dna , all without his knowledge .  it has been used to deny , on account of his political beliefs , the admission to the united states of a swiss citizen and prominent muslim scholar to teach at notre dame university .  it has been used to unconstitutionally coerce an internet service provider to divulge information about e-mail activity and web surfing on its system , and then to gag that provider from even disclosing the abuse to the public .  it has been used to charge , detain and prosecute a muslim student in idaho for posting internet website links to objectionable materials , even though the same links were available on the u.s. government 's web site .  these are just a few of the incidents we know of , yet they are enough to raise plenty of concerns in my mind .  because of gag restrictions , we will never know how many times it has been used to obtain reading records from libraries and bookstores , but we do know that libraries have been solicited by the department of justice -- voluntarily or under threat of the patriot act -- for reader information on more than 200 occasions since the 9/11 terrorist attacks .  rather than making the provisions in question permanent , we should be reviewing and amending the most intrusive of these provisions that are subject to the sunset clause such as : sec .  215 : secret searches of personal records , including library records .  the bill does not provide a standard of individual suspicion so that the court that examines these extraordinary requests can ensure personal privacy is respected , and also falls short by failing to correct the automatic , permanent secrecy order .  sec .  206 : `` roving '' wiretaps in national security cases without naming a suspect or telephone .  the bill does nothing to correct this overbroad provision of the patriot act that allows the government to get `` john doe '' roving wiretaps -- wiretaps that fail to specify the target or the device .  the bill also does not include any requirement that the government check to make sure its `` roving '' wiretaps are intercepting only the target 's conversations .  the patriot act originally had sunsets on some provisions so we could reexamine the extraordinary powers that were given to the executive branch , in a calmer atmosphere .  instead we are here today ignoring the more troubling provisions such as : the `` delayed notice '' of a search warrant , the intrusive `` national security letters '' power of the fbi , and the overbroad definition of domestic terrorism .  there is no more difficult task i have as a legislator than balancing the nation 's security with our civil liberties , but this task is not a zero sum game .  by passing a bill that largely ignores the most serious abuses of the patriot act , that ignores the abuse of power by the bush administration , and which fails to give adequate resources and money to those on the `` front line '' in the fight against terrorism .  
D	madam speaker , i rise today in opposition to the conference report on h.r. 3199 , the usa patriot and terrorism prevention reauthorization act of 2005 .  last week , republican house and senate negotiators reached an agreement to reauthorize the patriot act .  as part of the deal agreed to by house and senate republican conferees , federal law enforcement authorities will retain the right to : investigate american citizens without judicial oversight , a power that is invoked more than 30 , 000 times each year ; search individuals ' private property without notifying them ; access citizens ' library records , medical records , school records , and financial records virtually unchecked by the judiciary .  the house-senate conference committee had an opportunity to revise the patriot act 's expiring provisions to protect the rights and liberties of all americans more effectively .  regrettably , the opportunity was lost when democratic conferees were excluded from key negotiations .  the resulting conference report falls short of what the american people have every reason to expect congress to achieve in defending their rights while advancing their security .  the conference report drops key protections in the senate-passed bill regarding `` national security letters. '' national security letters , nsls , are , in effect , a form of secret administrative subpoena .  they are issued by federal authorities -- most often fbi agents -- without any court supervision , and recipients are prohibited from telling anyone that they have been served .  the conference report also fails to protect the records of innocent americans collected by means of these nsls .  under the conference report , such records may be kept forever in government databases , shared with the intelligence community , and used for data-mining .  there is no more difficult task i have as a legislator than balancing the nation 's security with our civil liberties , but this task is not a zero sum game .  by passing a conference report that allows the troubling aspects of the patriot act to continue , we pursue a false sense of national security at the expense of our civil liberties .  i opposed the patriot act when it first came to us in 2001 and i vote against it today .  
D	madam speaker , i thank my friend for yielding , and i urge my colleagues to vote for this important motion to instruct on the patriot act .  like so many , i voted for the patriot act the first time and the second time .  but i agree with the gentleman from california and the gentleman from virginia , and as i understand it , perhaps the chairman as well .  i simply do not understand the reticence to include sunset provisions on a law that affects the civil liberties of every american citizen .  in fact , when we reauthorized the patriot act in july , the republican bill permanently authorized 14 of the 16 provisions .  the other two provisions , one for roving wiretaps and the other dealing with the fbi 's power to demand business records , were extended for 10 years .  democrats fought to sunset these provisions last summer ; and we do so again today , apparently successfully , because , i think , people have , upon reflection , thought that this is a better policy .  because when it comes to the government 's power to intrude on the private lives of citizens , the united states congress should not give the government unchecked power to do so .  just last sunday the washington post documented , and it has been referenced here , the hundredfold increase in the issuance of national security letters seeking information about u.s. citizens and visitors who are not even alleged to be terrorist or spies .  there are terrorists .  terrorism is a serious threat , and we need to be serious in our response .  but privacy concerns must not be casually dismissed .  in fact , it was not until several sections of the patriot act were set to expire that the justice department began to respond to congressional inquiries and we had the opportunity to assess , examine , and recalibrate our policies .  i submit to my colleagues they have given the justice department carte blanche .  no matter how good the leadership is in the justice department , it is not a policy that we ought to pursue and would be an abdication of our congressional oversight responsibility and contrary to the interests of the american people .  madam speaker , this motion would recede to the senate and create a 4-year sunset on the most controversial provisions in the patriot act , orders by the secret foreign intelligence court , blank wiretap orders and the surveillance of agents of a foreign power who act alone .  this motion , in my opinion , is a step in the right direction , and i hope the members support it .  as i said , and i will echo the comments of so many here , terrorism is an immediate and proximate threat , as we lawyers say ; and we need to respond effectively to keep america safe .  but in the process , we must also protect the basic rights that our founding fathers knew were the bedrock of the united states democracy .  
R	madam speaker , i am very pleased with the conference report , h.r. 3199 , to renew the patriot act .  i want to thank and compliment all the conferees and the administration for bringing this about .  by renewing this measure , we are continuing to provide our law enforcement agencies and the administration with many of the critical tools needed to combat global terrorism and protect america .  provisions of the patriot act have already been instrumental in warding off further terrorist attacks since 9/11 , and they are responsible for helping to keep us safe here at home .  in addition , the bill includes an added provision , which i authored , offering a new tool to attack the growing phenomenon of narco-terrorism , with the proceeds of illicit drug funding and financing feeding the foreign terrorist organizations , ftos , and supporting acts of terrorism .  passage of the patriot act conference report will enhance federal criminal law to effectively address the current reality , according to the drug enforcement administration , of illicit drugs being linked to nearly half of the designated ftos around the globe today .  in this measure , my provision makes narco-terrorism , which involves both the illicit drug trade and support for terrorism , a federal crime , and provides tough penalties that match the nature of such deadly and dual criminal activity .  our hardworking drug enforcement administration will no longer be challenged to produce evidence of a nexus of these illicit drugs to the united states , if there is proof that the illicit drugs support ftos or acts of terrorism .  in afghanistan , most of the heroin from illicit drug production goes to europe , rather than here , and much of the profit then finances and supports anticoalition terrorists and attacks on our forces there .  my provision will give us the tools to attack that drug-related support for terrorism and further protect america , our troops , and coalition forces on the ground in places like afghanistan .  madam speaker , i urge my colleagues to support the passage of the patriot act conference report .  
R	mr. chairman , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  i want to assure the gentlewoman from california that her concerns on electronic data and the fact that in an era of voip that we do have to look at that .  i serve with the gentlewoman in california on many of the caucuses that deal with that .  i look forward to both in judiciary and , quite candidly , in other committees of jurisdiction here in the congress to continue to work on properly identifying and modernizing how that is going to be interpreted .  i think it is beyond the scope of the patriot act today , but it certainly is not beyond the congress to have to bring things up to snuff , and i look forward to working with the gentlewoman from california .  mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman from the judiciary committee for the wisdom of this motion , and i applaud the joining by the chairman of the full committee and offer an explanation for the reason our colleagues should join us in supporting this motion to instruct , and frame it in the context of the crisis of the recent weeks , asking congress to accept its responsibility to investigate the cia leaks and now to investigate further the leaking of the cia sites , some call it sites of torture , incarceration , of individuals around the world who have been charged or are alleged to have committed acts of terrorism .  it is important now to speak to the american people and argue that this motion to instruct does simply one thing .  it now brings the american people into the focus of being the priority of the actions of this congress .  yes , the patriot act in some minds has offered to provide us more protection .  there were aspects of the patriot act that i did support .  the original writing was a bipartisan product .  unfortunately , the ultimate product was not as bipartisan .  but what is bipartisan is our responsibility to protect the american people .  the 4-year sunset gives us that opportunity so that we can begin in 4 years to assess whether authorizing secret intelligence , going into libraries and getting a list of your library books helps or hurts the american people ; whether the authorizing of a blank wiretap helps or hurts the american people ; whether or not the lone wolf , where you can be one individual , not part of a terrorist organization or an association or to be part of a large massive group , but one individual who may be part of , words may have suggested that they are giving some comfort to those whose views we disagree with can be hauled in as a terrorist .  this sunset allows us to protect the american people .  many of us are familiar with the recent film that said `` good night and good luck. '' it reminded us of the days of the mccarthy era when no one seemed to want to rise to support the rights of the american people .  i ask my colleagues to support this motion to instruct and sunset in 4 years so congress can have the ability to protect the rights of the american people .  
D	madam speaker , i rise today to address the many troubling issues associated with the reauthorization of the patriot act .  following the 9/11 terrorist attacks , this congress was faced with the difficult task of revamping our intelligence system .  however , the patriot act is flawed with over-reaching provisions that lack the safeguards to prevent abuse .  americans deserve a bill that successfully prevents attacks against our country , while protecting our constitutional rights .  we must address the authority this bill gives , and how it may negatively impact americans .  most of the provisions within the patriot act are positive measures that successfully protect american citizens .  however , we can not ignore the provisions that create serious privacy and civil liberty abuses .  these include : permitting large-scale investigation of americans for `` intelligence purposes. '' having minimal judicial supervision on wiretaps .  allowing the indefinite detention of non-deportable aliens , even if they are not terrorist suspects .  the power to conduct secret searches without having to notify the target of the search .  and the ability to designate domestic groups as terrorist organizations .  america was built on the notion of strong protection for our privacy and civil liberties .  now is the time to protect our citizens from terrorism while putting forth meaningful reforms .  
R	mr. speaker , i rise in support of this motion to instruct .  the american people want us to protect them from the terrorists -- but the american people also want us to protect their liberties and constitutional rights from an overreaching government .  our system of government is made up of checks and balances and this motion to instruct only expands these checks and balances .  a review every 4 years is the right action to assure american citizens that their civil liberties are protected .  let me close with a quote attributed to patrick henry : the constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people , it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests .  i ask that we restore the senate 's sunsets in the conference report .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman for yielding me time .  mr. speaker , reauthorizing the patriot act before it expires on december 31 is literally a matter of life or death because it is helping us to win the war on terrorism .  since we passed the patriot act in 2001 , we have convicted 212 terrorists , and we have frozen $ 136 million in terrorist assets .  passing the patriot act is purely a matter of common sense .  is it not common sense that we give law enforcement the same tools to go after terrorists as they now have to go after mafia dons and drug dealers ?  is it not common sense that we can now share data between the intelligence community and the law enforcement community ?  is it not common sense that we can now track deadly terrorists even though they cross jurisdictional lines or switch cell phones ?  now , some members of congress want to postpone this legislation or even filibuster it .  the worst thing that these critics can say about the patriot act is that supposedly law-abiding citizens will have their book store and library habits monitored .  that is a totally bogus allegation .  in reality , a prosecutor seeking this information must go before a federal judge , get a court order and prove that it is a matter of international terrorism .  now , how many times has that happened since we first passed the patriot act in 2001 ?  exactly zero according to the u.s. attorney general .  i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the patriot act and yes on the underlying rule .  
R	madam speaker , from keeping our children safe to winning the war on terrorism , we face many challenges , but few are like meth , which threatens lives , safety and health , at great cost to all of us .  i am pleased that this conference report contains many significant provisions that i have authored , including 4 enhanced criminal penalties originally introduced in the kennedy-hooley slam act .  it also contains a drug certification provision of mine that will stop the flood of meth from international superlabs .  we must send a signal to the pushers of this poison that they are not welcome in our communities .  madam speaker , this bipartisan legislation deserves the support of both bodies because it is a comprehensive response to the methamphetamine problem in america .  it will send a strong signal that congress is serious about fighting the scourge of meth .  while the criminal penalties in this bill would be more effective if they were as tough as what were originally introduced , chairmen sensenbrenner and souder showed tremendous leadership in moving this bill to the floor , and i urge the swift passage of this important legislation .  most importantly , our actions today will send a signal to the law enforcement officers who wake up every morning to protect our families that we stand with them in the fight against drugs and will work to give them every tool they need to be successful .  additionally , this conference report reauthorizes the usa patriot act , which fulfills the high responsibility of protecting our citizens while ensuring their fundamental privacy rights are not abused .  for many years , law enforcement officers lacked the same tools for tracking down suspected terrorists as they had for drug dealers , mobsters and other criminals .  extending the provisions of the patriot act that are scheduled to expire on december 31 will allow law enforcement officers to monitor suspected terrorists ' communications and share critical intelligence information .  these are vital tools for law enforcement that we need to help keep america safe , tools that carry with them strict safeguards to prevent the abuse of our civil liberties .  these safeguards will ensure that the patriot act is used only for its intended purposes , catching terrorists before they can do us harm , and not to curtail the strong tradition of personal privacy that americans have long enjoyed .  madam speaker , i urge all of my colleagues in both bodies to support this reauthorization of the patriot act , which contains important provisions in this nation 's fight against meth .  
D	mr. chairman , i rise today to oppose h.r. 3199 , the usa patriot and terrorism and prevention reauthorization act .  i want to emphasize at the outset that i share the concern of my house colleagues that it is essential to protect our nation and its citizens from terrorists seeking to harm our homeland and its citizens .  i agree with my colleagues that no safe harbor should be available to terrorists .  there should be no doubt that i wholeheartedly support enabling law enforcement officials with the authority to surveil and prosecute terrorists .  but it is critical that we resist the temptation to develop laws that assault the constitutional protections afforded to americans .  i am alarmed about the scope of a number of provisions in the bill that are likely to lead to the abuse of personal freedoms enjoyed by americans .  section 215 , seizure of records , causes me great concern .  this provision allows the fbi , based on the premise of conducting a terror investigation , to obtain any record , after receiving approval from a secret foreign intelligence surveillance act , fisa , court .  my concern is that law enforcement agencies can engage in such activity without meeting the standard legal threshold of `` probable cause '' , thereby leading to potential cases of abuse .  i am also very concerned about the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct `` roving john doe wiretaps '' .  under this scenario , criminal investigators can obtain wire tap authority to employ devices that roam with someone who has been designated as involved in terrorist activity ; that device can be attached to an instrument that can be transported through multiple jurisdictions .  section 213 that allows for `` sneak and peek '' authority related to searches and seizures .  this is a provision that allows for run-of-the-mill criminal investigations to be employed while conducting the war on terrorism .  the problem with this provision is that 90 percent of the searches are used for drug and fraud cases and not for terrorism .  i am concerned about the lack of oversight that could apply to these types of investigations .  i recognize that some of the provisions of the patriot act have served a useful purpose and are scheduled to end .  the process of reviewing provisions and determining whether to extend them allows the house to evaluate the effectiveness and appropriations of the provisions .  two of the provisions in this bill are now being scheduled to extend for 10 years as opposed to the 4 years in the expiring legislation .  in this scenario , a flawed provision could extend 6 years beyond the normal time frame .  fourteen sections of h.r. 3199 bill will become permanent , and will have virtually no oversight .  i continue to have great reservations about the use of national security letters , nsls .  national security letters are applicable within section 505 .  the nsls deny individuals due process by barring targets of investigations access to court and the right to challenge the nsls .  the nsls allows institutions , i.e .  banks , internet service providers , isps , to divulge critical information about individuals under investigation .  private information about an individual can be shared with law enforcement , but the organization would be `` gagged '' from revealing its efforts .  this is a terribly flawed and wrong process .  mr. chairman , i content that it is essential to protect the constitutional rights of american citizens as we engaged in the ongoing war on terrorism .  i urge my colleagues to stand up for the bill of rights and resist the temptation to curtail those rights in our collective pursuits to develop legislation to counter the threats posed by terrorists .  my review of h.r. 3199 causes my great concern that we are undermining the civil liberties of americans .  i stand as a patriot for america and our constitution , and in opposition to h.r. 3199 .  i urge my colleagues to join my in defeating this measure .  i support sending this over-reaching legislation back to committee , and ask the judiciary committee to come back with a better bill that does not shed our civil liberties that 
D	mr. speaker , in response to my good friend from california who said there must be sacrifices and sacrifices have been made , i would remind members of the words of benjamin franklin who once said that those who would give up their essential liberties to achieve a measure of security deserve neither .  the tragedy of 9/11 led to the patriot act , and then it led to a war against iraq .  fear and suspicion led the u.s. to roll back our civil liberties and attack a nation that did not attack us .  we have become a nation of leaders , some of whom who have condoned torture and illegal detentions .  fear and suspicion have driven us to that .  we need a different type of leadership so the american people could have been spared the effects of 9/11 .  it could have been different .  but , no .  we are here today trying to appeal to people to let go of their fear and suspicion because an open , honest review of the fbi 's use of the patriot act would surely find many areas in need of reform .  a careful balance between national security needs and protecting american rights must be struck , but that is not what we have here .  today we are set to pass a whole new round of democracy rollbacks .  american citizens are losing more of their free speech rights and privacy rights .  the authors of today 's bill inserted a very weak and loophole-ridden right to judicial review of government actions .  the american public is not served by such minimal accommodation .  today , the house will ignore more than 400 local communities and seven states that have passed resolutions asking for patriot act reform .  this legislation fails to provide reasonable sunset provisions that guarantee future congressional review .  the bill retains 4-year sunsets for only two of the 16 patriot act provisions and only one of two expiring provisions in the 2004 intelligence reform act .  all other intrusive powers are either made permanent or remain permanent .  this bill continues to allow roving wiretaps that permit federal agents to tap communications of a target where neither the target nor the phone is identified .  criminal wiretaps require one or the other , and the 10-day after-the-fact notice requirement is no substitute for privacy safeguards in the criminal wiretaps .  the bill continues to permit sneak-and-peak searches of a person 's home or business to remain secret indefinitely .  it drops a senate provision supported by the chamber of commerce , conservatives , libraries , civil liberties organizations that set limits on secret court orders for library , medical , and other personal records .  instead , the bill establishes a false right to judicial review .  a recipient must challenge before a preselected group of three court judges and go to the expense of hiring a lawyer with a security clearance who the fisa court agrees can appear before it .  so people have to essentially fight for their rights to be free of the scourge of wiretaps and to be free of the scourge of having the fbi reach into their library records , their reading records , their medical records .  where are we going with this country ?  it is not the america it used to be .  it has become something that is hard to recognize for many americans .  vote against this bill .  
D	madam speaker , today i rise in opposition to the conference report on h.r. 3199 , the usa patriot act reauthorization .  while i do not advocate permitting many of these important terrorism-fighting tools to expire at the end of the year , the american people would be better served by a bill that strikes a more reasonable balance between protecting civil liberties and fighting the war on terrorism .  i am disappointed that the conference report does not closely mirror the bipartisan compromise that unanimously passed the senate .  i urge my colleagues to reject this conference report and take a bipartisan approach to protecting americans ' lives and liberties .  since the usa patriot act was enacted shortly after 9/11 , i have met with many constituents and countless groups to discuss the details of this controversial legislation .  last year , i hosted a town hall meeting to hear what my constituents thought about the usa patriot act .  while some agreed that the act was necessary to prevent another terrorist attack , most of the crowd , as well as most rhode islanders , believed we have already ceded too much ground with respect to our civil liberties .  in my state , seven cities and towns have passed resolutions opposing parts of the usa patriot act , and my constituents understand what this bill means to them and their freedom .  last week , the 9/11 commission released a report card on the implementation of the group 's recommendations .  for `` balance between security and civil liberties , '' the government received a `` b , '' which is a high grade considering they were given more `` fs '' than `` as. '' however , the report card cautioned that `` robust and continuing oversight , both within the executive and by the congress , will be essential. '' we should strive to move closer to a than f , but this conference report does not accomplish that goal .  by making 14 of the 16 expiring provisions of the usa patriot act permanent , i worry that congress will be less likely to engage in vigorous oversight to protect the civil liberties of law abiding americans .  the senate proved that it is possible to protect both lives and liberties .  their legislation made permanent the less controversial portions of the act , but implemented commonsense changes to add a layer of protection for liberties while keeping america safe .  unfortunately , most of these improvements were not incorporated into the conference report .  for instance , the senate version required the government to show that a person is connected to terrorism or espionage before investigators could obtain medical , library or business records .  the bill before us permits the government to go on fishing expeditions to look for information without probable cause .  in addition , the senate required new , strong protections for `` sneak and peak '' searches and roving wiretaps .  these improvements are also absent , from the conference agreement .  i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the motion to recommit , which asks conferees to adopt the bipartisan senate language .  i recognize the need for our laws to keep pace with new technology and a changing world , and i am committed to ensuring our law enforcement has the tools they need to keep our nation safe .  however , providing these tools need not come at the expense of the liberties and freedoms that we hold so dear .  if we cede these , we have already given up the very values the terrorists are trying to destroy .  i am disappointed that conferees have decided to once again place partisanship over sound policy .  working together , we make america stronger , but congress has again divided the american people .  i urge my colleagues to join me in opposing h.r. 3199 and instead working to reauthorize the usa patriot act in a way that protects both our liberties and our country .  
D	madam speaker , there is no question that congress must give law enforcement the tools it needs to prevent terrorist attacks against the american people .  when the congress approved the patriot act 4 years ago , we recognized that the serious nature of the threat required giving law enforcement broad new powers to help prevent it .  there is also no question that the house and senate should not allow the patriot act to expire on december 31 .  indeed , nearly all of the 166 provisions of the patriot act are already the permanent law of the land .  four years ago , the bush administration and the leadership of the house rushed the original patriot act through the house without full debate or the chance to make improvements to the bill .  there is no need to rush an imperfect bill through the house today simply to accommodate a 6-week holiday recess .  while the conference report makes a number of improvements to the measure the house approved last summer , further improvement is needed .  in particular , i am disappointed that the bill before us does not include language to change how first-responder grants are allocated .  we need to make the formula risk-based .  just last week , the bipartisan members of the former 9/11 commission awarded congress and the bush administration a grade of f for our failure to distribute homeland security funds on the basis of risk .  the 9/11 commission made this recommendation 17 months ago .  how can we continue to justify a first responder grant formula that awards wyoming $ 37.94 per capita while michigan -- a key border state -- receives just $ 7.87 per capita ?  if we 're not going to fix this problem now , then when will we make this change ?  in a number of other areas , the senate-passed version of the bill included key safeguards that were removed from the conference report .  in particular , the senate bill contained important protections relating to the business and library records provisions of the act that have been so controversial with our constituents .  the senate-passed bill required the government to show that the records sought by the government have some connection to a suspected terrorist or spy .  the standard contained in the conference report is much weaker .  it would allow the government to compel the production of business or library records merely by showing that the records are `` relevant '' to a terrorism investigation .  in addition , unlike the senate-passed bill , the conference report fails to protect the records of innocent americans collected by means of national security letters .  the fbi now issues more than 30 , 000 national security letters a year to obtain consumer records from communications companies , financial institutions , and other companies .  these national security letters are issued without the approval of a judge and permanently bar recipients from telling anyone besides their lawyer that they have been served .  unlike the senate-passed bill , the conference report does not provide for meaningful judicial review of the national security letter nondisclosure requirement .  under the bill before the house , the records collected under national security letters can be kept forever and even used for data-mining .  we need better privacy safeguards in this area .  i will vote against passage of this legislation today because i am convinced that we can write a better bill that safeguards both our vital security interests and basic american liberties .  to that end , i have cosponsored legislation that calls for a three-month extension of the current patriot act to give congress additional time to perfect this legislation .  we should take the time we need to do the job right .  
D	mr. chairman , after 9/11 , i worked on the drafting of the patriot act in the committee and in the weekend drafting session , and i voted for the act on the floor .  i think it is important to know that most of what is in the patriot act is not actually before us today .  it is only the 16 provisions that are so-called sunsetted , which means that we need to review them and renew them , that are actually before the house today .  first and foremost , as the justice department said in their letter to me today , the most important thing in the patriot act is to help remove the legal barriers that prevented law enforcement and intelligence officers from sharing information so they could , so-called , `` connect the dots. '' that is important .  there are other important things in the act .  i think it is worth noting that there are some things that disturb americans that are happening in the united states relative to the arrest of american citizens and the holding of american citizens without charge , without access to counsel ; but they have nothing whatsoever to do with the patriot act .  they are not in the patriot act , no matter how concerned we might be about them .  i believe , however , that even though there are important components to the patriot act , there are some things that deserve more attention and more fine-tuning than they have received in this bill .  for example , section 505 of the act grants law enforcement the authority to issue national security letters , which are essentially administrative subpoenas , for all sorts of personal records about anyone without judicial oversight .  these records include telephone and internet records , financial documents and consumer records .  in addition , we enhanced this section in subsequent legislation to ensure that even more records could be subpoenaed from travel agencies , pawn brokers , casinos , car dealers and more ; but all of this is without oversight of a court .  prior to the act , national security letters could only be used to get records when there was reason to believe that the subject of the record was an agent of a foreign power .  not only did the patriot act remove the requirement that the subject of the record is a foreign power ; it lowered the standard by which those records could be obtained to the relevancy standard .  we have not had meaningful oversight , in my opinion , on this provision of the act .  assuming that law enforcement does need the ability to get some of these records , and i do not dispute that , we do need to have some standards in place .  as has been mentioned by the gentleman from virginia ( mr. boucher )  , one court has already struck down this section of the act as violative of the constitution .  we know from our inquiry to the justice department that this provision has been used hundreds of times .  we got six pages back of redacted records , but we really do not know the full impact ; and we need to know more than we do today before we allow this sweeping tool to be renewed .  i also want to mention section 215 of the act .  i believe that it may be important to obtain certain records , as has been outlined .  but , again , we need to have a standard that is beyond relevancy .  so the question here really is about balance .  we need to prevent terrorism , we all agree on that ; but we also need to protect and defend the constitution that has served us so well .  so i would urge that we have the oversight that we will need by having some sunsets , and particularly taking a look at the national security letter .  we do not need to violate our constitution to keep our country safe .  
D	mr. chairman , i would just note that we have spent since 9/11 only a couple hundred million dollars in homeland security to secure our rail systems .  that is the real problem here .  we spent nearly $ 25 billion on air security and a couple of hundred million on rail .  i would also not that although i do not oppose the death penalty , i doubt very much the death penalty is going to deter the suicide bombers .  i think we need to look at not deterrents but at actually preventing the terrorists from harming americans by protecting the systems and putting our money where our mouth is and in securing these rail systems which we have failed to do .  as my colleague on the committee on the judiciary knows , i also serve on the committee on homeland security .  we are well aware of how deficient our efforts have been in this regard .  that is the crux of this problem , not threatening suicide bombers with the death penalty .  
D	mr. chairman , here is my question .  section 208 of the social security act apparently states it is illegal to use a false social security number for activities to obtain employment .  if i am a 14-year-old kid and i go out and make up a social security number so i can get a job and pretend i am 18 , and i get money for it , have i violated section 208 ?  and if so , if i deal with a bank , is the bank falling afoul of this terrorism statute ?  
D	mr. speaker , i would just note the most important thing in the patriot act is the sharing of information between law enforcement and intelligence .  i support that reauthorization .  i am a member of the judiciary committee , a member of the homeland security committee .  the department of justice has stonewalled congress on telling us how they are using these powers .  i am a member of the conference committee .  republicans met secretly and separately away from democrats on the conference committee .  we have failed to cure the problems in the bill , and we have missed an opportunity .  mr. speaker , i think it 's clear that the primary benefit of the usa patriot act we passed in 2001 has been the sharing of information between criminal investigators and intelligence officials it enabled .  i support authorizing that information sharing capability in the original patriot act , and i support its reauthorization today .  but this conference report on reauthorization of the usa patriot act fails in important ways .  following the attacks of 9/11 , this congress passed the usa patriot act to give our law enforcement and intelligence agencies new powers to fight terrorism .  i voted for that law , but only after securing support for sunset provisions that allowed this congress to revisit these issues under less trying circumstances .  congress has not done its job in providing the thorough review we need of the patriot act .  nor has the bush administration done its job in providing us the information we need to properly evaluate the patriot act .  i have repeatedly sought access from the department of justice to the national security letters or nsls it has issued under section 505 of the act , and underlying materials regarding its use of the material witness statute .  i have been seeking access to these materials for over 6 months now , with no response from doj .  i wrote to them again last month seeking this information , and again received no response .  this is vital information about doj 's actual use of patriot act powers , information which doj steadfastly refuses to provide .  yet with this conference report congress blindly reauthorizes and makes permanent many of these same powers .  in fact , through the cracks in doj 's veil of secrecy , we 've begun to find some information about the patriot act .  we 've found out from whistleblowers that the fbi issues more than 30 , 000 national security letters each year .  these are tens of thousands of letters , never reviewed by a judge , demanding information on countless people , the vast majority of whom may be americans innocent of any terrorist activity .  we do n't know how many private lives are being swept up in these nsls , because doj wo n't tell us .  this bill does not correct the problems with national security letters .  it creates a new process for judicial review , but leaves that review subject to an extremely vague standard .  there are no requirements for law enforcement to `` minimize '' its collection of nsls ; that is , there 's no requirement for doj to segregate the vast amount of information collected on innocent americans unconnected to any terrorist activity .  an audit is provided which would allow doj to freely continue stockpiling information on americans without providing any standard .  this bill also adopts too weak a standard for law enforcement to engage in business records searches under section 215 of the patriot act .  the senate passed unanimously what i thought was a very reasonable standard for law enforcement to meet in order to conduct these searches .  the senate required that these searches actually be relevant to an ongoing terrorism investigation and related to the activities of an agent of a foreign power .  but the conference report adopts a presumption of relevance that would essentially tie judges ' hands and force them to grant any requested searches .  adoption of 4-year , rather than 7-year , sunsets on three provisions regarding business records searches , roving wiretaps , and so-called `` lone wolf '' terrorists acting as agents of foreign powers is positive .  frankly , i would have liked to see 4-year sunsets applied to more provisions of the patriot act , such as the provisions regarding nsls .  i believe these sunsets provide congress an important opportunity to review how the patriot act is actually being used .  given how reluctant doj has been to share information with us , these sunsets really provide the main source of leverage congress has over the department of justice to obtain information we should be provided as an equal branch of government .  mr. speaker , i 'm very disappointed that this legislation has removed the provisions we passed in the house providing for additional funding for first responders .  this is vitally needed funding that local first responders need in the event of another terrorist attack or other disaster .  this conference report drops all of these provisions passed by the house .  for these reasons , mr. speaker , i urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this conference report .  instead of rushing this bill to conclusion , we should give ourselves the time we need to get the patriot act right .  i , along with some of my colleagues , have introduced legislation that would allow us to reauthorize the existing patriot act authorities for another 3 months , to take the time we need to correct the many deficiencies still remaining in this conference report .  i urge that , instead of voting for a bad bill in order to meet an arbitrary deadline , my colleagues join me in voting for more time to turn this into a better bill .  
D	madam speaker , i thank the gentleman from the great city of worcester , massachusetts , for yielding .  madam speaker , i rise in opposition to the conference report on h.r. 3199 , the so-called usa patriot act , because we have not taken meaningful steps to eliminate or correct the most egregious sections of this act .  in particular , it is disappointing that the conference agreement does not include a meaningful judicial review mechanism for fisa wiretaps , under the foreign intelligence surveillance act , as applied against u.s. citizens .  given that the power that today 's surveillance technology gives to government and given the broad powers that we have given to intelligence agencies under this act , the absence of post-execution judicial review in today 's conference report constitutes one of its most critical shortcomings .  madam speaker , in order to ensure that the powers granted by the patriot act are not susceptible to abuse , our government must always operate with meaningful oversight , checks and balances .  after all , it is the maximum transparency and active judicial review which is our ultimate weapon in combating both governmental abuse and overreaching by governments to restrict the individual freedoms of our citizens .  for these reasons , i ask my colleagues to oppose the this version of the patriot act reauthorization .  
D	madam speaker , i rise in strong opposition to the conference report on the usa patriot reauthorization act .  as a member of the homeland security committee since its creation almost 3 years ago , i understand the importance of providing our nation 's counter-terror and law enforcement officers with the capabilities to act aggressively to detect and deter terrorist attacks .  as co-chairman of the congressional privacy caucus , i remain concerned about government encroachments into the private lives of innocent americans , which can undermine the principles of liberty , freedom of association and protection from unjust searches and seizures that have been embedded in our constitution and culture .  clearly , the interests of security and privacy must be balanced .  unfortunately , this conference report does not strike the appropriate balance , and i can not support it .  the conference report fails to include essential privacy protections that had been included in the senate version of this legislation .  specifically , the senate-passed bill contained key safeguards not included in the conference report regarding the patriot act 's use of so-called `` national security letters '' and `` business and library records '' .  madam speaker , as you know , national security letters are , in effect , a form of secret administrative subpoena .  they are issued by federal authorities , most often the fbi , without any court supervision , and recipients are prohibited from telling anyone that they have been served .  these letters represent a counter-terror tool that must be carefully and judiciously used , provided their secretive nature outside the traditional judicial process .  unlike the senate-passed bill , however , the conference report does not provide meaningful judicial review of a national security letter 's gag order .  the conference report requires a court to accept as conclusive the government 's assertion that a gag order should not be lifted , unless the court determines the government is acting in bad faith .  despite strong opposition to this the conference report eliminated key protections in the senate-passed bill regarding the `` business and library records '' provisions .  under the conference report , the government can compel the production of business and library records merely upon the showing that the records are `` relevant '' to a terrorism investigation .  by contrast , the senate-passed bill required the government to show that the records have some connection to a suspected terrorist or spy .  this is a commonsense protection that would not restrict government capabilities , but would prevent government overreaching and fishing expeditions .  the house-senate conference committee had an opportunity to adjust the patriot act 's expiring provisions to protect the rights and liberties of all americans more effectively .  regrettably , this opportunity was lost and the conference report we are considering today does not contain key privacy protections that had been included in the senate-passed bill .  i urge my colleagues to vote `` no '' on this conference report and support the democratic substitute offered by ranking member conyers , which strikes the proper balance between security and privacy .  
D	i thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time .  mr. speaker , i rise today in opposition to this restrictive rule , and i rise in opposition to the underlying bill .  protecting our homeland from another terrorist attack is among the most important priorities we face .  we must support our law enforcement officials by providing them with the proper resources and modern technologies to combat terrorism .  there is a delicate balance that must be maintained between security and liberty .  i believe that this bill sacrifices too much of our liberty .  i know there is a lot of anguish in the house today about this bill .  this morning 's incidents on the london subway only serve to heighten that anxiety .  but democracy takes courage , mr. speaker .  it takes the courage not to abandon our most deeply held principles .  it takes the courage not to subject our citizens to unwarranted intrusions into their privacy .  it takes the courage to say to the terrorists , you will not succeed in changing our way of life .  mr. speaker , i hear all the time from all types of people that 9/11 has changed everything .  i hope not , mr. speaker .  i hope that those terrible attacks have not served to undermine our constitution , to weaken our respect for civil liberties , to chip away at the values that not only make this country unique but also make us a beacon of hope for the rest of the world .  while the government should be provided with the necessary resources to protect the homeland , it should not be given a free pass to threaten and abuse the rights and liberties of our own citizens .  safeguards are key , and congress in its vital function of oversight is one of government 's most important safeguards .  many of the provisions in the patriot act were sunsetted back in 2001 so that congress could evaluate and fix them if necessary .  these time limits on certain provisions serve as critical checks on the executive branch .  they serve as a reminder that congress is paying attention and that if the new powers are abused , they will not be renewed .  we know from our own history that abuses of law enforcement powers are all too common .  we must remember the wiretaps and secret surveillance on leaders in the civil rights and antiwar movements , and we must vow to never let those abuses happen again .  some of the powers granted to the executive branch in this bill are simply too broad : secret surveillance of library and bookstore records ; roving wiretaps ; sneak-and-peek searches ; and overly broad subpoena power .  however , i realize there is little chance of removing the majority of these dangerous provisions from this bill .  at the very least , i urge my colleagues to fulfill their responsibilities and vote to sunset all of these provisions again for a short period of time .  further , since the patriot act was adopted , congress has received far too little information about its uses .  how can we make these provisions permanent when the department of justice , fbi , and other government agencies will not report to congress or the american people how these provisions are being implemented ?  mr. speaker , privacy is not a convenient luxury .  it is a fundamental right .  we need a bill that achieves the appropriate balance between liberty and security , a bill that combats terrorism vigilantly , but that is also consistent with the rights and liberties provided in the constitution of the united states .  in my opinion , this bill is not it .  i fear that if this bill becomes law , a part of our tree of liberty will die .  i urge my colleagues to oppose this restrictive rule , and i urge my colleagues to oppose the legislation .  
D	mr. speaker , i rise today in strong opposition to h.r. 3199 .  while this conference report makes some improvement to the current patriot act , it fails to address some major deficiencies , and in many ways , it makes the current situation worse .  the original intent of the patriot act was to provide our law enforcement officials with the necessary tools to make our country more secure .  while maintaining national security is absolutely a necessary responsibility of congress , it can and must be achieved without compromising our civil liberties .  unlike the proponents of h.r. 3199 , the american people do not believe that security and liberty are mutually exclusive goals .  a delicate balance between enhancing security and protecting liberty needs to be present .  but unfortunately , this bill before us today falls far short to achieving this appropriate balance .  mr. speaker , back in 2001 , when the patriot act was enacted , 16 provisions were sunsetted or authorized for a certain period of time because of their controversial nature and also due to the hurried manner in which they were drafted ; 14 of these 16 provisions are made permanent by this conference report .  and while three of the most contentious provisions have been sunsetted for 4 years , even that is too long .  section 215 , commonly referred to as the library records provision , grossly expands the federal government 's ability to seize records and investigate citizens ' reading habits without any notification .  section 206 , dubbed the roving wiretaps provision , grants the government the power to perform so-called john doe wiretaps in which they do not have to disclose the phones that will be tapped or even the names of the suspected person .  section 6001 , known as the lone wolf provision , broadly redefines the foreign intelligence surveillance act 's , fisa , standard for the agent of foreign power .  the new definition is so expansive that the government can now define any individual non-u.s. person as a terrorist suspect , even if the individual has no clear ties to a foreign government .  mr. speaker , it is more than apparent that these three provisions pose a threat to american citizens ' civil liberties .  and while i would rather see these provisions removed from the legislation , i am encouraged that a shorter sunset has been placed upon them .  but , unfortunately , mr. speaker , shorter sunsets do not do the trick .  sunsets alone do not fix the severe substantive flaws of these sections , and they do nothing to address the deficiencies of the 14 other provisions that are being made permanent by this report .  instead of opting to apply shorter sunset dates to these misguided provisions , congress should be exploring appropriate ways to fix them .  after all , giving the government the power to violate civil liberties is wrong regardless of whether we give the government that power for 1 year or 4 years or for 100 years .  most notable of the deficient provisions , which was made permanent by the original patriot act , is section 505 , known as the national security letters provision , nsls .  these nsls are administrative subpoenas , issued by high-ranking department of justice officials , which force a person to turn over a wide range of personal records .  essentially , nsls allow the fbi to conduct secret , warrantless searches of any records they deem relevant to national security .  what is most concerning about nsls are the rate in which they are being issued and the eventual relevancy of the retrieved records .  more than 30 , 000 nsls are being issued a year , a hundred-fold increase since the enactment of the patriot act .  meanwhile , only a handful of nsl investigations have ever gone through the judicial process .  moreover , the fbi has surreptitiously gathered information on tens of thousands of americans .  they are maintaining databases on these citizens .  and instead of deleting information on nsl recipients once an investigation is completed , the fbi is abusing this power and holding onto personal information of americans who have never been accused of any crime .  mr. speaker , while this conference report does require the department of justice to report the number of national security letters they issue , it fails to address the abuse of power and the unconstitutionality of the provision .  as determined by a federal court judge on october 4 , 2005 , the nsl provision was ruled to be unconstitutional .  so instead of reevaluating this provision or at the very least sunsetting it , the nsl provision remains permanent and continues to infringe upon the civil liberties of the american people .  mr. speaker , we all must be reminded that privacy is a right guaranteed by our constitution , not a luxury that we can simply discard when it becomes inconvenient to the government .  shorter sunsets and minimal regulations imposed on the department of justice do not cure the serious problems with these provisions .  congress needs to go back to the negotiating table , reevaluate these provisions , and come up with a report that strikes the appropriate balance between advancing security and defending our civil rights .  that is why , mr. speaker , i am a cosponsor of h.r. 4506 .  this legislation , introduced by the ranking member of the judiciary committee , mr. conyers , extends by 3 months the 16 provisions of the patriot act set to expire at the end of this year .  extending the patriot act in its current form for 3 months would give lawmakers the opportunity to reevaluate these contentious provisions , fix them , and then issue a conference report that actually protects the civil liberties of the people of this country and not hinders them .  i would like to share a quote from an article entitled `` going down in history with usa patriot act , '' which appeared in the november 27 edition of the massachusetts republican : `` unless lawmakers are prepared to revise the usa patriot act to include modest protections to safeguard civil liberties , they will go down in history as the authors of remarkably bad legislation. '' mr. speaker , when we in congress authorize federal agencies , it is our responsibility to grant them with an appropriate level of power so that abuse will not occur .  it is also our responsibility to demand accountability and conduct appropriate oversight .  sadly , under this republican leadership , neither responsibility has been fulfilled .  one final observation .  we are all , every single member of this house is committed to protecting our country from terrorism .  we must adjust our laws accordingly to deal with any potential threat .  but we must not undercut or undermine the protection of our civil liberties .  mr. speaker , democracy requires courage , and we can protect our citizens from terrorism and at the same time protect their civil liberties .  they are not mutually exclusive .  i am not convinced that the bill as written will enhance our national security , nor am i convinced that these broad , sweeping powers that we are now giving to our government will not be abused .  in our recent history , we have seen abuse of power .  we have seen civil rights leaders in this country , people who have advocated equal treatment under the law for all of our citizens , we have seen these people put under surveillance .  they have been wiretapped .  we have seen others who have raised their voices in dissent or who have advocated issues that are now viewed as the mainstream , we have seen that they have been spied upon by our own government .  so let us not give government more power than is needed .  that is my fear today , that we are going too far , that we are paving the way for abuse , and that if we enact this bill as written , a little bit of the liberty tree will die .  mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	madam speaker , may i inquire how much time i have remaining ?  
D	madam speaker , may i inquire of the gentleman from georgia how many more speakers he has ?  
D	madam speaker , i will close for our side .  madam speaker , this bill overreaches .  it paves the way for abuse and is a potential threat to innocent , law-abiding citizens .  we are not a police state , and what makes us different from so many others is our freedom and our respect for basic civil liberties and our respect for privacy .  i understand the urge of some to embrace this legislation ; but let me remind you that every time you chip away at our civil liberties , you give the terrorists a victory .  you take away something that is essential to who we are as americans .  let us adjust and enhance our laws accordingly , to give law enforcement officials what they need ; but let us not give them more than what they need .  this bill puts us on a dangerous path .  there are over 150 provisions in this bill that are noncontroversial , that everybody agrees on , that will help track down terrorists and criminals ; but there are a few provisions that so cross the line that they threaten our privacy and our civil liberties and do not make us safer .  we can defend our country ; we can protect our people without trashing the constitution .  with that , madam speaker , i urge my colleagues to vote `` no '' on this bill .  
R	mr. chairman , on rollcall no .  403 , i was unavoidably detained .  had i been present , i would have voted `` aye . '' 
D	mr. chairman , the devastation of 9/11 shook our collective consciousness to the core ; but it should not have shattered the foundation that defines who we are as a people and serves as a beacon of individual rights and liberties throughout the world .  our nation has been able to overcome the challenges of the past by proving to ourselves and to the world around us that our rights and our values are the indispensable conditions of being an american .  if we allow the threat of fear and terror to undermine our civil liberties , we will have failed not only the founding fathers who bestowed upon us the philosophical foundations of this great nation , but more importantly , we will have failed the future of america as the last great hope of mankind .  mr. chairman , an unforeseen consequence of these infringements on american citizens ' civil liberties is the erosion of our standing as the international leader of the rights of people .  with each fundamental mistreatment of our own citizenry , we broadcast an image around the world that will , in fact , come back to haunt us .  we will become what we deplore : a hypocritical pseudo-democracy of freedoms granted from the government down instead of from the people up .  mr. chairman , do not rewrite our precious bill of rights .  vote against this bill just as our founding fathers would have .  
D	this should be defeated for those reasons because it is not a proper balance between security and liberty .  
D	mr. chairman , how much time do i have remaining ?  
D	madam speaker , i rise in support of the motion to instruct .  this bill makes permanent the most dangerous and intrusive provisions of the patriot act , 14 of the 16 previously sunsetted provisions .  the remaining two sunsetting provisions are renewed for 10 years .  ten years is not a sunset .  ten years is quasi-permanent .  these provisions are particularly worrisome because they expand the powers of the police to pry into the privacy of ordinary americans , to go into their homes , into their papers , into their internet records , their telephone records , their medical records , their bank records .  reinstating the sunset is about accountability .  the breadth of these provisions providing for roving wiretaps , for sneak-and-peek searches , for invading library privacy and section 505 , expanding the use of national security letters invites abuse .  the administration assures us , the chairman assures us that these provisions have not been abused .  but how do we know ?  it is all secret .  we were told repeatedly that section 215 we should not worry about ; it is rarely if ever used to demand library records .  now we know why .  the washington post revealed last sunday that the fbi issues more than 30 , 000 section 505 national security letters a year , many to libraries for `` preliminary investigations and threat assessments '' before deciding whether or not to launch an investigation .  these tens of thousands of invasive government demands for sensitive and private information which never even go before a judge have resulted in the collection of probably hundreds of millions of personal facts regarding innocent americans , innocent american residents , citizens , and businesses .  and the bush administration has decided to file all this personal information in government databases even if no basis is found for a real investigation and they will not even rule out selling this information to private conditions .  sunsets have been the major check , albeit probably inadequate checks , on abuse of the patriot act .  they mean that at least every 4 years congress is required to look at the law again , to revisit it , and has the opportunity to ask tough questions on the use or abuse of these powers , and most important , the administration can not stonewall these questions except for every 4 years .  we should have to look into these burdens on our civil liberties at least one in four years and ask are these powers being abused , should they be fine tuned ?  should they be narrowed ?  have we made the right balance between security and liberty ?  what can we do to ensure that our constitutional rights are not violated ?  i wish , madam speaker , that this motion to instruct were broader than it is , that it kept all the sunsetting provisions from being made permanent .  the fbi will still have all the powers it needs .  it will simply have to hold itself accountable to congress and the american people every 4 years about how these powers are used .  why is that so terrible ?  i call on all my colleagues , democrats and republicans , liberals and conservatives , to begin to safeguard the national security , not adequately , but to begin to safeguard the civil liberties of all americans by voting for this very , very skimpy motion to instruct .  
D	madam speaker , i want to make two points : one , the bad parts about section 215 and section 505 are not that , under certain circumstances , the fbi or other investigative agencies can get information from libraries .  no one is proposing , as mr. sensenbrenner  said , to say that libraries are totally sacrosanct .  the bad part is that the fbi can get all this private personal information without any proper or adequate judicial review and then can tell them , shut up , do not tell the victim about it , and that gag order also operates without any real judicial review .  that is the real issue .  secondly , the gentleman from wisconsin is attempting to do something , i think , improper , and that is , he tells us you can not change the patriot act .  there are good things in this bill , things we need , which is true , but you have got to take it or leave it , because your 3-month extension i will not allow to go through .  we will blackmail this house .  if you do not pass the bill as is today , if it expires , there will be blood on your hands , because he and his side of the aisle will not allow a 3-month extension .  well , if there is fault , if there is real danger by not extending the patriot act , it is on that side of the aisle by refusing a 3-month extension so that we can get it right .  this country should not be subjected to that kind of blackmail .  the senate has real questions .  many liberals , many conservatives , have real questions about this bill .  it should be worked out , and if it takes an additional 3 months , let it be .  but we , this house , should not be told , take it or leave it , because if you do not take it the way it is , we will not permit a 3-month extension ; there will be dangers to the republic .  without a 3-month extension , there will be blood on your hands .  that is not the way to legislate .  that is not proper procedure .  that is not respectful of the constitution .  it is not respectful of the people of this country .  it is not respectful of the members of this house .  
R	madam speaker , the crippling reach of methamphetamine abuse has become the nation 's leading drug problem today , and this is according to a survey by 500 sheriffs departments in 45 states .  it is cheap to buy .  it is easy to make .  it is available everywhere .  it is highly addictive .  oftentimes it is addictive after just one use .  so it is currently replacing cocaine and heroin in many parts of the country .  it leads to increased crime , child abuse , increases in the jail population .  in many parts of the country , almost 40 to 50 percent of the jail population is due to methamphetamine abuse .  however , the main problem anymore is not the mom-and-pop meth lab out in the countryside .  it is the superlabs .  right now 60 to 85 percent of the meth in the united states is coming from superlabs in mexico , and this is really hard to trace .  it is hard to get at .  the one thing that is needed to make methamphetamine is pseudoephedrine or ephedrine , and this is manufactured in only six or seven locations around the world : czechoslovakia , germany , china , southeast asia and so on .  this bill would make it more difficult for meth manufacturers to obtain the pseudoephedrine necessary for producing the drug in these superlabs .  h.r. 3199 includes language the house passed earlier as part of the foreign operations authorization bill .  it identifies and publicizes the five countries which have the highest rate of diversion of pseudoephedrine to manufacturers of meth .  we can get the invoices from these manufacturers .  the department of state could then use its existing authority to reduce or eliminate u.s. foreign aid to those countries which are most contributing to the meth problem .  this is one thing that gets people 's attention , when you take their foreign aid away , because they are producing meth that is being used in these superlabs .  it is a good bill .  it gets to the source of the problem .  i want to thank chairman sensenbrenner and particularly chairman souder for their hard work on this bill , and i urge support of the underlying legislation .  
R	mr. speaker , i appreciate the leadership that we are getting on this .  this is a very difficult time for me because i have been a republican all my life , and one of the things that i have fought for more than anything else is fairness .  do i always agree with one side or the other ?  not always .  my entire political career i have spent trying to just maintain balance .  the interesting thing that was brought up earlier in the debate , as i watched it from my office on this rule , was that the very thing that the patriot act is supposed to give to this country , that the proponents of it say gives to this country , is being denied on this floor today , and it is being denied because i think people are afraid to be exposed to the truth .  john stuart mill one time said , in certain occasions , there are people that are unfit for liberty .  let us not prove to ourselves because of temporary panic or momentary discouragement or in a fit of enthusiasm for an individual , we are suddenly unworthy of our founding fathers ' efforts in order to provide liberty to the folks first , not from the government , but from our birthright .  so i am embarrassed to be on this side of the aisle from this aspect today .  certainly , i know that there are well-intended people on both sides , and i tried to work out a lot of things on both sides of this aisle on the patriot act .  but i can tell my colleagues that with this rule and the lack of full and complete discussion , we have put a gag rule , the same gag rule that the fbi and the cia and the nsa or any other government agent can put on the folks at the library or down at your local business and say , i want all of those records , but you are not allowed to use them .  so it is unfortunate that we have come to this .  it is unfortunate that we have come to this time at this moment , because we have done so much and we have so many reasons to be proud .  but this is a very embarrassing moment when we are afraid to confront the truth and the full and unabashed debate on a subject that is so dear to us as this deserves .  
R	madam speaker , i rise in support of the motion to instruct .  we have heard much from many sides about the usa patrlot act -- concerns about what the bill does , statements about what it does not do , and fears about what it could do in the future .  we have shared these discussions with constituents , state and local officials , businesses , librarians , and other government agencies .  but earlier this year we had an important opportunity to move those conversations back to congress to examine -- in a light much more clear and objective than that in which we passed the original bill -- how the patrlot act has protected us from further terrorist attack , and also how balance between national security and personal security needs to be restored .  as a result of the opportunity to debate , deliberate , and discuss , we made important changes to the original usa patrlot act in h.r. 3199 , changes that enable law enforcement to continue to investigate and prosecute crime while protecting civil liberties .  congress was able to go back and make those changes because the original bill included a sunset and made many questionable provisions subject to it .  this sunset served us well , and so i am perplexed that in the same bill where we made vital revisions to the usa patrlot act we also eliminated many of the sunsets and extended others for a decade or more .  in doing so , h.r. 3199 takes away from congress the opportunity to periodically review these provisions and ensure that the tools they provide law enforcement are necessary and that they are not being abused .  i am glad that , in respect to sections 206 and 215 of the usa patrlot act , the senate did not act as rashly as we did .  i strongly urge conferees to see the wisdom of four-year sunsets for these sections , as passed by the senate , and i ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this motion to instruct .  
R	mr. chairman , anyone who was serving in congress on september 11 , 2001 , will never forget the day .  we watched television in horror as the world trade center collapsed , and then were rushed out of the u.s. capitol when flight 77 crashed into the pentagon .  president bush immediately challenged us to provide u.s. citizens with protections against the new threat of worldwide terrorism , and within weeks we responded with the usa patriot act .  as chairman of the house financial services committee , i was proud to help author the antiterrorist financing provisions in the act .  my committee has held numerous oversight hearings on the implementation of the provisions since then .  i can report progress .  more than $ 147 million in assets have been frozen and roughly $ 65 million seized since 9/11 .  the u.s. has broken up suspected terrorist financing networks , including one in my home state of ohio .  our terrorist financing tools were further augmented by the intelligence reform act approved in the wake of the 9/11 commission report .  as a former fbi agent , i have found other parts of the patriot act just as vital in the defense of our freedoms .  as we have been reminded by the two rounds of bombings in london , the reality of terrorism remains very much with us .  the toll that these attacks take is so terrible that the only acceptable approach is to prevent them in the first place .  to that end , today we are working to make permanent 14 of the 16 expiring provisions of the patriot act .  i would note that one of the two provisions being extended for only ten years rather than permanently concerns the use of `` roving wiretaps. '' as one of the only members of congress who has conducted undercover surveillance , i can tell you now that the need for this authority will not go away .  tying intercept authority to an individual rather than a particular communication device is simply common sense in this era of throwaway cell phones and e-mail .  sunsetting this authority sends the wrong message to our law enforcement agencies : it indicates that our trust in them is incomplete at a time when their services have never proven more important .  they should have our full support and every reasonable tool we can give them to help fight the global war on terror .  the patriot act has been a success and we are safer for it .  the law has come under misguided criticism from some quarters , and i am constantly answering questions from my congressional district in response to myths surrounding the act .  there is absolutely no evidence that the patriot act has been used to violate americans ' civil liberties .  congress recognizes the delicate balance between deterring terrorists and preserving our precious freedoms .  i feel confident in saying that terrorists make no such distinction .  i support the reauthorization of the patriot act and hope that we can continue to work on remaining issues -- including making the roving wiretap provision permanent .  
R	madam speaker , i support our action today to reauthorize the usa patriot act .  within weeks after the horrendous terrorist attacks of 2001 , congress responded with the patriot act , providing our law enforcement and intelligence communities with much-needed tools to track down terrorists , sever their communications and funding networks , and prevent future attacks on our citizens .  as chairman of the house financial services committee , i was proud to help write the antiterrorist financing provisions of this act .  millions of dollars in terrorist assets have been frozen or seized since 9/11 .  we have broken up suspected terrorist financing networks , including one in my home state of ohio .  the terrorist financing tools included in the act were further supplemented by the intelligence reform legislation approved in the wake of the 9/11 commission 's report .  as a former special agent of the fbi , i know that other sections of the patriot act have proven just as vital in assisting law enforcement combat the new threat of international terrorism .  i am pleased that this reauthorization makes permanent all but a few of the act 's expiring provisions , but regret that the 4-year sunset for the remaining authorities was made a part of this final product .  including any sunset sends the wrong signal to our law enforcement agencies , indicating that our trust in them is incomplete at a time when their services have helped prevent further terrorist attacks .  they should have our full support and every reasonable tool we can give them to help fight the global war on terror .  one of the provisions still subject to a sunset deals with the use of roving wiretaps .  as one of the few members of congress who has conducted undercover surveillance , i can tell you now that the need for roving wiretap authority will not expire in 7 years .  tying intercept authority to an individual suspect rather than a particular communication device is simply common sense in this era of throwaway cell phones and e-mail .  further , there is absolutely no evidence that wiretap authority or any other usa patriot act provision has been used to violate the civil liberties of americans .  congress recognizes the delicate balance between deterring terrorist activities and preserving the freedoms we hold so dear .  i know beyond a doubt that terrorists make no such distinction .  the patriot act has been a success , and we as a nation are safer for it .  its provisions are helping to put the fbi and cia on a more equal footing with terrorists , who use every available technology to plot with impunity .  the act refines our surveillance laws for the high-technology era -- something that has been long overdue .  i support the reauthorization of the usa patriot act , and hope that congress will work toward making the roving wiretap and other temporary provisions permanent .  
R	mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	madam speaker , i thank the gentleman for yielding , and thank you , mr. conyers , our ranking member on the judiciary committee , for being such an outstanding leader in protecting our civil liberties and also the national security of our country .  i also extend that to the democrats on the committee .  first , let us be clear about what we are voting on today , madam speaker .  we are not voting for the reauthorization of the patriot act in general .  more than 90 percent of the patriot act is permanent law and includes many noncontroversial provisions that give law enforcement the tools they need .  what is before us on the floor today is the extension of certain provisions which are controversial and have the potential for abuse .  madam speaker , all of us support providing law enforcement officers with the tools they need to combat terrorism .  in doing so , we must also preserve the balance between security and civil liberties and to recognize that not all of the tools law enforcement officers want are tools that they legitimately need .  i can not support the patriot act extension conference report because it does not secure the right balance between security and liberty .  our founding fathers knew well the importance of the balance between security and liberty .  they led a revolution to secure liberty against an arbitrary power .  they knew that you can not have security without liberty and liberty without security in a democracy .  as we consider this conference report , i ask every member of congress , indeed , every american , do you know if a national security letter has been issued about you , a letter to your phone company , your internet provider , your bank , for wholesale collection of records that may include your personal information ?  this letter does not even have to specify that the specific records sought are connected to terrorism , and the recipients , you do not know if such a letter has been issued .  you can not know .  you will never know .  this is the same for every american , and any information , including your most sensitive personal data , along with that of thousands of american citizens gathered by these national security letter requests , will be held in perpetuity by law enforcement .  the recipients , the bank , the phone company , the internet provider , are not allowed to tell anyone they have received this letter about you .  these are searches without any warrant and without any judicial supervision .  just think of it : you do not know , the recipient of the letter who is in possession of your information can not tell you .  you do not know , so you can not challenge it , and the letter can be sent without demonstrating any relationship between the specific records sought and a connection to terrorism .  this is a massive invasion of the privacy of the american people .  this is not just some idle threat .  the washington post reported last month that the fbi hands out more than 30 , 000 national security letters per year , a reported hundredfold increase over historic norms .  how did this happen ?  when originally enacted , the patriot act was intended to be accompanied by congressional oversight so that the implementation did not violate our civil liberties .  unfortunately , the bush administration and the republican congress have been delinquent in the oversight of the patriot act .  as we have seen with this massive and unprecedented scope of national security letters , the implications of the republican failure of oversight are glaring and have a direct impact on every american .  it is long past time for congress to have real oversight .  this conference has missed an opportunity to address the revelation of the widespread use of national security letters .  we must have standards that clarify that there must be a connection to terrorism or to a suspected spy .  section 505 that covers the national security letters must now include a sunset .  that is why i strongly support the request of mr. conyers  for a 3-month extension so that conferees can reconvene , adopt the senate bill , fix the national security letters and get it right .  our democracy requires no less .  another part of this legislation that requires the government to show some connection between the records sought is under the library provision and an individual suspected of being a terrorist or spy .  such a standard is needed to assure that fishing expeditions do not take place .  yet this standard is missing from the republican conference report .  the list of failures goes on .  that is why i think it is important that we support the motion to recommit to adopt the senate bill .  if not that , then to follow mr. conyers ' lead and take 3 months to do this right .  nothing less is at stake than the privacy , the civil liberties , really the essence of our democracy .  we must always remember as we protect and defend the american people , we must honor the oath of office we take here when we are sworn in to protect and defend the constitution and the civil liberties that it contains .  we have an obligation to do that for the american people .  
R	mr. chairman , i thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me time , and especially i rise to thank the gentleman from wisconsin ( chairman sensenbrenner ) for his tireless efforts on behalf of the security and the liberty of the american people in developing this reauthorizing legislation .  today in london we have seen yet again the work of terrorists on the soil of a freedom-loving people .  the explosions in that city today , while less lethal than a few weeks ago , follow the deadly attacks that took place on july 7 , and the anguish in london is a vivid reminder of why we can not relent in taking the steps necessary to defend our homeland from a present terrorist threat .  we all lived through september 11 .  i was here at the capitol that day .  i saw the evil of our enemies written in the smoke rising above the pentagon .  and we are reminded yet today that their desire to do such violence in our homeland and in the homeland of our allies is real .  the patriot act is essential to our continued success in the war on terror here at home .  in the last 4 years under the patriot act , we have seen a great increase in the ability of law enforcement officials to investigate and track terrorists .  for example , aided by provisions of the patriot act , law enforcement officials in ohio were able to arrest iyman faris , an ohio truck driver who authorities said plotted attacks on the brooklyn bridge and a central ohio shopping mall .  in 2003 , he pleaded guilty to charges of aiding and abetting terrorism and conspiracy , acknowledging that he had met with osama bin laden in the year 2000 at an al qaeda training camp and then was provided assistance by al qaeda .  he is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence .  while 16 provisions of the patriot act are set to expire at the end of this year , the threat of terrorism to our families and our cities will not .  therefore , the usa patriot and terrorism prevention reauthorization act of 2005 is as necessary today as the patriot act was when it was originally signed into law in october of 2001 .  this reauthorization legislation does make permanent 14 of the 16 sections from the original patriot act that were set to expire this year .  but under the bill , those sections of the act that have caused the greatest concern in the hearts of many millions of americans are set to sunset , sections 206 and 215 , within 10 years , thanks to the leadership of this committee and of this congress .  the concerns that have been raised about abuses simply have not been borne out .  with over 4 years of oversight hearings and six department of justice inspector general reports , there is no evidence of abuse under the patriot act .  i know what the people of london are feeling today .  i felt it that day , september 11 , and my heart and my prayers go out to them .  i am absolutely convinced that what we have done in this country in a bipartisan way has contributed mightily to the fact that there has not been another major terrorist event in our nation since that awful day .  the patriot act and the elements which we will reauthorize today are central to the ongoing victory in the war on terror , and i urge its adoption .  
R	mr. speaker , on rollcall no .  627 .  i was inadvertently detained .  had i been present , i would have voted `` yea . '' 
R	mr. chairman , i rise today to express my support for the patriot act .  as we all learned on september 11 , 2001 , terrorists will use any and all means available to them to attack the united states of america .  since its passage following the september 11 attacks , the patriot act has played a key role in a number of successful operations to protect innocent americans from terrorists .  the patriot act removed major legal barriers that prevented the law enforcement , intelligence , and national defense communities from talking and coordinating their work to protect the american people and our national security .  now fbi agents , federal prosecutors , and intelligence officials can protect our communities by mr. chairman , the simple truth is that while key provisions of the patriot act are set to expire , as we have learned twice in the past two weeks from events in great britain the terrorist threat that faces the world will not expire .  southern nevada is visited by over 35 million people each year ; many of these tourists are our friends from foreign countries .  unfortunately we have learned that mixed in with these friendly tourists are some who wish to inflict harm on our nation .  this sentiment is supported by the fact that we now know that planning meetings of the 9/11 hijackers took place in las vegas .  while this may not be a perfect bill , i do believe that the legislation before us today reflects a compromise that includes the proper balance between security and privacy to face the challenges of the current world we live in as well as the necessary safeguards to protect our fellow citizens against an over-encroaching government .  i understand and appreciate the privacy concerns that have been expressed by many and will continue to protect civil rights and insist that the proper and regular oversight exists when possible infringements on americans ' civil rights are concerned .  
R	mr. chairman , i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his great work on this , and i want to thank my friends on the democrat side of the aisle for the work they have given for the patriot act .  thanks for at least bringing this debate up .  mr. chairman , as a former fbi agent , i had occasion to work some pretty bad folks in the city of chicago in working organized crime and public corruption .  i developed the sources for wiretaps and applied wiretaps for things like murder and extortion , gambling , prostitution , racketeering , child pornography .  there was a case of a child pornographer who was producing child pornography tapes where we used the legal system , a legal instrument , through due process of law , to get records that we needed from businesses , from his home , from other places to make sure that we could find the entire network of distribution of criminals who were preying on our children .  america said something interesting .  the people of america said , you know , agent rogers , at the time we trust you , but we trust our constitution more , so you have to follow the law .  you have to follow the constitution even to go after these child molesters and people who are promoting child pornography , people who are involved in murder and racketeering .  and we did , and we used the law as we knew it to put somebody in jail .  we said if a child molester goes into the library and sits down next to your child , there is going to be no safe haven in america .  we are going to use due process according to the constitution and make sure our children , our libraries , our personnel are safe .  we used that before the patriot act got here .  i worked a bombing case where they were trying to sell bombs to individuals who were blowing up other gangsters ; gangsters blowing up gangsters and gangsters blowing up strip clubs and other things to gain influence over them .  we used all the processes , including a delayed search warrant , because we needed to know who they were getting their materials from .  we used due process under the constitution and we brought them to justice .  and america is grateful for that , and it made an impact .  and we never , ever , ever once deviated from the constitution .  this whole debate is almost ridiculous , mr. chairman .  all we do in the patriot act is say , look , if we can go after child molesters sitting in the library and bombers who we need to sneak and peak on a warrant , we ought to be able to go after terrorists .  that is all the patriot act did .  there is no subversion of the constitution , no suspension of the constitution .  mr. chairman , it is maddening to me that somebody in america and in england and around the world is getting up in the morning thinking , i am going to kill somebody in an act of terror , and that we somehow fiddle while rome is burning and argue should it be 10 years or 5 years on a renewal or a sunset .  this is ridiculous .  we have people who are committed to killing americans today .  we are at war .  this bill helps protect america and does not suspend the constitution of the united states .  for those who argue there are some emergency powers in here , you are wrong .  you should get up and argue against the criminal code every day on this floor , and you should put in bills to remove our ability as agents of the fbi to do that .  you do not because it is legal and it is proper under our constitution .  mr. chairman , we must support this act .  we must do it today for the future safety of the united states of america .  
R	mr. chairman , i rise in reluctant opposition to this bill .  in 2001 after an attack on the united states and the slaughter of innocent civilians , this congress passed the patriot act , which i supported at that time .  it gave our investigative agencies a wide variety of special powers to fight terrorism and to win this war on terrorism .  however , these powers were not to be permanent .  they were designed to help us win the war , not to change our country permanently .  now we have the patriot act being handed to us again , but instead it is being handed to us in a permanent form .  you do not make policy for the united states government protecting the rights and freedoms of our people in an extraordinary time as this , a time of war , and then mandate it so it is going to be the rule of our country once we live in peacetime .  our country was founded on the idea of limited government and individual liberty .  i gladly supported patriot i. now they have taken all but two of the sunset provisions which would make those extraordinary new powers that we gave the government lapse once we have peace in this country .  any real patriot will vote against this expansion of government at the expense of the individual even when peacetime comes .  
R	i would suggest that we do not have to sunset all the legislation going through this congress , but we have to pay particular attention to that legislation that affects the civil liberties of our people .  and if we are going to in some way expand the power of government over our people in time of war because it is necessary , that should be sunsetted once the war is over .  by permanently changing america , we are not furthering the cause of freedom in this country .  
R	mr. speaker , i rise in support of this motion .  after 9/11 , the united states congress gave our investigative agencies a wide variety of special powers to fight a war on terrorism , an expansion of powers that we would have never approved in peacetime .  this included the right to break into homes of american citizens without court order , seize documents , copy computer files , and evidence without ever telling the owner .  we gave our agencies , among those other things , the right to wiretap and intercept phone and computer communications without prior cause , and in general we lowered the requirement for lawful searches .  i supported this dramatic expansion of federal power because our country was at war .  in times of emergency , it is responsible to increase the power of our government , yet we recognize that these powers should contain sunset provisions .  the first patriot act had 16 of its sections sunsetted , so after the emergency was over the government would again return to a level consistent to a free society .  our republic was founded on the idea that the powers of government should be limited .  we should not be required to live in peacetime under the extraordinary laws that were passed during times of war and crisis .  emergency powers of investigation should not become the standard once the crisis has passed .  i am seriously concerned about the use of emergency conditions to permanently alter our constitutional legal rights .  until now , the members of this body have been denied the ability to vote their conscience on the issue of sunsets .  now , each of us will have that opportunity .  it is not a republican vote , it is not a democrat vote .  i support this war on terror and the war on radical islam .  i was here yesterday fighting for a very important provision that put me against my friends on the other side of the aisle .  but today i am asking all of my friends , on both sides of the aisle , let us be patriots .  let us stand up for those principles that our founding fathers talked about , and that is limiting the power of government .  what we are doing here in this motion to recommit is establishing the sunsets so that 4 years from now , hopefully when we have beaten the terrorists , we can return to normal constitutional protections , and if not , we can reestablish another situation .  but , please , let us keep faith with those people who founded our country on limited government and the protection of civil liberties .  vote `` yes '' on this provision .  
R	madam speaker , first and foremost , i yield myself a moment here to thank the gentleman from virginia ( mr. boucher )  for the time that he has yielded us and shown good faith with us in having an honest discussion of this very significant issue .  
R	madam speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  madam speaker , i rise in strong support of this motion to instruct conferees on the patriot act .  let me note that i am one of several , if not many , members of congress who feel that it was an act of bad faith on the part of those in this body who turned the temporary sunsetted provisions of the patriot act into permanent law for the united states of america .  i supported the patriot act and would have again voted for the patriot act as it was when we first voted for it , except now we end up with a patriot act that permanently changes the balance of power in the united states between the police power and the limitations of power of the policing authorities of the federal government .  that , i do not believe , should be tolerated by those of us who love liberty and justice and feel that limited government is vital to the protection of freedom .  second of all , let me note that any , any investigation or hearings that we have had so far into the patriot act are irrelevant to the issue at hand , the issue at hand as to whether or not we have permanently changed this law and whether in the future there could be abuse .  i would say , along with many others , that by permanently granting these excessive powers , or extended powers , to the federal government in a time of war and then permanently extending it so that now it is the norm for a time of peace is asking for abuse .  so whatever hearings have been held so far in this conflict are irrelevant .  on september 11 , our country was attacked and we saw 3 , 000 americans slaughtered before our eyes , and it totally justified the major expansion of the police and investigative powers of our government .  i voted for the patriot act , as i just said , and i continue to support its provisions as a necessary expansion of police powers in order to prosecute this war on islamofacism .  they declared war on us every bit as much as the japanese declared war on us on december 7 , 1941 .  however , as i said in the original bill , sunset provisions were placed in all of these expanded police powers that were going to enable us to protect our people in this time of war .  it was a consensus that when the war was won , it was a consensus when this war was won , those powers would be rescinded and their purposes would have then been served .  the expanded authority we are talking about in terms of eliminating these sunsets in the current bill , this has nothing to do with fighting the war or winning the war on terror .  it has everything to do with using that war as an excuse to permanently change the way we do business in the united states .  the standard we set for a war when we are at war with radical islam should not be the new standard set for america once that war is over .  it is as simple as that .  i support the expansion of those powers until we win that war .  but we can not , and this is what we have been handed , a bill that permanently does it so our way of life is changed after the war is over .  the special grants of police power that we have approved we believe should only last for the duration of the war , and we must demand at least a forced reexamination of these provisions to ensure that winning the war on terror does not result in a permanent change of our way of life .  of course , we are not here to debate the patriot act again .  today , we are limited to instructing conferees to adopt the senate 's version of the bill , which would sunset in 4 years the same two provisions that the house bill would sunset in 10 years .  the rest of the expansion of the police powers , such as the sneak-and-peak searches , internet and credit card seizures , the lowering of standards for logging all calls dialed from one particular phone , and the rules against discussing property seizure , all without the traditional warrants that would be required for those activities , have been made permanent in u.s. law .  the two provisions being allowed to sunset , as one might expect , are the most questionable of the lot .  specifically , section 206 of the house version of the patriot act extends to federal authorities for 10 years until 2015 the right to employ roving wiretaps , whether they have the name of a specific suspect or location notwithstanding .  this should be reexamined before 10 years has lapsed if for no other reason than to just understand whether or not this tool is working for us in the war on terror .  is it achieving the goals that it set out to achieve in this war ?  the senate version sunsets the clause in 4 years ; that is much more responsible .  let us come back and reassess it .  that is reasonable .  section 215 will also be sunsetted in 2015 in the house version rather than in the 5 years in the senate bill .  this section allows for law enforcement to examine library and financial records of any person in connection with a federal investigation .  this provision is possibly the most controversial in the entire bill .  my colleagues on one side of the aisle say that this is an unconscionable invasion of privacy , never justified , even in wartime .  others , however , argue that this particular provision is rarely , if ever , used , so why worry about it ?  well , let us be frank and admit that searching library and financial records of our citizens is hugely intrusive , even if it is rarely used .  nonetheless , this section 215 may be needed in a time of war to secure our country and to make sure our people are safe .  while granting the expansion of this police power with a reasonable time limit , such as the expansion of a shorter term of years to ensure section 215 is not abused , that seems reasonable .  but it may , again , 215 may be justified now .  we may have a justification to find out if someone who checked out a book on radical islam has also checked out books on how to make bombs .  that is why sunsetting this provision 4 years from now , rather than 10 years , is the right thing to do .  we do not want to have that kind of power in the hands of the federal police authorities after this war is over .  finally , we need to ask , why do the radical islamists hate us ?  they hate the openness of our society .  they hate our tolerances , our belief in the equality before the law , the right of those of other faiths to worship , and the right of us to express our beliefs .  in short , radical islam is the enemy of freedom ; thus , they are our enemy .  if we permanently alter the traditional limitations of our government here in america , the terrorists have won .  they have changed our way of life .  during no war in the past , whether world war ii or the cold war , were the police powers of the federal government permanently changed so that after the war a new standard of government would exist .  well , ronald reagan would never have supported such an expansion of federal power and neither should we .  i ask my colleagues to vote on this motion to instruct conferees , and i would ask them to search their consciences about voting for a new patriot act at all that threatens to permanently change the american way of life .  madam speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	madam speaker , i yield myself the balance of my time .  the discussion today is not whether or not the federal government after 9/11 should have had expanded police powers and investigative authority .  that is not the issue .  and i voted for that expansion of the police power , just as most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and all of my colleagues on this side of the aisle did , almost all of my colleagues on this side of the aisle voted .  that is not the question , because when we voted for those expansions , we put in a sunset clause that after a certain number of years , 4 years , that the issues of those expanded authorities would be re-examined .  the only question at hand in the debate today is whether or not those expanded powers for wartime expansion in the war against radical islam should be made permanent even now in this time of crisis .  this is not a good strategy for free government to change permanently its law during a moment of crisis .  i would vote for the patriot act again because i think that these powers that were just described are needed at this moment , even the ones that were just described by my friends on the other side of the aisle .  but that still does in no way justify permanently expanding those powers so that once the gentleman from wisconsin is no longer here to conduct hearings that the federal government still has those powers perhaps for people who are less , let us say less responsible than mr. sensenbrenner  in overseeing those expanded powers .  our founding fathers understood limitations on government is a guarantee of freedom .  now is not the time for us to permanently change law and permanently put freedom at risk .  
R	mr. speaker , i rise in support of this rule but in opposition to the underlying bill , the so-called patriot act , the usa patriot act .  i supported the patriot act when it was first passed and would do so again .  i support the war on radical islam .  our country is under attack and under grave threat .  but my original support was based on the inclusion of 4-year sunsets in those sections of the patriot act , those sections that drastically expanded the police and investigative powers of the federal government .  that is what was included in the original patriot act .  instead , the current legislation before us makes permanent the expansion of police powers which were meant to be only temporary until this war was over .  of the 16 sunset provisions , sections sunsetted in the original 2001 bill , the current conference committee report establishes 4-year sunsets on only two of those 16 .  the rest of the expanded police powers are being made permanent , the most drastic permanent expansion of these powers being section 213 , the sneak and peek section ; the section 205 , the secret search section ; and section 214 , which permanently eliminates probable cause needed for the use of eavesdropping devices .  i would support redoing the patriot act as originally came forward .  as the war on terrorism continues , i can support these expanded powers .  however , this effort to use the war as a way to alter forever the balance of personal liberty and legitimate restraints on government power should be defeated .  long after the war on terrorism is won , under permanent sneak-and-peek rules , american citizens will have their homes and businesses searched without court order and without legal notification for a month after that search is conducted .  long after the threat of islamic extremism is over , under permanent secret search rules , americans will have their business records , phone records , credit records and computer files seized without a judge issuing a warrant based on probable cause .  long after the crisis we face today , under permanent eavesdropping rules , american citizens will have their phone conversations monitored without a warrant .  there is no excuse in peacetime to give our police and our investigative agencies wartime powers , and that is what we are doing here .  there have been a few improvements in the bill but not enough improvements , as far as i am concerned , for us to support it .  my central theme has always been based on the need for periodic review by congress of all those dramatic expansions of police power that we are giving our government now in order to win this war on terrorism .  this is best achieved by sunsets .  we should not live in peacetime under the extraordinary laws passed during times of war and crisis .  emergency powers of investigation should not become the standard .  let me just note that i think people will rue the day if we give the federal government this permanent power over our lives .  
D	mr. chairman , we are all watching what is happening in london ; and with that backdrop , we are discussing reauthorizing the patriot act today .  we are all committed to finding and fighting terrorists .  no one party , democrats or republicans , has exclusivity over this issue .  we are all for stopping terrorists and protecting our citizens .  while we are all committed to this fight , it is still our congressional duty to exercise our oversight responsibilities .  we can do this effectively with sunset provisions .  sunset provisions hold congress accountable for reexamining and determining the effectiveness and impact of the patriot act .  as a member of the permanent select committee on intelligence , i hold this oversight responsibility as one , if not my most , important function .  let me say up front that i think the patriot act provides essential tools for law enforcement authorities that were not available before the 9/11 attacks .  these tools are essential to identifying and tracking terrorists inside the united states .  the house permanent select committee on intelligence held two open hearings for the patriot act .  these hearings led me to conclude that the patriot act , while good , is not perfect .  additional time is needed to assess many of these provisions ' effectiveness and impact on civil liberties , and that is why we need to call for sunsets .  it is clear to me that we still face serious threats and we need some of the powers of the patriot act .  sunset provisions are important because they allow for review and oversight .  oversight allows us to protect civil liberties ; but more importantly , it allows us to enhance law enforcement tools to keep pace with the terrorists .  
D	mr. chairman , i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time .  mr. chairman , we live in a democracy where we respect checks and balances .  the patriot act is part of a pattern of lacking checks and balances .  military tribunals , not part of the patriot act but part of a pattern of reduced checks and balances .  military tribunals were presented with no public trials , no presumption of innocence , no guilt beyond a reasonable doubt .  secret evidence could be used , no judicial review .  part of that pattern is the enemy combatant where the administration designates someone as an enemy combatant , can arrest them and hold them indefinitely without charges , never having an opportunity to contest the allegations .  we have seen material witnesses , people arrested under the material witness laws , held indefinitely , no charges .  that is the context that we are considering the patriot act .  those are not in the patriot act , but we are considering the patriot act in that context .  we considered a bill on the same day of the second bombing in great britain with no money for port security , no money to secure our rails or bus transportation , no money for first responders .  mr. chairman , i oppose this bill , frankly not so much for what is in the bill but for what is not in the bill , what we are not going to do today .  we can have plenty of privacy without threatening security , and we missed an opportunity to require standards for wiretaps and `` sneak and peak '' searches .  we missed an opportunity to require probable cause of a crime before invading people 's privacy .  we missed the opportunity to limit these provisions and extraordinary powers to terrorism .  ninety percent of the `` sneak and peak '' searches have nothing to do with terrorism .  remember that when the government invades one 's privacy , it is not robots and computers ; it is government employees who may be neighbors looking at one 's medical records , listening to their private conversations , sneaking and peaking into their homes without their knowledge or consent .  the patriot act gives broad expansive powers to government agents to invade privacy .  the major check on any abuse in the act has been the sunset provisions .  provisions will expire if they are abused .  during our deliberations , we got a lot of cooperation on those provisions that are sunsetting .  when asked information on those , we got the information .  some of it came in right before the hearing , but because of the sunset we got a lot of cooperation .  because of the sunset we found no abuses in the libraries .  that is because of the sunset .  although government agencies have gone to at least 200 libraries for information , that has not been abused because they know if they abused it they would lose the benefit of that provision .  medical records have not been abused .  there has not been any unnecessary sharing of sensitive information of a personal nature .  we have not run criminal investigations without probable cause using the provisions of the patriot act .  they could have , because of the broad discretion in the bill , but they did not , because of the sunset .  without the sunset provision , the abuse could take place .  fourteen of the 16 sunset provisions are removed , and the two that are left , 10-year sunsets , which will get us through this administration , clean through the next presidential term and most of the way through the next .  mr. chairman , we need to defeat this bill , go back to the committee on the judiciary and establish a much better piece of legislation that will protect our privacy and ensure our safety .  
D	mr. chairman , i ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition , although i am not in opposition .  
D	mr. chairman , i would say that it would have been extremely helpful if we could have considered that .  we could have got the definition straight , and we could have considered it in a more deliberative process rather than trying to deal with it here on the floor where we have some constitutional questions such as the death penalty for conspiracy .  
D	mr. chairman , i yield myself 10 seconds .  i say that we need money for port security and rail security funding .  
D	mr. chairman , parliamentary inquiry .  
D	mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	mr. chairman , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. chairman , i would like to respond to the suggestion about mandatory minimums .  this may be a crime where high sentences may be appropriate ; and if they are appropriate in the individual case , they can be applied .  what the mandatory minimum imposes , whether it makes any sense or not , whether it violates common sense , it still has to be applied .  that is why we get a letter from the judicial conference every time we have a bill before us with mandatory minimums in it , they remind us that the mandatory minimums violate common sense .  we also have the opportunity to review the studies that we have seen that show that mandatory minimums waste taxpayer money , as opposed to other ways that you can sentence .  mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	madam speaker , i rise in support of the motion to instruct .  the current house bill provisions for 10 year sunsets on the 215 and 206 roving wiretap powers is not much better than no sunset at all .  what we are talking about under the 215 provision is power to get access to your personal records from a business , including a public library , without you ever knowing about it , or what is done with the information .  and the librarian or other business operator can not tell you or anyone else other than the business 's attorney or appropriate superiors , about the fbi 's taking your records .  under the roving wiretaps provision , after obtaining a roving wiretap from the secret fisa court , the fbi can follow the target around and tap any phone the target has access to , including yours if he or she happens to be a neighbor and comes to your house , without having to first determine that the phone is actually being used by the target before they start listening in .  the 4-year sunsets worked to make the justice department responsive to congress in providing the information needed to properly perform its oversight responsibility for the extraordinary powers extended under the patriot act , but only in the last year of the sunset .  for most of the 4-year period leading up to the sunsets , the justice department refused any meaningful oversight of their patriot act powers and other war on terror authorities .  even with chairman sensenbrenner threatening a subpoena because he was not getting answers to his patriot act questions , it was n't until the powers were set to expire that we got real answers -- hard numbers and at least anecdotal evidence of their use .  take , for example , the effort to try to get information about library record requests under the secretive section 215 powers where the recipient of the order is gagged from disclosing any information about it : first we were told that information about even the number of these orders was secret , so it could n't be disclosed .  it was only in the last year of the sunset that we were finally told that there had been no 215 orders issued to libraries , then we learned that this was misleading because most libraries cooperated with fbi requests for information without requiring a 215 order , and with all the secrecy and gag orders in effect , we still do n't know what the full story is .  perhaps some of the pending lawsuits will finally reveal what has been going on in this area .  the problem with a 10-year sunset is that it will have no impact on the current administration , or the next one and only have an impact in the last year of the 3rd administration from now .  moreover , with a 20-year retirement period for most career officials , in 10 years most of today 's officials will have retired .  so , that 's really of little oversight value if we have to wait that long to get the kind of responsive information for oversight we were finally able to get in the last year of the current sunsets .  accordingly , we should accede to the senate sunset provisions which call for 4-year sunsets on the three most controversial and worrisome patriot powers -- secret acquisition of library and other business records , roving wiretaps , and the `` lone wolf '' provision for terrorism investigations , which allows a single individual to fall under the extraordinary , secretly administered foreign surveillance powers otherwise reserved for use against agents of foreign governments or organizations .  
R	mr. chairman , i yield myself 1 minute .  the gentleman from virginia ( mr. boucher )  is sincere in his opposition to this bill , and i respect that .  however , neither the national security letter scheme nor the delayed notification scheme were authorized for the first time by the patriot act .  that was legislation that was in place prior to october 2001 when the original patriot act was passed and signed into law by the president .  what the patriot act did in both national security letters as well as in delayed notification warrants was simply to extend to anti-terrorism investigations authorities that already existed and up until that time had been found constitutional in investigations such as mafia investigations , racketeering investigations , and drug-trafficking investigations .  so these complaints were not caused by the patriot act .  they were caused by existing legislation , and we should deal with that , not in the context of this bill but elsewhere .  
R	mr. chairman , reclaiming my time , i am pleased that this bill and the usa patriot act will continue to protect civil liberties , while also providing law enforcement the tools they need to fight terrorists intent on harming americans .  
R	mr. chairman , reclaiming my time , yes , that is an accurate reading of the bill .  
R	mr. chairman , further reclaiming my time , again , that is an accurate reading of the bill .  
R	mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. chairman , i yield myself 1 1/2 minutes .  mr. chairman , we have heard another attack on delayed notification or sneak-and-peek warrants .  let me tell you what has happened earlier this month .  a u.s. district judge in washington state executed or authorized a delayed-notification warrant to look into a building on the u.s. side of the northern border .  and what was discovered but a rather sophisticated tunnel between canada and the united states to smuggle contraband , and perhaps terrorists , through the border and into this country without being detected by our border patrol .  using a delayed-notice search warrant , the dea and other agents entered the home on july 2 to examine the tunnel .  shortly thereafter , a u.s. district judge authorized the installation of cameras and listening devices in the home to monitor the activities in the home .  using these twice , federal , state and local law enforcement officials observed multiple trips by three defendants through the tunnel carrying large hockey bags or garbage bags .  these bags were loaded into a van on the u.s. side and driven south for delivery .  ninety-three pounds of marijuana were found in these bags when the washington state patrol stopped the car .  that never would have happened without a delayed-notification warrant .  and if they can bring 93 pounds of marijuana in , they can bring terrorists in as well .  these warrants are good .  they protect us .  they ought to be kept .  
R	mr. chairman , i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time .  after listening to the speech of the distinguished minority leader , i have reached the conclusion she has not read the bill .  she has not looked at the oversight that the committee on the judiciary has done over the last 3 1/2 years .  we have an oversight record of bipartisan letters sent to the justice department , inspector general 's reports , and hearings that have a stack of paper that is about 2 feet high .  in this bill we have had 12 hearings with 35 witnesses , people who have come from all over the spectrum ; and 13 of the 16 sections of the patriot act that are sunsetted are not controversial .  the three controversial sections , two of them are sunsetted ; the third one , as a result of some of the testimony , has been amended , and that is the delayed notification warrants .  the fact of the matter remains that no federal court has found that any of the 16 sunsetted sections are unconstitutional , and the inspector general , who is required by the patriot act itself to report to the congress twice a year , has not found any civil liberties violations .  let us stick to the facts .  let us stick to the result of the oversight .  let us stop the hyperbole .  and let us stop the scare tactics that seem to surround the debate of those who are opposed to this law for whatever purpose .  
R	mr. speaker , i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit .  good oversight is done by congressional leadership , not by sunsets .  there has been good oversight over the patriot act right from the beginning .  the committee on the judiciary has spent a lot of time overseeing the justice department , with oversight letters , questions that the gentleman from michigan ( mr. conyers )  and i have sent jointly to the justice department , inspector general reports , and this is the result of it : almost two feet of responses .  and what have these responses said ?  first of all , there has been no provision , of the 16 sunsetted provisions , that have been found unconstitutional by any federal court in the nation .  the inspector general 's report has found no civil liberties violations under the patriot act , and i think that the question we ought to ask ourselves today is whether we should weigh the potential for abuse of this law against the actual record of abuse .  there is no actual record of abuse with all of the oversight that we have been doing .  now , we have had 12 hearings on the patriot act , the 16 sunsetted provisions .  thirteen of the 16 provisions are noncontroversial .  there have not been witnesses that have appeared before the committee that have said that there are problems , and that includes the provision that tore down the wall after 9/11 that prevented the cia and the fbi from exchanging intelligence information .  this motion to recommit will bring that wall back up in 2009 .  i think we ought to look at the record .  we ought to look at the actual record of abuse .  there has been none .  only 5 percent of our legislation is sunsetted .  why sunset legislation where there has been no actual record of abuse and there has been vigorous oversight ?  
R	mr. speaker , i demand a recorded vote .  
R	madam speaker , i do not intend to oppose the motion to instruct , and i ask unanimous consent that i may control the 30 minutes that i have been allotted .  
R	madam speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  madam speaker , i think it is important for the members to note that the motion to instruct deals specifically with the `` lone wolf '' provision and sunsets that .  the lone wolf provision was not passed as a part of the patriot act in october 2001 , but was included as a part of the intelligence bill which was enacted into law a little bit less than a year ago .  so as a result , the committees and the public have not been able to have as extensive oversight and for as long a period of time as the other 16 provisions that were sunsetted in the act which the president signed in october 2001 .  so i think it is appropriate to have a sunset on the lone wolf provision simply because we do not have the experience of being able to examine what the justice department has done with this new and expanded authority .  on the other hand , let me say that we are negotiating with the senate at the present time on what the length of the sunset is , and i think that the sunset on this provision will be longer than 4 years , and the sunset on the other two provisions that were contained in the house-passed bill will be shorter than the 10 years that the house of representatives placed in the bill , which was passed and sent over to the other body .  having said all of this , i would like to make a couple of points .  first of all , finding out what a department or an agency of the executive branch is doing is entirely the prerogative of the committee that has the responsibility for the oversight and of its chair .  i have been extremely vigorous , since the enactment of the patriot act , in doing oversight over what the department of justice has done relative to that law , and i am happy to say that most of the oversight letters that have been sent to the attorney general have been cosigned by the gentleman from michigan ( mr. conyers )  , ranking member of the judiciary committee .  we have been kind of like tough school marms with the department of justice because when they were late and when they were nonresponsive to the questions , we required the department of justice to come up with responsive answers , and those responsive answers we placed on the committee 's web site so that anybody with internet access could be able to find out what the questions were and what the answers were , with the exception of responses that were classified and which were sent to the intelligence committee rather than to the judiciary committee .  in addition to the oversight which was done , the original patriot act requires the inspector general of the department of justice to report twice a year to the relevant committees of congress the number of civil liberties violations that have been found against the department of justice as a result of its exercising the increased and new requirements and powers in the patriot act .  we have received those reports by the inspector general of the department of justice on a regular and on a timely basis , and the answer to how many civil liberties violations have been proven is none .  repeatedly they have said there are no civil liberties violations that the inspector general has been able to uncover .  further , i resisted a premature repeal or extension of the sunset prior to this congress because i felt it was important that the oversight be done for as long a time as possible so that the congress will be able to look over the shoulder of the department of justice and find out whether or not they were doing it the right way or whether or not they needed a tap on the shoulder from capitol hill for improvements in their methods of operation .  when we did get to this congress with the oversight being completed and the sunset approaching , i fulfilled the promise that i made to the public and anybody who asked that we would be doing a section-by-section review of the expiring sections of the patriot act .  the house committee on the judiciary had 12 separate hearings on the patriot act 's sunset provisions .  there were minority witnesses at all of the hearings except the one where the attorney general and the one where the deputy attorney general appeared to testify .  there was plenty of time for questions by every member of the committee .  as a result of all of those hearings , we found that all but two or three sections of the patriot act were essentially noncontroversial .  nobody was complaining about an abuse of power .  nobody had proved abuse of power .  nobody had alleged an abuse of power .  and as a result , the house-passed bill eliminated the sunsets for those sections of the patriot act for which there was no complaint at these extensive series of hearings , and that is good policy .  and if it is not good policy , then the message that is given downtown as well as to the public is that our oversight really does not make any difference .  if the oversight shows they have been doing a good job , they ought to be rewarded .  getting rid of the 14 of the 16 sunset provisions that were contained in the original patriot act does not mean that the justice department is not going to have the committee looking over its shoulder .  we will do that ; but , again , that depends upon the priorities of the committee and the priorities of its chair .  and as long as i am the chairman of the committee , there will be vigorous oversight of the department of justice , not only on how they are handling the patriot act but how they are handling all of the other laws that the committee has oversight jurisdiction over .  because the motion to instruct only relates to the lone wolf provision and i believe that because we have had a much shorter period of time in viewing how they have dealt with the lone wolf provision because it was passed 3 years after the original patriot act was enacted into law , i think this motion to instruct is a proper one , although i do think that the difference between 4 years and 7 years still should be negotiated with the senate .  but because the gentleman from virginia is 95 percent to where we ought to be , i am going to vote for it , and maybe he will be a little bit more flexible with the other 5 percent .  madam speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	madam speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  madam speaker , i am the author of the sunsets that were put in the patriot act that was signed by the president in october of 2001 because i agreed with what i heard from the gentleman from maryland ( mr. hoyer )  , that we ought to look at what the justice department had done with these expanded powers .  we have looked at those actions .  we have looked at how those expanded powers have been utilized ; and in 14 of the 16 cases , nobody had any complaint about how those expanded powers have been utilized .  now , sunsets are very rare in congressional action .  i am proud of the fact that i put the sunsets in almost 4 years ago .  but what i will say is that we do not sunset a whole host of other programs .  social security is not sunsetted , nor should it be .  amtrak is not sunsetted , maybe it should be , but it is not .  and i have , i am looking at the federal criminal code and the national security letters that have been complained of by people on the other side of the aisle ; they are not sunsetted .  the authority for the national security letters was passed in 1986 when , i recall , the current minority party had a significant majority in the house of representatives .  now , if sunsets were so important when we are dealing with the civil liberties of the people of the united states of america , why did you forget about them 19 years ago ?  madam speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , i ask unanimous consent that all members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the motion to instruct currently pending .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself the balance of my time .  mr. speaker , we have had a pretty extensive debate on this motion to instruct .  i think the motion to instruct is constructive and would urge the members to support it .  on the other hand , after listening to the debate that has been going on here for the last 40 or 45 minutes or so , what we have heard from the people who have complained about the patriot act is the potential for abuse rather than abuse itself .  i would point out that there is a potential for abuse of practically everything law enforcement does .  there is a tremendous amount of discretion that the law and the constitution have given to our law enforcement personnel , to our prosecutors , to those who apply for search warrants as well as other tools that law enforcement utilizes to keep us safe and to try to track down those who commit crimes or who conspire to commit crimes or acts of terrorism .  i do not know why there seems to be a greater suspicion that law enforcement already abuses provisions under the patriot act rather than other provisions of law which are not sunset , including the national security letters , because the facts simply are not there that there has been abuse .  what i would like to ask the members as we are debating the patriot act as it goes forward through conference and to the floor is to look at what the justice department has done ; and where the justice department has done it right , the justice department should be told they have done it right .  and that means eliminating the sunsets from those areas where it has done it right .  and where there has to be a greater scrutiny on it , such as the two provisions in the house-passed bill and the lone wolf provision that are being talked about , we can talk about future sunsets ; and i support the concept of doing that .  but simply going around and painting with a broad brush the justice department for the potential of abuse which has not happened , i think , is unfair and does not go to the debate of whether the patriot act has actually served to protect the people of the united states without trampling on their civil liberties .  it has done that .  that is why it is a good law and that is why some provisions should be made permanent and some provisions should be sunsetted to be looked at in the future .  mr. speaker , again i urge the members to support the motion to instruct .  when we come back with a conference report , i will urge the members to support that as well .  
R	madam speaker , pursuant to house resolution 595 , i call up the conference report on the bill ( h.r. 3199 ) to extend and modify authorities needed to combat terrorism , and for other purposes .  
R	madam speaker , i ask unanimous consent that all members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the conference report to accompany h.r. 3199 currently under consideration .  
R	madam speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  madam speaker , the issue of national security letters was not in the patriot act that was enacted in 2001 .  they were enacted in 1986 in a bill that was written over in the other body .  this conference report puts procedural safeguards into national security letters even though they are not a part of the patriot act that was passed in 2001 .  it makes changes to all nsl provisions , not just electronic communications as the senate wanted .  it permits disclosure of nsls to legal counsel and those necessary to comply with the letter .  that is not in the law now .  it creates explicit access to judicial review of the government 's request for records .  it permits the reviewing court to modify or set aside the nsl if compliance would be unreasonable , oppressive or otherwise unlawful , the same standard for quashing a subpoena .  it permits judicial review of the nondisclosure requirement .  it creates a 5-year felony criminal penalty for unauthorized disclosures of nsls with intent to obstruct an investigation or judicial proceeding , just like the obstruction of justice statute .  the 1-year misdemeanor for disclosure without intent to obstruct , that is not in the conference reports .  that is out .  it requires the doj inspector general to conduct two audits of the fbi 's use of national security letters .  one audit covers 2003 and 2004 , the other 2005 and 2006 .  it requires the attorney general and the director of national intelligence to submit to congress a report on the feasibility of applying minimization procedures to nsl to ensure the protection of constitutional rights of united states persons , and it requires an annual public reporting on national security letters , including the aggregate number of requests made by the justice department for information concerning different u.s. persons .  now , national security letters are not subject to the sunset .  they are in the earlier law .  if the argument that has been advanced by the gentleman from new york succeeds , all of the protections i have just described go down the drain with the rest of the bill .  madam speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	madam speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  once again , there has been erroneous information presented to the house .  the conference report on the delayed notification search warrant limits initial delayed notification to only 30 days unless the facts justify a later date .  it permits extensions of up to 90 days unless the facts justify a later date and only upon the showing of need .  and it has new reporting requirements on the use of delayed notification warrants .  now , the original patriot act did not have these time limits .  the delayed notification was determined it could be for a long period of time by a magistrate judge , a judicial officer , not by law enforcement , but by a judicial officer in determining when the notification would take place .  what i just described in the conference report is new language .  it is limitations on how long a magistrate judge , a judicial officer , can delay notification of the warrants .  you vote against this bill and you kill this bill , those limitations go down with the bill .  
R	madam speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  madam speaker , the gentleman from michigan talked about the conclusive presumption provisions on national security letters that are contained in the conference report as well as the requirements that have been changed relative to section 215 , which is the business records or library provisions .  i would just point out that both the nsl provision and the section 215 provision in this respect were the language in the senate bill that passed unanimously .  and everybody here has been saying that the senate bill is great and the conference report is not .  but if the senate bill was great , now they are attacking two provisions in the senate bill .  they can not have it both ways .  what we did in the conference report is responsible .  with respect to section 215 , i wish that the library association had read it , because it requires the statement of facts in an application to the court that issues the 215 order to show reasonable grounds to believe that the records are relevant to an authorized investigation .  the senate 's language .  then it creates a presumption in favor of records that pertain to a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power , activities of a suspected foreign power who is the subject of an authorized investigation , or an individual in contact with or known to a suspected agent of a foreign power who is the subject of an authorized investigation .  now , all of these people are presumably bad folks that want to commit a terrorist attack , and i do not think we should make the libraries or any other place off limits to an investigation to try to see who is trying to blow innocent people up .  
R	madam speaker , i yield myself the balance of my time .  madam speaker , the gentleman from michigan has said that he wants us to recede to the senate , and that means that the senate bill goes to the president as passed by that body .  that means that there will be no provisions relative to control of methamphetamine .  there will be no provisions relating to airline security or port security or mass transit security .  the inspector general 's audits that are contained in the conference report will not go to the president , and the minimization procedures to get rid of extraneous material that might come into the presence of the government will also not be in the bill that goes to the president .  listening to the litany that has come from the gentleman from michigan and folks on the other side of the aisle , you would think that halloween is tomorrow , because there is an attempt to scare the american public .  the patriot act had nothing to do with the detention of immigrants , indefinite intentions , invasion of habeas corpus , writs of assistance and warrantless wiretaps .  the brandon mayfield case which has been cited by others on the other side of the aisle was relating not to the patriot act but a mistake in fingerprint identification .  if we accept their argument , we ought to abolish the fbi fingerprint lab .  that is irresponsible , as are most of their arguments .  vote down the motion to recommit .  keep the good parts in the bill .  pass a good bill , and let 's make the american people safer .  
R	madam speaker , parliamentary inquiry , is it permissible to include instructions in the motion to recommit to conference ?  
R	madam speaker , on that i demand the yeas and nays .  
R	mr. chairman , the cold war is over and the world is a more dangerous place .  the strategy that we used to have of containment , react and mutually assured destruction went out the window on 9/11 .  lord , it probably went out earlier , we just did not get it .  we need now to be able to detect in order to prevent , and our intelligence community needs the capability and the tools so they can detect and prevent .  we are not going to be able to harden a subway site , a bus station , a train station .  we can have more people , dogs , cameras , lights , we can do a lot of things to help , but we can not stop it unless we have the tools .  we do not want to use the criminal means to go after terrorists because you have to wait until the crime has been committed .  we want to prevent not a crime from being committed ; we want to prevent a terrorist attack from being committed .  so give them the tools .  the patriot act does it .  we have seen it operate for 4 years .  it has been amazing how well it has operated .  when people talk about libraries , why in the world would we want to make a library a free terrorist zone ?  we allow our forces to go in for a crime in a library .  why should they not be allowed to go in for a terrorist issue ?  
D	madam speaker , the patriot act has been an important law enforcement tool in the years following the dastardly terrorist attacks on our country , and taken as a whole , the bill has enhanced our national security .  the united states and our allies are fighting a war like no other .  it is an unconventional war that must be met with unconventional tools used by law enforcement professionals to protect the american people from those who would do us harm .  the patriot act provides federal officers greater powers to trace and intercept terrorists ' communications for law enforcement and foreign intelligence purposes .  it reinforces federal anti-money laundering laws and regulations in an effort to deny terrorists the resources necessary for future attacks .  it tightens laws pertaining to seaport security .  and , it creates several new federal crimes , such as laws outlawing terrorists ' attacks on mass transit and increases penalties for many other violations of the law .  as is true of any law that empowers the government to collect security-related information domestically , evaluating the patriot act requires us to weigh a wide range of competing interests , like the ability of our government to detect and thwart terrorist attacks and the constitutional rights of the american people .  of course , proper oversight of the patriot act by congress is essential to guaranteeing our constitutional rights are not trampled .  important for missouri , the patriot act conference report also includes bipartisan language that helps fight the scourge of methamphetamine abuse in america .  this drug epidemic has been especially hard on rural areas .  the bill bans over-the-counter sales of cold medicines that contain ingredients commonly used to make methamphetamine , allowing the sale only from locked cabinets or behind the counter .  it limits the monthly amount any individual could purchase , requires individuals to present photo identification in order to purchase such medicines , and requires stores to keep personal information about these customers for at least 2 years after the purchase of these medicines .  the bill also allows judges to impose strict sentences for those who possess pseudoephedrine with the intent to distribute it for methamphetamine creation .  i urge my colleagues to support reauthorization of the patriot act .  
D	mr. speaker , i object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present .  
R	mr. chairman , i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time .  mr. chairman , i strongly support the usa patriot act of 2005 .  the continued threat of a terrorist attack in the united states and this month 's terrorist attacks in london remind us of the need to prevent , investigate , and prosecute all terrorist acts .  the patriot act was a long-overdue measure that enhanced our ability to collect crucial intelligence information on the global terrorist network .  it passed by a margin of 98-1 in the senate and by a margin of 357-66 in the house .  even the american civil liberties union last april said , `` most of the voluminous patriot act is actually unobjectionable from a civil liberties point of view .  the law makes important changes that give law enforcement agents the tools they need to protect against terrorist attacks. '' many of the tools of the act provided to law enforcement officials have been used for decades to fight organized crime and drug dealers .  they have been reviewed and approved by the courts and found constitutional .  for instance , prior to the patriot act , the fbi could get a wiretap to investigate the mafia , but they could not get one to investigate terrorists .  well , what is good for the mob should be good for terrorists .  america is a safer country today than before september 11 because of the patriot act .  giving the department of justice , the central intelligence agency , and the fbi information-sharing powers enabled law enforcement officials to disrupt terrorist cells in new york , oregon , florida , and virginia .  since september 11 , 2001 , over 200 people charged with crimes stemming from international terrorist investigations have been convicted or have pled guilty .  the patriot act helped also investigate and apprehend an individual who in texas threatened to attack a mosque .  mr. chairman , our success in preventing another attack on the american homeland would have been much less likely without the patriot act .  law enforcement and intelligence agencies must continue to have the powers they need to protect all americans .  
R	madam speaker , i support this patriot act conference report , and appreciate the time and effort chairman sensenbrenner has put into bringing it to the floor .  we know americans will continue to be a terrorist target as long as we stand for freedom and democracy .  that lesson was learned on september 11 , 2001 .  we must do everything legally possible to protect americans from attack .  this conference report helps law enforcement officials prevent , investigate , and prosecute acts of terror .  the original patriot act was a long overdue measure that enhanced our ability to gather crucial intelligence information on the global terrorist network .  it passed by a margin of 98-1 in the senate and 357-66 in the house .  but certain provisions of the patriot act expire at the end of this year .  this conference report renews many of those provisions and improves on the original legislation .  it makes permanent the ability of law enforcement officials and intelligence officials to communicate about on-going investigations .  it also makes permanent provisions that allow the government to do its job by obtaining warrants and gathering information during terrorism investigations .  america is a safer country today than before september 11 , 2001 , because of the patriot act .  over 200 people in the united states have been charged with crimes tied to international terrorist investigations and have been convicted or have pled guilty because of the patriot act .  law enforcement and intelligence agencies must continue to have the powers they need to protect all americans .  i urge my colleagues to support this conference report .  also , i am placing in the record an op-ed that appeared in the washington times on december 13 , titled `` preserving the patriot act. '' preserving the patriot act the proverbial rubber is about to meet the road .  this week , the u.s. congress will determine if the u.s.a .  patriot act -- the most important domestic security legislation since september 11 , 2001 -- will be re-enacted in slightly weakened form or allowed to lapse in a number of its key provisions .  since the consequences of the latter would be manifestly detrimental to the war for the free world , legislators opposed to the act have offered to extend it for a short period -- a gambit they hope will allow them to dumb it down still further .  but make no mistake : additional delay and more negotiations will not improve either the bill or the national security .  to the contrary , they likely would jeopardize both .  that would be particularly true if the patriot act 's most vociferous critics on the left and their less numerous ( and most unlikely ) bedfellows on the right get their way .  they tend to characterize the act as an assault on the basic freedoms enshrined in the bill of rights and have sought far-reaching changes in the tools it provides law enforcement to detect and prevent terrorist plots inside the united states .  in reality , the patriot act is an eminently sensible overhaul of the government 's antiquated counterterror arsenal , an overhaul that reflects the realization we can not hope to fight a 21st-century war using 20th-century legal instruments .  consider two elements critics have most insistently demanded be repealed : ( 1 ) the socalled `` library records '' provision ( section 215 ) and ( 2 ) the authorization of what have been derided as `` sneak-and-peek '' search warrants ( sec .  213 ) .  the dust-up over government access to library information is truly a manufactured controversy .  for one thing , libraries are not mentioned anywhere in the pertinent patriot act provision .  moreover , law enforcement has been authorized for decades in ordinary criminal cases to subpoena library records ( along with any other business records ) .  this has not had any noticeable effect on americans ' reading habits .  the patriot act only made business records ( including those of libraries ) available on roughly the same terms in national security cases as they have long been in criminal cases .  the reason should be obvious : it makes no sense to enshrine libraries as safe havens for terrorist planning .  in fact , as we now know , many of the september 11 hijackers used american and european libraries to prepare the run-up to the attacks .  relevant literature , including bomb manuals and jihadist materials , have been staples of terrorism prosecutions for more than a decade .  privacy extremists of organizations like the american civil liberties union ( aclu ) nevertheless have reacted to the patriot act 's much-needed business records law as if the gestapo had seized office in the united states .  similarly , the patriot act did not -- as its critics would have us believe -- create new and unsavory `` sneak-and-peek '' warrants .  it does , however , allow agents to search premises but delay notification of the search to subjects of a terrorism investigation .  the patriot act 's notification provision is no different in principle from the legal notice previously required to persons intercepted in a court-ordered wiretap .  in such situations , notification of the target has routinely been delayed for weeks or months after the eavesdropping ends .  doing so can be absolutely critical to the arrest and prosecution of suspected perpetrators : delayed notification allows the government to complete its investigation without giving the subjects a heads-up that would certainly cause them to flee or destroy evidence .  the patriot act , in the so-called `` sneak-and-peek '' arena , established consistent standards federal courts must follow in determining whether to permit delayed notification .  previously , a hodgepodge of different rules were applied in various jurisdictions .  this is precisely the sort of fairness and equal protection congress should provide -- yet , it has been criticized sharply for doing so in the patriot act .  on both the business records and delayed notification sections of the patriot act ( among others ) , the stance of the american civil liberties union and like-minded critics seems to have an ulterior motive .  they not only oppose such legislation in the patriot act .  they appear intent on reopening settled case law on use of these authorities on crimes unrelated to terror .  congress should not encourage , let alone facilitate , such efforts by holding open the patriot act for further revision and adulteration .  the original patriot act as a whole infringed only modestly on our civil liberties and did not meaningfully intrude on the privacy rights of law-abiding americans .  we need to keep in mind , moreover , that if its precautions fail to prevent some future terrorist attack , we are likely to see impassioned demands for greater security measures at the expense of our freedoms .  since few , if any of us relish that prospect , we need to ensure the patriot act retains its core provisions and authorities -- and remains an effective tool for securing the home front in the war for the free world .  
R	mr. chairman , i thank the distinguished chairman of the committee on international relations for yielding me this time and for his continued leadership on narcotics issues as we tackle these questions at the international level .  the preceding speaker said that some of these amounts might be fairly small .  well , in madrid it probably was fairly small .  spanish authorities have said that the muslim militant cell exchanged for hashish and cash to fund it .  i do not know how much it was .  it probably was not a truckload of hashish .  it may not have been a big thing , but there are a lot of people dead .  the link between narcotics and terrorism is growing , as the distinguish chairman pointed out ; and we have heard the same thing in the drug policy subcommittee , and that is anywhere from slightly below half to slightly over half of the major terrorist organizations in the world are funded by drugs , most likely heroin and hashish , but also cocaine .  as we get better at driving them underground , we are going to see an increase in narcotrafficking and terrorism around the world , as we will see in human trafficking , as well , as we drive this underground .  as far as mandatory minimums , i hope there are mandatory minimums on people funding direct terrorist attacks on the united states .  if you are selling drugs , and even inadvertently , and these groups often are hear no evil , see no evil , and they pretend like they are not involved in narcotics trafficking , but as they swap with different cells and work with these cells around the world , i hope they have a mandatory minimum , if they blow up and terrorize america , terrorize london and terrorize spain .  we need stiff penalties .  we need to look for these gaps and these holes so we can go after these groups and break them up .  we have had multiple efforts around the world where we see some of these terrorist organizations starting to interact with each other .  we need to have conspiracy clauses that enable us , as they start to interconnect from south america , asia and the middle eastern gangs as they swap cocaine for other things and convert and move in the underground market .  we need to stay up with how the terrorists are working .  as they start to interconnect , we need laws that can address this , and i commend the chairman from the committee on international relations with trying to address this rapidly growing threat in all regions of the world .  i urge this congress to send a strong message that this needs to be part of the patriot act as we look at the international efforts and the international connection in the funding of terrorism .  
R	mr. speaker , i rise in support of the patriot act and , in particular , title vii of that report , the combat methamphetamine epidemic act of 2005 .  this is certainly the biggest , and last night we passed chairman boehlert and congressman gordon 's environmental meth bill , but this is the biggest comprehensive bill on meth that we have ever had in front of the united states congress , and it is important that we pass this .  i want to thank a number of people .  it is impossible to thank everybody who has been involved in this , but i would like to thank chairman sensenbrenner of the judiciary committee for his co-sponsorship and his willingness to put this in a conference report .  if we did not have this in a conference report , it would not see the light of day .  we have had the pharmaceutical companies attack this bill .  we have had the mexico and china lobbies attack this bill .  we have had the pro-drug groups attack the law enforcement provisions .  it would not go through the other body .  it is not even clear we can move it to another bill at this point .  yet , it is the only bill standing , and it is a bipartisan effort to try to address this scourge that is crossing the country .  i thank chairman sensenbrenner ; also majority leader roy blunt , who has been an early leader in this charge ; chairman barton of the energy and commerce committee for his willingness to have this i would also thank the several members who have worked so hard to make this comprehensive anti-meth legislation happen .  in particular , i would like to thank representatives mark kennedy , darlene hooley of oregon , dave reichert and john peterson , because they provided much of the content of this comprehensive bill and their consistently strong leadership on the house floor .  i would also like to thank the four co-chairmen of the congressional meth caucus , congressmen larsen , calvert , boswell and cannon , for their staffs ' assistance in putting this together so we could have a bipartisan effort .  congressman tom osborne has crusaded on this house floor and across the country on behalf of anti-meth legislation , as has congressmen baird , wamp , boozman , king , gordon and so many others .  this would not be happening today if we did not have this bipartisan coalition , and i hope it becomes law .  mr. speaker , i rise in support of the conference report to h.r. 3199 , the usa patriot and terrorism prevention reauthorization act of 2005 , and in particular of title vii of that report , the combat methamphetamine epidemic act of 2005 .  i believe this bipartisan legislation is a vital first step in our renewed fight against the scourge of methamphetamine trafficking and abuse , and i hope the house will support its passage .  i would probably take an hour if i tried to thank each of the members and staff who helped with this legislation , so i will have to mention only a few .  first , i 'd very much like to thank chairman sensenbrenner of the judiciary committee for his cosponsorship of the methamphetamine epidemic elimination act , h.r. 3889 , one of the two bills that was incorporated into today 's legislation , and for his leadership in ensuring that anti-meth legislation would be added to the conference report .  i would also like to thank majority leader roy blunt , chairman barton of the energy and commerce committee , chairman hyde of the international relations committee , chairman young of the transportation and infrastructure committee , chairman i would also like to thank several members who worked so hard to make comprehensive anti-meth legislation happen .  in particular , i 'd like to thank representative mark kennedy , representative darlene hooley , representative dave reichert , and representative john peterson for providing much of the content of this bill , and for their consistently strong leadership on the house floor on meth issues .  i would also like to thank the four co-chairmen of the congressional meth caucus , representative rick larsen , representative ken calvert , representative leonard boswell , and representative chris cannon , for their and their staffs ' assistance and support .  and to every other member who has cosponsored either h.r. 3889 , or the other major bill incorporated in this conference report , the combat meth act of 2005 , h.r. 314 , i express my deep appreciation .  i do n't have to tell any of you how serious a threat meth is for our communities ; pick up almost any newspaper or magazine these days and you can read about it firsthand .  as chairman of the government reform committee 's subcommittee on criminal justice , drug policy and human resources , i have held 11 hearings on the meth epidemic since 2001 , not only in washington , dc , but in places as diverse as rural arkansas , ohio , oregon , and indiana , suburban minnesota , island of hawaii , and urban detroit .  there are regional and local variations on the problem , of course , but one thing remains constant everywhere : this is a drug almost unique in its combination of cheapness , ease of manufacture , and devastating impact on the user and his or her community .  there are three aspects of the meth epidemic that i believe need to be emphasized as congress prepares to enact this legislation .  first , meth presents unique challenges to federal , state , and local law enforcement .  the small , clandestine meth labs that have spread like wildfire across our nation produce toxic chemical byproducts that endanger officers ' lives , tie up law enforcement resources for hours or even days , and cost tremendous amounts of money to clean up .  that , combined with the rise in criminal behavior , child and citizen endangerment , and other effects , have made meth the number one drug problem for the nation 's local law enforcement agencies , according to a study released over the summer by the national association of counties .  second , the damage this drug causes is not confined to the addict alone ; it has terrible effects on everyone around the user , particularly children .  another survey by the national association of counties found that 40 percent of child welfare agencies reported an increase in `` out of home placements because of meth in the past year. '' this abuse unfortunately includes physical and mental trauma , and even sexual abuse .  sixty-nine percent of county social service agencies have indicated that they have had to provide additional , specialized training for their welfare system workers and have had to develop new and special protocols for workers to address the special needs of the children affected by methamphetamine .  community health and human services , as well as child welfare services such as foster-care , are being overwhelmed as a result of meth .  finally , the meth threat is not confined to the small , local labs , but extends well beyond our borders to the `` super labs '' controlled by large , sophisticated mexican drug trafficking organizations , and the international trade in pseudoephedrine and other precursor chemicals fueling those super labs .  three-quarters or more of our nation 's meth supply is controlled by those large organizations , and over half of our meth comes directly from mexico .  the combat methamphetamine epidemic act will be the first legislation enacted by congress that addresses all three of these critical aspects .  previous acts of congress have addressed meth production and precursor chemical diversion , while others have provided assistance to state and local agencies ; for the first time , however , we are tackling domestic and international chemical diversion , assistance to state and local agencies , child and family welfare issues , and the criminal production of meth .  the conference committee has filed a detailed section-by-section analysis of the legislation , so i will only briefly mention the highlights of this bill .  among other things , the act would : require all pseudoephedrine , ephedrine , and phenylpropanolamine products to be stored behind the counter or in a locked cabinet ; impose a daily and a monthly purchase limit ; require purchasers to show i.d .  and sign a logbook ; and require training of all employees handling the products ; close a number of loopholes in existing import , export , and wholesale regulations of meth precursor chemicals , including import and manufacturing quotas to ensure no oversupply leads to diversion ; and regulation of the wholesale `` spot market '' ; require reporting of major meth precursor exporters and importers , and would hold them accountable for their efforts to prevent diversion to meth production ; toughen federal penalties against meth traffickers and smugglers ; authorize the `` meth hot spots '' program , as well as increase funding for drug courts , drug endangered children programs , and programs to assist pregnant women addicted to meth .  each of these steps is vital to our success in the fight against meth , and i hope that the house will support them .  mr. speaker , this bill was a true compromise -- both between the two parties , and between this house and the other body .  of all the many members of congress who worked on this legislation , no one got everything he or she wanted .  but what we did get was an excellent bill that will re-energize our fight against methamphetamine .  every one of us , republican or democrat , urban or rural , has a stake in the outcome of that fight .  we have to stop the meth epidemic from spreading , and we need to start rolling it back .  i believe that this legislation will be an important step in that process , and i urge my colleagues to vote for its passage .  
R	madam speaker , i thank the chairman for his cosponsorship and his leadership in making sure that this meth bill can pass this bill in the form of passing a conference report , which is the only real way to get this done .  i also want to say briefly that i support section 215 , which amends the import and export act to make sure that we can have better prosecution methods .  eighteen of the 40 major organizations that are involved in terrorism also deal in narcotics .  the methamphetamine act is the single , first comprehensive anti-meth bill that we have ever introduced in congress , let alone passed in congress .  it is a sweeping anti-meth bill .  it will require all pseudoephedrine and ephedrine products to be stored behind the counter or in a locked cabinet ; impose a daily and monthly purchase limit ; require purchasers to show id and sign a logbook ; and require training of all employees handling the product .  it closes a number of loopholes in existing import , export , and wholesale regulations of meth precursor chemicals , including import and manufacturing quotas to ensure no oversupply leads to diversion ; and regulation of the wholesale `` spot market. '' it requires reporting of major meth precursor exporters and importers .  it would hold them accountable for their efforts to prevent diversion to meth production .  it toughens federal penalties against meth traffickers and smugglers .  it authorizes the meth hot spots program as well as increases funding for drug courts , drug endangered children programs , and programs to assist pregnant women addicted to meth .  in addition , it has epa environmental regulations .  i want to thank democrats and republicans for all their bipartisan effort .  this is something we did in a bipartisan way .  this is our best chance to really get ahead of this epidemic that swept from asia to hawaii to california , the northwest to the plains , to the great lake states , is headed into the east and is into north carolina , south carolina , pennsylvania , and new york and headed to the atlantic ocean .  this is our attempt , a massive coordinated multicommittee that took many chairmen to do this , senators talent and feinstein of the senate to do this .  i thank chairman sensenbrenner , i thank the leadership , because this is a big day for those of us who have been fighting the anti-meth cause .  
D	madam speaker , i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 3199 , the usa patriot and terrorism prevention reauthorization act conference report .  i would be violating my oath to uphold the constitution if i voted to unravel the very freedoms for which we 're supposedly fighting .  the patriot act criminalizes speech , protest and assembly while it removes the right to due process and a search warrant .  for example , the formerly bedrock principle that government can not spy on you unless it provides strong evidence of wrongdoing to a judge no longer exists in america .  as a `` compromise '' in this bill , americans can now talk to a lawyer when the fbi sends them a national security letter .  these letters demand their medical , business or internet records , and it is nearly impossible to get the request blocked .  madam speaker , there is no room for compromise in the bill of rights .  if the fbi wants to know what web sites i visit , they should justify it to a judge beforehand just like anyone else .  with 30 , 000 of these national security letters going out every year , up from 300 before the patriot act was enacted , this is much more than just an academic argument .  while no amount of success in the war on terror could justify the patriot act , it is especially tragic that we have little to show for 5 years of police-state tactics .  the american people might be surprised to know that the median sentence for people convicted in terrorist investigations over the last 5 years was just 11 months .  most were convicted on technicalities having nothing to do with the patriot act .  in other words , the war on terrorism is just an irrelevant excuse for the expanded power of government to find out what books you buy , send undercover agents to your community group meetings , or search your home without a warrant .  the patriot act is a war on liberty to create a false sense of security .  i urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this underhanded ploy .  
D	madam speaker , i thank the gentleman from michigan for the time .  madam speaker , i am opposed to the reauthorization of the patriot act .  first , i do not believe many of the so-called law enforcement tools will make us any safer .  i am probably one of a few members of congress who has been spied on by his own government .  during the civil rights movement , an agency in the mississippi state government called the state sovereignty commission kept files on me and countless other people working for change .  i might add that none of us did anything illegal other than just convene and talk about how we would change our state .  from this experience , i have known that , when government has the authority to spy on its own people , it is almost always and will misuse that power .  nothing good will come from many of the tools in the patriot act , and i fear that it will lead to more misuse of power .  it is too broad an authorization to continue to give the government these powers , such as to search the library records or to place roving wiretaps without a warrant that at least should say what phone is being tapped .  i am also opposed to the conference report because it fails to include the provision in the house bill that would allocate more homeland security funds based on risk .  the 9/11 commission explicitly recommended that homeland security funds be allocated based on risk .  the Ð9/11 commission members recently said that if the house funding measures were passed , congress would have received an a grade instead of an f on fulfilling its recommendation .  we must focus our scarce homeland security resources on areas that are most at risk of terrorist attack .  we can not yield to politics .  we must fulfill the commission 's recommendation by passing the house proposal .  without that measure in this patriot act reauthorization , i can not support it .  
R	mr. chairman , i thank the gentleman for his leadership on this action as well as others that involve the permanent select committee on intelligence .  i want to remind members why we are here .  we are here because the patriot act will sunset .  it will sunset so we can see if there were any violations of civil liberties during the time it was in effect , which will be approximately 4 years by the end of this year .  there were over 7 , 000 alleged violations filed by the american civil liberties union , as members heard before from the gentleman from indiana .  however , we have no violations of civil liberties under the patriot act .  of those 7 , 000 allegations , some were under other parts of the law , but none under the patriot act .  so what we are talking about in this bill is sort of splitting hairs .  we have heard comments about how there is no judicial oversight for what is going on .  there is judicial oversight for almost everything involved in the patriot act with few exceptions , like national security letters , which does require a certification of relevance before they move forward .  we use these tools in the patriot act so we can catch terrorists and prevent acts of violence against american citizens .  we use these same tools in other parts of the law , like when we are trying to find patent infringement , when we are trying to catch organized criminals , when we are trying to stop drug trafficking .  this is a good law .  i hope my colleagues will support it .  it does protect civil liberties , and we should pass it .  
D	i rise today in opposition to the patriot act reauthorization conference report .  as a former federal prosecutor and new mexico 's attorney general , i am familiar with both the needs of law enforcement to pursue suspects and a strong supporter of law enforcement .  i am also a strong supporter of civil liberties and believe that our constitution must be guarded against encroachment even in the name of security .  on october 24 , 2001 , a justified sense of urgency resulted in an unjustifiably rushed vote on the patriot act .  many of us had little time to study the bill which became law .  a bipartisan bill was junked by the majority 's rules committee in the middle of the night .  since this legislation was enacted , over 385 cities , towns , and counties in 43 states passed resolutions concerning the patriot act .  in new mexico alone , 10 cities and four counties have adopted resolutions calling for reform .  i have received thousands of letters from americans worried about excessive government power without judicial oversight .  i had hoped during the conference committee senate provisions granting more congressional oversight and constitutional protections would have been kept in this bill .  the senate version contained greater restrictions on the government 's power and required higher standards for record demands .  however , the conference report is more of the same .  it extends for 4 years two of the most controversial provisions of the bill , including the section granting law enforcement authorities unprecedented powers to search library and bookstore records without probable cause or the need for search warrants .  this bill also makes permanent 14 provisions of the patriot act that were set to expire this year .  this bill has serious problems .  national security letters are out of control , with no meaningful oversight .  it has been reported that 30 , 000 national security letters are issued every year .  these letters allow the government to collect almost limitless sensitive , personal information without judicial approval .  we should target this government power against terrorists , not against innocent americans .  i will vote against this bill today , not because i oppose the patriot act in its entirety but because i believe that the needs of law enforcement can be met without eroding our liberties .  
D	mr. chairman , i rise to explain my decision to vote against this version of the patriot act .  this has not been an easy decision .  some of the provisions that are being reauthorized in this bill provide law enforcement officials with important tools that may be helpful in detecting and disrupting terrorist activities .  i support those provisions .  other provisions , however , fail to provide adequate safeguards to ensure that the privacy rights of innocent citizens are protected .  it is very important that , in our effort to defend the liberties that americans cherish , we not enact measures that erode the very freedoms we seek to protect .  we can ensure that the government has the necessary surveillance powers without sacrificing the privacy rights in the aftermath of september 11 , 2001 , it is essential that we strengthen our ability to detect , deter , and disrupt terrorist activities .  many provisions in the patriot act accomplish this objective in a balanced way .  other provisions , however , leave citizens vulnerable to unchecked , unwarranted , and potentially abusive invasions of privacy .  i am hopeful that the senate will address these shortcomings in the house bill so that , at the end of the day , we can enact a balanced bill that protects both our security and the rights and liberties we seek to secure .  we can do better .  i look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues -- both democrats and republicans -- to develop a bill of which we can all be proud and which can be a true testament to american patriots and to the constitution we all seek to uphold and defend .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman from georgia , and i thank the chairman and chairman souder for not only bringing the patriot act reauthorization to the floor but including these important meth provisions in this legislation .  in rural east tennessee , over 10 years ago meth production showed up in a real ugly way and spread like moonshine of 50 years ago , but 100 times more lethal , through the mountains and the hills .  we attacked it with Ða comprehensive state-federal-local partnership called the southeast tennessee meth task force and that grew to the east tennessee meth task force , and now it is a statewide , state-of-the-art , frankly , national model for how to combat this problem ; and we were second in the country last year in lab seizures .  one of the innocent results here , though , of fighting meth and the production of meth are the children that are left in these homes .  my colleague from tennessee , a democrat from nashville , jim cooper , wrote legislation , and i was the original republican cosponsor , that creates a provision funded at $ 20 million a year for the next 2 years to deal with the children that come out of these meth homes .  over 10 , 000 children nationally between 2000 and 2003 came out of these meth homes and became wards of the state .  in my state , 750 alone so far are wards of the state .  there was no social service network for these children .  this creates that .  so we are not just attacking the problem , but we are dealing with the aftermath of this deadly plague on america called methamphetamine production .  it is so responsible to include it .  a second on the patriot act .  in ordinary circumstances , it might not be necessary .  these are extraordinary circumstances , and it has been necessary .  the facts do not lie .  if you listen to the testimony of the attorneys general and the prosecutors and you hear the cases , you know the patriot act has definitely kept our country safer , safer , since september 11 .  we need to reauthorize it .  we need to be realistic .  we can not just pander or engage in mythological discussions .  deal with the realities .  we have to do certain things and communicate better .  the law enforcement personnel have to have the tools and equipment to safeguard our country from these terrorists .  this is the reality that we face today .  we can change this later if we need to .  today , we need to reauthorize it and keep the teeth in federal law enforcement and keep the terrorists out of our country .  
D	mr. chairman , i thank the gentleman for yielding time .  mr. chairman , i suspect that the american people do not realize just how much the process of legislating is about reacting to events that take place around us .  when something like enron happens , we react to that .  when accounting scandals happen , we react to it .  when the events of 9/11 occurred , we obviously reacted to those events .  and quite often when we react , we are looking for an appropriate new balance that takes into account some outrageous activity that took place .  and so when we passed the patriot act originally , our effort was to try to find a new security balance for people here in our country , and we thought we had done a tremendous job of doing that in the judiciary committee , only to find that the rules committee , which did not even have any jurisdiction over the matter or had any hearings about the matter , took the bill , rewrote it , brought it to the floor and struck a completely different balance between the rights of government on one hand and law enforcement and the rights of individuals on the other hand .  i voted against the original patriot act , and i still believe that the balance that was struck in that bill was inappropriate .  i think the balance that we have struck in this bill is not the appropriate balance .  and a number of my colleagues have said that , well , there have not been any abuses by law enforcement of the powers that we gave them .  but the truth of the matter is that depends on how you define an abuse .  and i do not like to define an abuse as something outrageous .  if we wait on something outrageous to happen , then we will react back in the opposite direction of against government and law enforcement in unreasonable ways , just as we are reacting in favor of law enforcement now .  so here are a couple of statistics that you need to know about : the american library association found that libraries have received over 200 formal and informal requests for materials including 49 requests from federal officers .  well , maybe they did not find anything .  maybe that was not an abuse that people are going to get outraged about , but i think that is outrageous .  in section 213 it talks about sneak-and-peek searches .  in a letter to the gentleman from virginia ( mr. scott )  , the department of justice said on july 5 , 2005 that that section had been used 153 times as of january 2005 .  only 18 of those times were the uses for terrorism investigations .  well , what is happening with the other 80 percent is in my estimation an abuse of this provision because we passed the law so that we could make it easier for law enforcement to get to terrorists .  the law is being used in ways that , but for the events of 9/11 and the terrorism that occurred , we would not have accepted as residents of this country .  i just think we have struck the wrong balance .  we need to sunset this bill again for a shorter period of time , and i hope my colleagues will take that into account and vote against it .  
R	mr. chairman , i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his leadership on this issue .  over the last several months , the committee on the judiciary has had numerous oversight hearings , as has the house permanent select committee on intelligence , to look at the patriot act and see where we need to improve it and what we need to do to extend the expiring provisions .  my colleague from southern california said that we should have sunsets on this because once we have peace we should not have these provisions .  once the war is over .  once the war is over .  the war against foreign terrorists and spies will not end , any more than the police 's efforts to combat organized crime or drug kingpins .  the tools that we have put into the patriot act are identical to the tools that law enforcement have had for a long time in criminal cases , but we did not have those authorities in foreign intelligence and counterterrorism cases .  there are plenty of myths about the patriot act , and i think we need to put a few of them to rest .  one of them is the myth that the local sheriff can go into your library and find out what you have been reading .  they can not .  under the patriot act , they need a court order in order to get any business records or library records or anything else , under the supervision of a federal judge .  and it has to be as part of a foreign terrorist investigation or counterintelligence investigation against foreign spies .  it is directed not against americans but against those who might come to this country to do us harm .  the most important thing that the patriot act did was to break down the walls between law enforcement and intelligence to be able to share information across that wall in order to protect us before the attack comes .  the intention of the patriot act is to prevent the next terrorist attack , instead of just letting the fbi gather the criminal evidence to convict somebody after thousands more have died .  we need to reauthorize this act , and we also collectively as americans need to dispel the myths about the act and make some important strengthening of the act so that in the future it can continue to protect us .  
D	mr. speaker , the president and his administration continue its rhetoric that anyone calling for a withdrawal of troops or questioning the intelligence that led us into the iraq war is unpatriotic , while , on the other hand , using this war as an excuse , a patriot act was passed that recklessly violates our civil liberties and attacks the very freedoms our troops in iraq are told that they are fighting to protect .  this administration and the leadership in this very house we are standing in has tried every trick in the book to spread the blame , pass the buck on this misguided war .  they continue to filter the debate in our very own country and to discredit those who disagree with them .  this bill they want us to pass today would continue to limit our constitutional freedoms in our very own country .  though they did not seem to care one bit about the facts before 9/11 , they now believe the united states will benefit from hoarding insignificant and ill-gotten information on innocent americans .  they believe that this makes us a safer nation .  if you want to talk about dishonesty , look at this administration 's policies that have led us to ignore facts in order to manipulate the very policies that fly in the face of our own honesty , and this is an administration that also pays for `` canned '' news overseas .  the real patriots have been those who stand up and question the misleading intelligence and dishonest tactics that got us into this war , those who have challenged the patriot act and its impact on the civil rights and civil liberties of every american .  actually , it is patriotic to question how the patriot act affects the very rights that we live under in this country of ours .  vote `` no '' on this patriot act .  
R	mr. chairman , i rise today in support of the usa patriot act .  nearly four years ago and shortly after terrorists maliciously killed thousands of americans on september 11 , 2001 , congress passed the patriot act .  this act provides law enforcement officials the tools they need to save lives and protect this country from future terrorist attacks .  today , we are at a critical point as congress considers extending 16 important provisions of the law .  i have looked carefully at the law and i have heavily weighed the constitutional questions some have raised .  in the end , i wholeheartedly support all 16 provisions .  i believe that the tools provided under the law are consistent with our long cherished values and consistent with our rights under the constitution .  i especially support the provisions which take important steps to ensure information sharing and cooperation among government agencies .  by providing these necessary tools , the patriot act builds a culture of prevention and makes certain that our government 's resources are dedicated to defending the safety and security of the american people .  for decades , terrorists have waged war against freedom , democracy , and u.s. interests .  now america is leading the global war against terrorism .  as president bush has said , `` free people will set the course of history . '' 
R	mr. chairman , i move that the committee do now rise .  the motion was agreed to .  accordingly , the committee rose ; and the speaker pro tempore ( mr. putnam )  having assumed the chair , mr. hastings  of washington , acting chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union , reported that that committee , having had under consideration the bill ( h.r. 3199 ) to extend and modify authorities needed to combat terrorism , and for other purposes , had come to no resolution thereon .  
R	mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	madam speaker , i was absent from this chamber for 16 years after serving for 10 .  the compelling reason for me to return was the events of 9/11 .  and one of the things that i thought i would never see in the house of representatives is an alice in wonderland type atmosphere where just because you say something , you think it is true .  the fact of the matter is , many of the complaints registered by my friends on the other side of the aisle are taken care of in this conference report .  if you vote down the conference report , those sections that are not subject to sunset will continue on without any of the changes that the chairman has articulated .  so the very arguments they are making against what they do not like about the law now should compel them to vote for this conference report because we make changes .  madam speaker , it is the primary responsibility of government to protect the safety of its citizens .  the patriot act tears down that wall , that artificial wall that existed between the intelligence community and the criminal justice enterprises .  and what we did was we said it made no sense , it made us more vulnerable to attack .  some have said , look , these changes in the patriot act change what was current law .  that is true because there was a need to do so .  and some have argued all we need to do is to follow what has been the law in the past .  the distinction that must be drawn is that , in the war on terrorism , it is not good enough to collect the evidence after a terrorist attack to try and bring people to justice .  the imperative is to stop the terrorist attacks from occurring in the first place .  that is why we have the differences in this law .  yes , there is a different standard .  the standard is to allow us to stop the terrorist attacks in the first instance .  we have , as a result of oversight , and i have attended every single hearing in the subcommittee and full committee , done unbelievable oversight , reviewing every bit of evidence that has been out there .  there has not been one single example of abuse proven , not one .  the ig report could not find it .  we could not find it .  i have been to every single hearing that we have had , been with every witness .  they could not prove a one .  but because we are concerned about the possibility of abuse , we have put at least 30 additional limitations into this conference report .  and so really the question is , do you believe in the essential foundation of the patriot act which makes it is the primary responsibility of government to protect the safety of its citizens .  the patriot act is a critical element in a strategy to provide law enforcement with the necessary tools to conduct antiterrorism investigations .  this task is made all the more difficult in that unlike the traditional criminal case , our success will be measured by the ability to prevent a future terrorist attack .  the 9/11 commission report observed that `` the choice between security and liberty is a false choice , as nothing is more likely to endanger america 's liberties than the success of a terrorist attack at home. '' freedom presumes security .  the converse is equally true .  in the delicate balance of these important interests .  our concern for liberty must not discount the consequences of a failure to keep americans secure from a cataclysmic event .  while it is important to avoid hyperbole on such a serious matter , the very nature of american life -- and the traditional regard for liberty -- could itself be threatened .  at the same time , it is the solemn responsibility of committees with oversight responsibilitites to be ever diligent to assure that government does not overstep the proper limits of its authority in implementing the patriot act .  in this regard , in our oversight of the patriot act , the judiciary committee conducted 13 hearings and there was no finding of abuse .  this was evidenced by the fact that opponents of the act resorted to attacks on the circumstances at guantanamo , and the creppy memo -- issues related to the wider war on terrorism but unrelated to the patriot act itself .  the conference report contains a number of provisions which maintain the integrity of those key provisions necessary to combat terrorism , while at the same time strengthening the protection of civil liberties : as the author of the 10-year sunset provisions in the house bill relating to section 206 , roving wiretaps , and section 215 , access to business records the final language in the conference report responds to the critics of the legislation .  the conference report contains the senate language of 4-year sunsets of these same provisions and extends the sunset language to the `` lone wolf ' provisions of the bill as well .  the conference report language relating to business record access includes additional protections not contained in current law .  the conference report explicitly provides for judicial review of any section 215 order .  if the documents sought pertain to sensitive categories of records -- such as library , bookstore , tax returns , firearms sales , educational and medical records -- the fbi director , deputy director , or the official in charge of intelligence must personally sign off on the application before it can be submitted to the court .  the conference report requires that the application to the fisa court must include `` a clear statement of the facts '' that demonstrate reasonable grounds to believe the tangible things sought are relevant to the investigation .  the conference report requires the use of so-called minimization procedures to regulate the retention and dissemination of information concerning united states persons and the protection of privileged documents .  the conference report makes it explicit that a recipient of an order has the right to disclose receipt to an attorney or other parties necessary to comply with the order .  section 108 of the conference report imposes several additional safeguards on the use of roving surveillance : the conference report requires that the order describe the specific target in detail when authorizing a roving wiretap for a target whose identity is not known .  the conference report specifies that the fisa court must find that the possibility of the target thwarting surveillance is based on specific facts in the application .  the conference report requires investigators to inform the court when `` roving '' surveillance is used to target a new facility -- such as when a terrorist or spy changes to a different cell phone .  as the former chief law enforcement officer of my state of california , i want to first of all emphasize that delayed notice search warrants are not an invention of the patriot act .  the delayed notice search warrant has been available to california law enforcement for years .  the conference report adds new safeguards relating to the use of delayed notice search warrants .  the conference report places a limit of 30 days on an initial request or on a later date certain if the facts justify such a delay .  extensions of up to 90 days are possible unless the facts of a particular case justify a longer period .  the language in the conference report provides for explicit judicial review of an nsl .  the conference report provides that a recipient of an nsl may challenge any non-disclosure requirement in court .  the report clarifies that a recipient may disclose receipt of an nsl to an attorney or other necessary party .  there is a total absence of any evidence of abuse of the patrlot act .  furthermore , the conference report adds further protections against any potential abuse of the law .  the conference report represents a careful balance between our responsibility to protect americans from terrorist violence , and our responsibility to avoid any potential violations of their civil liberties .  the enactment of this legislation is critical to this endeavor .  there are those who will attempt to come here for the sole purpose of murdering innocent americans .  it is our responsibility to keep this from happening .  we must provide law enforcement with the necessary tools to carry out this task .  
R	madam speaker , first of all i want to associate myself with the comments made by my colleague from california and also to state for the record that i support the motion to instruct .  i also would like to thank the chairman for his comments today regarding the motion to instruct .  i ran on a platform of freedom like most people did in this congress .  and i believe it was ronald reagan , and i am paraphrasing , who said freedom is a fragile thing that must be defended by each generation .  and that is what i am here to do .  that is what i am here to do today .  i believe that we ought to look for other or additional sections of this bill to sunset , but i am happy to see that this congress is taking a hard look at the provisions and the sections that have already been mentioned to ensure that the freedoms that our families enjoy and the people in this country enjoy so much will be protected .  i also understand the arguments that have been made about the oversight of the committee ; and , mr. chairman , i know that as the chair of that committee that will be done .  my concern is for future generations and to make sure that none of the freedoms that americans enjoy today will ever be taken away from them in the future .  
R	mr. chairman , i thank the chairman for this opportunity to address the patriot act .  we must especially make sure our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have the resources they need to arrest , detain , and interrogate those who would do us harm before the deadly acts are committed .  i am very cognizant of the concerns brought to me by many of my constituents in michigan regarding the patriot act .  they have a concern which i believe we all share , that any legislation we pass to combat and prevent terror should not infringe upon the rights we cherish as americans , the very same freedoms the terrorists themselves seek to destroy .  i appreciate the gentleman letting me inquire about these provisions in the bill that you have reported out of committee .  
R	mr. chairman , section 215 of the patriot act pertains to the government 's abilities to gain access to what we commonly refer to as business records , records compiled by a business or an institution pertaining to a customer or visitor to that entity .  this provision has come to be known as the `` library provision '' because many librarians and civil libertarians are concerned that this provision of the patriot act could authorize the government to pour through the library records of everyday private citizens .  now , it is my understanding that your version of the bill has added protections to ensure that law-abiding citizens and residents of the united states do not see their cherished civil liberties violated .  specifically , the bill states that no search can be conducted unless , i repeat , unless a federal judge impaneled at the foreign intelligence surveillance court makes a finding that the information likely to be obtained concerns an ongoing investigation ; repeat , an ongoing investigation to prevent international terrorism , and that that investigation is geared toward gathering foreign intelligence .  
R	mr. chairman , i thank the gentleman .  is it also the case that the recipient of such an order , such as a business or video store , is allowed to consult a lawyer and to contest these orders , and that judges are authorized to review such challenge ?  in other words , we are not devolving to the executive branch powers of the judicial branch ?  
R	mr. chairman , i thank the gentleman for his time .  i have , and i hope the american people have , an accurate understanding of the safeguards put in place by the usa patriot act .  
R	mr. chairman , i too rise in support of this bill .  we have had some great debate , 11 hearings , and i appreciate my friend the gentleman from massachusetts ' point about section 215 , but the gentleman from florida ( mr. feeney )  is right .  i mean , library records are being used as a red herring .  we have seen over and over that libraries have been used by terrorists and this will help address that .  the thing is so far that provision of 215 has not been used with regard to libraries .  but if a terrorist is using that information , as a former judge , i would not hesitate if the information were there , raising probable cause .  but there are safeguards in 215 .  there is a court .  there is a judge reviewing .  i was terribly concerned about the right to an attorney not being in there .  that is being amended to include that .  i was concerned about not having a provision for appealing that power under 215 .  that has been added and amended .  and so we are coming to a great bill here , and it has come about through great debate , back and forth .  and i would also point out though , with regard to the london bombings and the further activity today , you know , our hearts and prayers go out to our friends across the ocean .  but we can not lose sight of the fact either , we have not had one yet here , not since 9/11 .  and if you are in a position to review top secret records , you will see that this has been used effectively .  and as far as 215 and the passion my friend , the gentleman from massachusetts ( mr. delahunt )  , had about we have got to have a sunset , good news .  the sunset is in here for 206 and 215 .  so i am proud to rise in support .  i have had great concerns about some areas .  they are being addressed .  we do have some sunsets to provide some protection , and i am proud that this administration has not abused any of these until we can get these holes filled .  
R	mr. chairman , i want to thank the gentleman from wisconsin ( mr. sensenbrenner )  for his leadership on this important legislation , and i rise today in support of this bill .  i served in the justice department before and after 9/11 .  i led the department 's counterterrorism efforts in the united states attorney 's office in the state of texas .  i worked with the joint terrorism task forces fighting this war on terror in the trenches .  i know firsthand that this patriot act provides the necessary tools to win this war on terror at home .  significantly , the patriot act tore down the wall between the criminal division and the intelligence side of the house .  prior to this it was dysfunctional .  the left hand literally did not know what the right was doing .  the 9/11 commission reported this wall may have contributed to 9/11 .  an fbi agent testified that efforts to conduct a criminal investigation into two of the hijackers were blocked due to concerns over the wall .  frustrated , he wrote to the fbi headquarters and he said , some day someone will die .  and wall or not , the public will not understand why we were not more effective at throwing every resource we had at certain problems .  let us hope that the national security law unit will then stand behind their decisions , especially since the biggest threat to us now is osama bin laden .  today , thanks to the patriot act , this wall has come down .  it helps us connect the dots by removing the legal barriers that prevented law enforcement and the intelligence community from sharing information .  but the patriot act provides many other tools for law enforcement in this war on terrorism .  it updates the law to the technology of today .  the patriot act also takes laws which have long applied in drug cases and organized crime cases and applies them to the terrorists , such as the roving wiretaps , such as the delayed notification for searches .  it makes no sense for us to apply these laws only in drug cases and not in the most important cases affecting our national security , cases involving terrorists .  and contrary to critics ' assertions , the justice department can not do anything without court supervision .  the u.s. patriot act does not abrogate the role played by the judiciary in the oversight of the activities of federal law enforcement .  and while we are talking about libraries , let us not forget al qaeda operative mohammed babar who used a computer in a library and when asked after he was arrested why , he said because the libraries will scrub the hard drives .  i can envision no bigger national security mistake than to go back to the way things were .  we owe it to the citizens of this country to reauthorize the patriot act , for if we do not and another terrorist attack occurs on our shores we will surely all be held accountable .  
D	mr. speaker , the patriot act was passed in october 2001 in response to the horrendous terrorist attacks on our country .  its aim was to give the women and men of our law enforcement community the authority and tools needed to prevent future attacks and save and secure the lives of american citizens .  there is no question , mr. speaker , that many of the provisions of the patriot act have been useful to law enforcement and have helped to prevent terrorist attacks and secure our nation .  but we must also be vigilantly aware that some of the provisions of the patriot act have the potential to be abused and violate the civil liberties of innocent american citizens , the same citizens it is meant to protect .  congress understood this when it passed the patriot act and required that 16 provisions of the act be made to sunset , forcing us to revisit them .  i am very proud to be standing here today with the opportunity to debate the fine balance that must be struck between security and civil liberties .  the acts of september 11 were not the only events in our history where our nation 's leaders were asked to strike this balance .  during world war ii , under the banner of security , the civil liberties of 120 , 000 japanese americans vanished .  i clearly know how deeply this affected my parents , both american citizens born and raised in this country .  mr. speaker , once again we are in a time of crisis .  i implore all of us to proceed with caution .  it is this type of bill , one that affects the most cherished rights we have as americans , that requires constant and vigilant oversight by congress .  that is our duty .  the surest way to ensure this oversight is to place sunsets on those provisions of the legislation that can be abused .  unfortunately , this bill places sunsets on only two of the original 16 provisions , making the rest permanent .  i also have concern about what this measure does not address , the ability to secure library records and allow sneak-and-peek searches .  these provisions are wrought with great potential for abuse .  mr. speaker , the civil liberties of the american people are too important and the potential for abuse too great for us not to place sunsets on all of the 16 provisions .  like our constitution , our liberties are a symbol of america .  the freedoms in our country are known throughout the world .  what we do today sends a message throughout the world .  we here in this body have a sacred responsibility to protect what our nation stands for .  we are certainly responsible for the safety of this nation , but we are also certainly responsible for shaping the laws that determine what it means to be an american .  mr. speaker , all of us agree that we must do all we can to secure and protect the united states , but we must also be mindful of those rights and privileges upon which this great nation was founded .  
R	mr. speaker , i rise today in support of the creation of a select bipartisan committee to investigate the preparation for and response to hurricane katrina .  as representatives , we are elected by the american people , and it is our duty to ensure that the numerous federal agencies of which we have oversight and that we fund on an annual basis serve the taxpayers efficiently and effectively , and i think from the images that we have seen and from the reports from that area of the country , we have had serious problems .  this is a job best performed by the elected leaders of the united states .  we are charged with the responsibility of oversight .  we can be trusted by our constituents to find the truth .  to those who are critical of the makeup of this committee , i say to them , the united states congress has responded in similar fashion 41 times , most recently with the formation of the select committee on homeland security in 2002 and 2003 .  mr. speaker , we must form this bipartisan committee quickly so that the members from both sides of the aisle can begin the vital task of finding the problems that plagued the response to hurricane katrina on the local , state and federal levels .  if we fail to act expeditiously and devolve into finger pointing and bickering , we are putting other areas of our nation at greater risk .  mother nature will not wait for the united states congress to act .  
R	mr. speaker , i rise in support of house resolution 439 and in support of the underlying resolution .  mr. speaker , the minority objects to house resolution 437 on the basis that the bipartisan committee it creates will be inherently unbalanced and unfair .  one suspects they believe it will be unfair largely because while they will have full rights of representation on the committee in question , they will inevitably be the minority on any panel that fairly represents the composition of both the house of representatives and the other body .  it would be easy and entertaining to lampoon the consistency of the so- called party of the people rejecting a committee composed of the elected representatives of the american people in favor of one made up of individuals who are both unelected and unaccountable to the voters of this country , but i will avoid that temptation .  frankly , there are deeper issues here .  the first is our faith as individuals in the efficacy of democracy itself .  as the minority in this house for 11 years , i fear my friends on the other side of the aisle have lost their faith in the american people , because of the choices they have made at the ballot box in recent years .  having served as a member of a seemingly permanent minority in the oklahoma state senate earlier in my career , i understand the frustration on which that sentiment is based .  however , as adherents to the ideals of democracy , we should trust that over time the people will get it right and that if our views are sound , they will prevail .  in the meantime , our job is to argue our point of view in the court of public opinion and accept the outcome at the polls when the verdict is rendered .  the second issue at stake here is the wisdom of empowering people who are neither elected nor accountable to perform the task our constitution assigns to the elected representatives of the american people .  frankly , i share the sentiments winston churchill famously voiced when he said `` democracy is the worst form of government , except for all those others that have been tried. '' mr. speaker , it is fundamentally unsound and undemocratic to turn over the function of congressional oversight to a group of individuals who have neither been elected by the people nor accountable to the people for their actions or recommendations .  appointing a commission is the easy way out .  it is a way for us , the representatives of the people , to avoid our responsibilities .  its members , however expert and well-intentioned , did not design or create the agencies and processes we wish to examine in connection with hurricane katrina .  we did .  similarly , they will not be responsible for reforming these agencies or finding the solutions to our current problems .  those duties belong to the elected representatives of the american people .  my colleagues on the other side of the aisle often complain there is insufficient congressional oversight .  this is our chance to exercise that oversight , and the voters will surely hold all of us accountable for how well we do the job .  my fellow members , let us have faith in the american people , our democratic institutions , and ourselves .  let us do the job we were elected to do , rather than hand it off to those who were neither asked nor chosen by the american people to govern their affairs .  i urge support of house resolution 439 and the underlying house resolution 437 .  
R	mr. speaker , i ask unanimous consent to temporarily control the time of the gentleman from california ( mr. dreier )  .  
R	mr. speaker , i just want to make a couple of quick points , and then i will reserve the balance of my time .  i would disagree very strongly with my good friend from florida about the 9/11 commission .  there were , in fact , many investigations in this congress about the tragedy that took place on 9/11 , the permanent select committee on intelligence amongst them .  we did actually do oversight .  
R	reclaiming my time , mr. speaker , and i respect the opinion of my good friend from florida , but i think there was oversight .  but i would actually agree with his fundamental point in the sense that i think oversight is more effectively done by the elected representatives of the people , by the appropriate people who are responsible for implementing the solution .  i do not think we should take that model and follow it again here .  i also would suspect that the situation between a deliberate attack on the united states and a natural disaster are very different .  mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , by direction of the committee on rules , i call up house resolution 439 and ask for its immediate consideration .  
R	mr. speaker , for the purpose of debate only , i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from rochester , new york ( ms. slaughter )  , pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume .  
R	mr. speaker , house resolution 439 is a closed rule providing for 1 hour of debate for consideration of h. res. 437 , a resolution establishing a select bipartisan committee to investigate the preparation for and response to hurricane katrina .  the rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides one motion to recommit which may not contain instructions .  mr. speaker , the human suffering and physical damage wrought by hurricane katrina is heart-wrenching and overwhelming .  we all know that very well .  lives have been lost and uprooted .  families are separated without homes and without jobs .  our initial focus has been on restoring hope and rebuilding community on the gulf coast .  with great urgency congress came together and with virtual unanimity passed legislation to fund the very important relief efforts .  over $ 60 billion has been appropriated so far .  also critical has been the outpouring of support and generosity from fellow americans and very importantly from 94 countries around the world .  from small businesses to large corporations , people are pitching in .  that said , as president bush has stated , there were aspects of the immediate response to hurricane katrina that were not acceptable .  he said that this week , and i am sure that it will be made clear in the remarks that he gives to the nation this evening .  already we have seen the head of the federal emergency management agency resign .  clearly , many lessons are to be learned from what has happened .  as debris is removed , water recedes and homes are rebuilt , we in congress must now assume our very serious and consequential constitutional oversight role of the executive branch and federal agencies so that we can find out exactly what went wrong and what went right in the early response to hurricane katrina .  we need to get to the bottom of what happened , when it happened and why it happened .  mr. speaker , to fulfill our oversight responsibility , we are following precedent and honoring tradition by creating a bipartisan select committee to look at the response of the government to hurricane katrina .  this select committee will allow us to take a sober , serious , nonpartisan look at the development , coordination and execution of relief by state , local and federal authorities .  at the same time , we must take great care not to interfere with the ongoing hurricane katrina recovery efforts .  critical personnel are still on the ground and actively involved in a time-sensitive , decision-making process .  congress can help uncover a better way forward , but it should not disrupt the progress that is being made at this moment .  mr. speaker , this rule serves as the most practical vehicle by which to consider this critically important legislation .  i urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation .  mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  as i prepare to yield to my friend from charleston , let me just say that the short answer to the question posed by my friend from rochester about why it is we would not establish a commission , it is very clear .  article 1 , section 8 of the constitution states it , that we have to do our job .  we have the responsibility to deal with this issue .  there are very important questions that have been raised by democrats and republicans and people from the outside community ; and we , as the representatives of the people , have the responsibility to get to the bottom of this .  that is what the establishment of this bipartisan committee is , in fact , going to do .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume , and as i prepare to yield to my friend from moore , oklahoma ( mr. cole )  , i want to say to my good friend from massachusetts that it is very clear that members of the united states house of representatives do have the ability to deal with a disaster and at the same time engage in a very , very important investigatory process .  it is also very important to note that this is not going to simply be republicans asking questions of other republicans .  as i said earlier , and i know my friend from rochester raised this when she said it was nice of me to say that democrats would have the opportunity to ask questions , but we know that democrats , by virtue of this being a bipartisan committee , will be able to be deeply involved and engaged in this process as well .  once again , i think it is important to note , as my colleague and friend from west virginia said , that we are the elected representatives of the american people and this is our constitutionally mandated responsibility which we should not pass on to someone else .  
R	mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank the chairman for yielding me this time .  mr. speaker , i rise in strong support of house resolution 437 .  i think we are completely doing the right thing for the right reasons .  i have heard the other side of the aisle argue that what is the hurry , you are rushing to create an oversight committee and let us wait a couple of months .  i want to point out to my friends on the other side of the aisle that we are still in the hurricane season .  in fact , we are just getting into the hurricane season , and we need to get this investigation going as soon as possible .  it is very important that we not wait .  we have a 5-month opportunity to study this problem and find out exactly where the responsibilities lie .  the other side of the aisle also is suggesting that this is a republican majority investigating a republican administration .  i point out we were not focusing just on the federal aspects of this , as they would like us to do , but we are also focusing on the local and state aspects of this .  there are democrats and republicans all up and down the line .  this is not a partisan thing .  this is a way to do it .  this is what congress has a responsibility to do and has done 41 times over the last 30 or 40 years .  i could name any number of instances .  my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know that is true .  the creation of an outside independent commission , as they call it , they are calling for doing that and spending an additional $ 5 million to $ 10 million .  we do not need to do that .  we have the staff within this congress on both sides of the aisle , both in the majority and on the minority , and hopefully we would not spend more than $ 500 , 000 to get this work done and get it done in a bipartisan fashion .  that is why we call it the select bipartisan committee to investigate the preparation for and the response to hurricane katrina .  i am fully in support of that .  
D	mr. speaker , i thank the gentlewoman from new york ( ms. slaughter )  , the distinguished ranking democratic member on the house committee on rules , for yielding me this time .  a footnote right there , mr. speaker .  i hope the irony is not lost on the house that the gentlewoman , a new york member , is being lectured to about homeland security issues and why there is no need for an independent katrina commission .  new yorkers were told 3 and 4 years ago that there was no need for an independent commission on 9/11 .  i note peripherally that the distinguished chairman of the committee on rules has other business and has left the floor ; but i was prepared to ask him , and perhaps his replacement in the chair for the majority can answer for me , what did the house of representatives do in the last 3 years with reference to the tragedy of 9/11 ?  what we wound up doing , because the victims and new york pressed forward , was establishing an independent commission .  the chairman pontificates that we should exercise our constitutional mandate ; and so does his replacement , my friend and colleague on the committee on rules , say what our constitutional duty is .  every one of us is mindful of our constitutional duty .  but are you then prepared to admit that we did not exercise it correctly in the 9/11 commission period and that is why the 9/11 commission came into existence in the first place ?  last year , as we all know , four hurricanes ravaged my home state of florida and some of the gulf coast .  three of them literally destroyed parts of the district that i am privileged to represent .  in the immediate and long-term aftermath , our communities saw fema 's shortcomings .  we saw that a once-reliable agency had been placed on the back burner as an afterthought in the department of homeland security .  natural disaster preparedness and response programs have become trapped in a homeland security bureaucracy .  fema has lost its focus , and floridians and others know that .  our delegation literally begged the committees of jurisdiction to hold hearings on what we saw in florida .  i even introduced bipartisan legislation in march with our colleague on the majority side , the gentleman from florida ( mr. shaw )  , to address what we perceived to be fema 's largest problems .  yet every time we took our concerns to the committees , we were told it is not a big enough problem to consider on its own .  our staff was told we do not think that an oversight hearing is needed .  well , mr. speaker , what america saw in the gulf coast resembles the federal government 's absolute incompetence that florida saw last year .  despite a whole lot of lip service , nothing has changed .  the 9/11 commission was created to provide a full and complete accounting of the 2001 terrorist attacks .  implicit in this mandate is the simple fact that congress alone would not or could not provide such a full and complete accounting .  there is no reason to expect that the republican katrina commission will do any better .  that is why i and the gentleman from new jersey ( mr. menendez )  and 156 of our colleagues yesterday introduced h.r. 3764 , legislation establishing a real independent commission , immune from political influence and absolute partisanship .  and while they can not officially cosponsor our bill , a significant part , 76 percent , of the american people agree with us .  they question this congress ' ability to exercise real oversight and are calling for an independent and bipartisan katrina commission .  supporting the american people 's concerns , you , mr. speaker , said at one point , and i quote , `` our party controls the levers of government .  we 're not about to go and look beneath a bunch of rocks to try to cause heartburn. '' put another way , mr. speaker : we helped create this mess , and we are not going to be able to investigate it ourselves .  so forgive me , mr. speaker , if i question the majority 's ability to conduct effective oversight with this type of political candor .  substantively , the republican plan is partisan .  and because my colleagues say it is bipartisan does not make it so .  it is inadequate .  in stark contrast to the 9/11 commission , republicans outnumber democrats on the majority 's partisan katrina commission .  in contrast to the 9/11 commission , which was given 18 months to do its job , the majority 's partisan katrina commission is only given 5 months .  as the chairman put it last night , do it quick , do it fast .  quickly , he said .  despite the 9/11 commission 's $ 15 million budget to do its job , the majority 's commission they propose is only given $ 500 , 000 .  footnote right there .  what about the committees of jurisdiction already in existence in congress ?  and what about creating a circus atmosphere that drains resources from this congress do you not understand ?  shamefully , the house will not have an opportunity to vote on the hastings-menendez independent katrina commission legislation , because republicans have blocked us from offering it .  just as they always do , republicans block what they can not defeat .  despite what republicans will suggest , today 's debate is not about politics .  it is about the need for truth to assure the american people that we all know their needs .  for my constituents , it is about the failures of this congress , and for others it is about the failures in new orleans and in the states and at the federal government .  it is about saving lives and rebuilding communities .  
D	mr. speaker , i beg to differ with the gentleman about what the permanent select committee on intelligence did .  i serve on the permanent select committee on intelligence .  the senate permanent select committee on intelligence conducted an investigation ; the house did nothing .  
D	mr. speaker , i rise in opposition to the rule and to the underlying resolution .  the federal response to hurricane katrina was absolutely unacceptable .  the american people deserve to know what went so terribly wrong and what we must do to make sure it never , ever happens again .  unfortunately , the partisan committee being proposed by the republican majority will not give the american people any confidence that congress is asking tough questions and demanding straight answers .  apparently , mr. speaker , after the flood comes the whitewash .  for over 4 years , the republican majority has refused at every turn to hold the bush administration accountable for its mistakes .  there has been no meaningful oversight , no tough investigations on anything .  instead , congress has turned a blind eye , and the bill we have before us represents more of the same .  the gentleman from florida ( mr. hastings )  , our colleague , has a different approach , a better approach .  the commission established by his legislation would be truly independent , and its recommendations would carry far more weight .  this independent commission would be similar to the 9/11 panel that was such an effective , meaningful force for change .  because what the american people deserve at the end of this process is a document that does not necessarily agree with everything i say or does not cover the president 's back , which is what the republicans are trying to do today , but that actually helps fix the problems that hurricane katrina exposed .  let me be clear , mr. speaker .  the purpose of the commission established by the gentleman from florida 's ( mr. hastings )  bill is not simply to assign blame .  rather , an independent commission would take a tough , honest approach to an incredibly complicated problem .  pre-identifying vulnerable areas , strategically deploying resources , anticipating potential stumbling blocks as we prepare for disasters , these need to be the guiding principles of our national response plan .  an independent commission would produce recommendations that enhance our national response plan and enable fema to be structured appropriately .  furthermore , this commission will show whether or not , as i believe , fema lacked appropriate leadership , leadership with experience in disaster management , and then recommend ways in which the agency can be better prepared , both in terms of personnel and resources .  unlike the president , i do not think brownie did a heck of a job .  an effective response to a disaster or crisis can not happen unless the best qualified people are coordinating the efforts , equipped with the best resources .  the partisan committee put forward by the republican majority just does not cut it .  instead , it would be made up of members of congress , and there are three problems with that approach : first , there are some members whose time would be better spent dealing with the immediate recovery and reconstruction needs created by the hurricane .  second , republican politicians would be `` investigating '' other republican politicians .  and , third , some of the problems we saw in the gulf coast include bad funding choices made by congress itself .  mr. speaker , the federal government 's response to hurricane katrina was a national disgrace .  the job of this congress is not to run interference for the bush administration ; it is to do what is best for the american people .  seventy-six percent of the public want an independent commission because , quite frankly , they do not trust the republican majority to do it right .  they have a pattern of sweeping problems under the rug , of turning everything into a political fight .  that pattern has to stop , and we can stop it today .  mr. speaker , i urge my colleagues to reject this rule .  
D	mr. speaker , for so many reasons my colleagues on this side of the aisle have articulated , this resolution should be rejected .  because it is neither bipartisan in terms of its authority , nor bipartisan in terms of its power , nor bipartisan in terms of its subpoena power .  that will all rest with the majority .  the question that must be answered is how is it that fema , which 5 years ago was a world-class agency that was being praised by republicans and democrats alike , by local officials , by governors , by mayors , by the international community , who were coming and visiting and taking lessons from fema , how in 5 years was that agency so incredibly hollowed out that it could not respond to hurricane katrina ?  this president and this administration made some horrible decisions about putting political hacks and their cronies in charge of the agency that is in charge of the safety of the people of the united states , whether it is western fires , earthquakes , floods , tornadoes or hurricanes .  he appointed political hacks .  is he going to investigate that himself , as he says ?  this congress , powerful members of the senate and the house , made decisions about using fema as a honey pot to take resources out of and divert them elsewhere .  the committee on appropriations chairmen of both houses , the leadership , the republican leadership of both houses , are they going to investigate that themselves ?  that is like asking enron to investigate corporate ethics , baseball to investigate steroids , dick cheney to investigate energy policy .  it just can not happen , and the american people know that .  that is why , when they are asked on this question , 75 percent of the american people want a 9/11 commission .  they want a 9/11 commission because they saw that the 9/11 commission was the only way that the citizens of this country were going to get the answers , not the answers the politicians wanted them to get , and that is what this bipartisan , phony committee is about .  they want to give you the answers they want you to get .  the citizens want the answers to the questions that they want to ask .  the power in our democracy is with the citizens , and the citizens want a citizens ' committee .  they want a citizens ' committee to answer these questions because the questions are going to have to be asked of a republican president , a republican congress , a democratic mayor , a democratic governor , a republican governor and that simply will not be able to be done .  the president has said he takes responsibility .  the question that must be asked is : did he act responsibly as the president of the united states to protect the people of this country ?  so far , the question is a resounding , no .  
D	mr. speaker , i thank the ranking member , the gentlewoman from new york ( ms. slaughter )  , for yielding me this time and commend the members of the committee on rules for their important work on this subject , particularly the gentleman from florida ( mr. hastings )  who is the author of the legislation , along with the gentleman from new jersey ( mr. menendez )  , the chairman of our caucus , on legislation which will bring truth to this situation , an independent commission , modeled after 9/11 , respected by the american people .  following the tragedy of 9/11 , the american people expected and deserved the truth .  people of new york and new jersey were strong advocates for such a commission .  the people in louisiana and mississippi and the gulf region are displaced .  they are trying to put their lives back together .  they have lost their homes , their jobs , their livelihoods , their communities .  they really do not have time to lobby congress for an independent commission .  but our country is grateful to the 9/11 families because they not only gave us that commission to review that terrible tragedy that befell our country , they gave us a tradition of transparency and finding the truth and holding people accountable and hoping to do so in a way that prevents future loss of life .  we endanger the american people when we ignore the truth .  so on behalf of the people in the region , i plead with my colleagues in this body to reject any sham committee .  supposedly bipartisan ; not so .  supposedly bicameral ; not so .  one thing we know , it is a vehicle to whitewash , to whitewash , and not have a true look into what went wrong .  there was a natural disaster , a terrible natural disaster in the gulf coast states .  it was compounded by a manmade disaster because the federal response of fema fell so very , very short .  and fema , now its director has resigned , but fema is fraught with problems systemically throughout it .  that does not mean that many , many people who work for fema and many people , our first responders , police and fire , health care providers in the area and volunteers from every walk of life did not rise to the occasion .  they certainly did , and we commend them for the sacrifice they were willing to make to rescue others in the time of the immediate recovery .  but there are so many unanswered questions ; and instead of having a sham , why can we not have a real commission to look into this ?  so the choice on the floor today , we have heard all of this discussion over and over .  the fact is that we should be spending our time figuring out how we are going to help the people of the region rebuild their communities , to create jobs , to educate their children , to rid themselves of the toxic , literally toxic , environment , and that is the situation that they are in there .  instead , we are wasting the public 's time on a subject that is unworthy of this tragedy , and it did not have to be .  i certainly respect the congressional role of oversight .  we have called for it over and over again , whether it was the war in iraq or the price gouging at the pump of gasoline for america 's consumers , whether it is abu ghraib or guantanamo .  name it .  there are so many subjects that this congress has been delinquent in its duty in doing oversight .  so i fully support congressional oversight by the committees of jurisdiction .  in order to expedite help to the region , i suggested to the speaker that we have a truly bipartisan committee that could streamline how we would go forward .  at the time , i intended it just to be on the positive side , and that was early , when katrina was just hitting , and then when we saw things go wrong , we added the charge that we would see what went wrong .  so the idea of this congress having a role in terms of oversight in a bipartisan special committee is one that i supported .  i suggested it .  but what the republicans came back with was really a slap in the face to the people who were affected in the region .  we owe them the truth .  why is this congress afraid of the truth ?  over and over again , iraq , name it , price at the pump , why is this congress afraid of the truth ?  sometimes it is really important , as we try to find our common ground , we stand our ground where we can not find that common ground , but we always have to come down in favor of the people , to yield on points .  because we are here to get a job done .  maybe not exactly the way we would want to get it done , but get a job done .  so now , today , the republicans are putting up an obstacle to doing just that .  so i urge my colleagues to honor the sacrifice , the situation , that has affected the people in the region by at least telling them the truth and vote against this committee today , to vote against this committee , to say come back to the drawing board when they want to have honesty in what we are doing .  but , first and foremost , we must have a truly independent commission , again , in the manner of the 9/11 commission that took testimony , that issued a report , that gave transparency and openness to the process and gave some level of truth to the american people .  because the people in the gulf states , many of them affected are poor and economically disadvantaged and not as sophisticated , perhaps , as some of the people stricken with grief in the new york/new jersey area at the time of 9/11 , and in pennsylvania and in the pentagon .  because these people are of a different economic status and because they are living in shelters and the rest and not really able to speak for themselves to the congress of the united states , we , the house democrats , will speak for them in asking for the truth and appealing to our republican colleagues for us to work together in a completely nonpartisan way to help meet their needs .  i know that some members have visited the region , certainly those affected .  the gentleman from mississippi ( mr. taylor )  spoke with such eloquence on the floor yesterday .  senator landrieu , in the senate last week , brought the nation to tears with her presentation on what she saw in her beloved state of louisiana .  and the gentleman from louisiana ( mr. jefferson )  has told us firsthand of what he has seen there .  the gentleman from mississippi ( mr. thompson )  , our ranking member on the committee on homeland security , spoke from authority in standing on the committee but experience as a mississippian .  they know because they see firsthand .  i could only see secondhand , joining the gentlewoman from texas ( ms. jackson-lee )  , the gentleman from texas ( mr. al green )  , the gentleman from texas ( mr. gene green ) , going to houston to meet with the victims of katrina in the astrodome and also in the george r. brown convention center .  we saw children , little children , adorable little babies that we could hold in our arms , and 90-year-old great grannies , all of them , not the little babies , they did not speak for themselves , but their older siblings said , `` we want to go home. '' they praised the hospitality , the warmth , the generosity of the people of houston .  and they are to be commended .  as i said when i was in houston , i do not know of any city in america that could have risen to the occasion so quickly and so compassionately as houston .  mayor white , judge eckels , the commissioner of harris county ; representative noriega , so many people in the community came together to help the victims of katrina .  but still , with all of the respect that they extended to their guests , with all the health care , with all the care and feeding , still , of course , there is no place like home .  so let us find out how we can bring these people home .  and a good way to have them come home and have confidence in the future that , should another hurricane strike , and we know that it will , that the precautions will have been taken , the accountability will be assigned , and that the people will be protected .  we can do that by finding the truth .  we can find the truth with the gentleman from florida ( mr. hastings )  , the gentleman from new jersey 's ( mr. menendez )  commission , senator i stand open and welcome to any cooperation with the republicans when the speaker is ready to cooperate on true bipartisanship , true openness , and true accountability to the american people .  with that , i just close again to say that our hopes and prayers are always with the people of the region .  it is our resolve that they will be made whole as soon as possible , and that has to be a bipartisan commitment .  
D	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. speaker , on tuesday , president bush said that he took responsibility for the recent failure of the federal government to fulfill its ultimate duty of saving the lives of its own people within its own borders .  but what does responsibility mean ?  if it means anything , it means the sincere concern for what has happened under his watch .  it means stopping at nothing to find out why a nation led by officials who claim to care about keeping americans safe presided over a recovery effort which left behind so many innocent men , women and children as they were crying out for help .  it means caring about the truth , and it means putting people before politics .  today , this congress has to offer the american people its own definition of responsibility .  the appalling aftermath of hurricane katrina , which swept over citizens from louisiana to alabama to mississippi , was the product of a combination of failures : failures of planning , failures of execution , failures of accountability .  it is the responsibility of this body to examine why our federal government was behind so many of those failures .  there is only one way to do this and only one path the public will respect , only one route to producing real answers to real questions which the american people will trust .  we need a 9/11-type commission for hurricane katrina .  the 9/11 commission was our government 's response to the tragedy of september 11 , 2001 ; and after an exhaustive study , it produced a report that was trusted by the american people and by the members of our government .  this trust was earned .  the 9/11 commission was not beholden to any interests besides those of its own integrity and the good of the country .  this honorable response to the tragedy of september 11 puts to shame what has been proposed today in the wake of hurricane katrina .  what was perhaps our federal government 's greatest failure to date to defend life at home is being met with a failure of leadership and openness and honesty in this chamber today .  the republican leadership of the house and senate has called for the creation of an overtly partisan congressional committee to investigate the government 's pre- and post-katrina actions .  they have specified that it would be a committee appointed by republicans , with a republican majority .  they would give republicans control of every aspect of the proceedings , and they alone would control who would be subpoenaed .  they alone would control which documents could be examined , and they alone would control the scope of the investigation .  they would have the power to take the investigation in any direction they chose , with no checks , no balances and no incentives to get real answers .  they have nominated the fox to guard the hen house .  mr. speaker , i do not object to such a plan because republicans would be in control as opposed to democrats .  i object to it because it is the republican party which controls the levers of government and , as such , manages fema and the department of homeland security and every other federal institution which must be examined .  the conflicts of interest that are present are so obvious that it is incredible anyone would deny them , but the members of the majority do not only do this , but they put forth one justification after another for their plan , each one less convincing than the one before it .  they tell us that the structure of the committee is based on precedent and cite the bipartisan commission which investigated the iran-contra affair as evidence of this .  never mind that in that situation a republican president was being investigated by a democratically controlled committee , eliminating the political pressure to sweep truths under the rug .  last night , in the committee on rules , they told us , rather incredibly , that nobody is better to evaluate in this body than its own members .  but the american people do not believe that .  after all , accountability has not exactly been the hallmark of this republican leadership .  this majority did not investigate those who concealed the department of health and human services ' real estimate of how much the 2003 medicare legislation that we passed would cost .  it did not investigate the role of top bush campaign contributors in writing vice president cheney 's energy plan .  it did not investigate the valerie plame scandal .  it did not investigate what led to our dehumanizing and shameful treatment of detainees at guantanamo bay in cuba and abu ghraib in iraq .  why did these investigations not take place ?  the majority has no answer , except promising to us that this time things will be different .  last night , the chairman did offer his personal assurances again and again that the commission would allow the democrats to ask questions .  it probably never occurred to us that we would not have been able to do that , but this is ultimately a promise that he can not keep .  only allowing a hand-picked group of witnesses to be questioned prejudices the investigation before it has even begun .  if a true interest in a fair , open , thorough and independent investigation runs that deep with my republican colleagues , why not just create the independent panel ?  that is the central question i have for my colleagues today .  why will you not support the creation of an independent commission ?  what are you afraid of ?  the american people clearly had faith in the 9/11 commission model .  why do you not ?  a commission controlled by the politicians of one party charged with investigating itself will face tremendous internal political pressure to eliminate embarrassing truths from the public eye , to defer blame and to hide facts .  that is the fundamental truth , because we all know how politics works .  politics , by the way , is exactly why those recent scandals i just mentioned were never investigated .  is the creation of an independent commission an abdication of our responsibility ?  absolutely not .  in fact , exactly the opposite is the case .  if we intentionally create a partisan , political investigation , that , mr. speaker , would be an abdication of our responsibilities .  the american people need answers , they need true accountability , and the only way that we can live up to our responsibility and give them answers they can trust is through an independent commission .  the public already overwhelmingly supports the creation of such an independent commission by 76 percent , and over 160 members of this body , representing more than 100 million of our nation 's people , have already supported the creation of such a commission through a substitute resolution by the gentleman from florida ( mr. hastings )  , my colleague .  its findings would not just help us to prevent another terrible disaster from taking place , they would also help our government to regain its credibility in the eyes of the public .  a newsweek poll from earlier this week found that fully 57 percent of the general population has doubts that government officials will respond well the next time a disaster strikes .  those doubts would not be reduced until people believe that a real , independent investigation of katrina has taken place .  but the findings of the congressional commission being proposed by the republican leadership will be forever tainted by the pervasive public belief that details were overlooked or truths hidden for political reasons .  we have plenty of evidence to believe that .  mr. speaker , 2 weeks ago , our government missed an opportunity to rise to the occasion when it was sorely needed .  the consequences were worse than we could have imagined .  we can not afford to miss another opportunity here today , and we object to the fact that this resolution is titled `` bipartisan commission '' because , truly , there will not be one .  mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	mr. speaker , if an independent commission is an abdication of our authority , why did we all vote unanimously to establish the 9/11 commission ?  
D	mr. speaker , i object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present .  
D	madam speaker , i demand a recorded vote .  
R	mr. speaker , on rollcall no .  471 i was inadvertently detained .  had i been present , i would have voted `` yea. '' so the previous question was ordered .  the result of the vote was announced as above recorded .  
D	mr. speaker , i thank the gentlewoman from new york for yielding me this time .  mr. speaker , when hurricane katrina came ashore and ravaged the gulf states and the levees in new orleans , americans united in their support of those in need and the communities devastated by this terrible disaster .  as katrina passed over the gulf states and in the days that followed , americans saw firsthand the devastation and human suffering that resulted .  we were also eyewitnesses to the tragedy of hundreds of thousands of people who had escaped the wrath of the terrible storm only to then be stranded in the superdome , the convention center , or trapped on the roofs , surrounded by rising flood waters with little in the way of food , water , or medical care .  mr. speaker , we saw and felt the ensuing heartbreak .  mothers became separated from their children , elderly parents were unaccounted for , and siblings were trying to look after each other .  with the passage of time , our outrage and frustration set in .  reporters and the media managed to get to the heart of the disaster ; yet there was little sign of our federal relief efforts .  just as the american people united to aid the victims of katrina , so too must congress .  our constituents demand no less .  they are more interested in getting answers than pointing fingers .  they want to know that we are finding solutions and making recommendations to ensure our responses are never again at a snail 's pace .  it is time for congress , as part of the federal government , and therefore an element of the relief response , to shoot straight with the american people .  an independent commission , removed from the partisan fray , is better positioned to find answers .  why were we not preparing our responses to katrina near land ?  where was the coordination between federal , state , and local efforts ?  there are many questions that must be answered and an independent commission is a means that can provide the answers .  we saw the successful implementation following the tragedy of september 11 , and following this model congress will reassure the american people the answers that the independent commission finds and the recommendations they make are ones in which the nation can trust .  i know my constituents are closely following this .  my hometown of sacramento lies in a floodplain at the confluence of two great rivers and faces the constant threat of floods .  if we find ourselves in dire circumstances , can my constituents be assured that they can count on prompt federal government response ?  this is not a blame game .  i am not interested in pointing fingers , nor are the american people .  they are more interested in identifying areas of weakness and making the necessary improvements .  this is about preventing another tragedy similar to what we witnessed in new orleans and the gulf states .  we must ensure that the federal government does its job of protecting the american people , and with an independent commission we will do so .  
R	mr. chairman , i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks .  mr. chairman , the endangered species act is a well-intentioned law that has failed in its implementation .  originally billed as a way to recover and rehabilitate endangered species , it has failed at that goal .  as it has been pointed out , less than 1 percent of species listed have recovered in the entire history of the act .  almost 3 times that many still listed are believed to already be extinct .  many species that were listed in error , yet because of flaws in the act , they are still listed .  this bill today will greatly improve the recovery process so that species may be restored and removed from the list .  mr. chairman , one of those species is the alabama sturgeon .  it was listed years ago even though it was never proven to be genetically distinct from any other sturgeon .  it 's simply a regular sturgeon living in alabama .  the economic cost of its listing has been estimated at $ 1.5 billion .  mr. chairman , i and the rest of the alabama delegation worked directly with the gentleman from california to ensure that the bill is helpful to landowners in alabama and southeast .  the endangered species act today creates an adversarial relationship between landowners and the government .  landowners have little incentive to conserve species on their property .  however , this bill will create cooperative conservation agreements between landowners and the government .  it will also provide long overdue compensation to landowners whose property has been `` taken '' by the endangered species act .  i encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill .  
D	mr. chairman , i rise in support of h.r. 3824 , the threatened and endangered species recovery act .  i commend the gentleman from california ( chairman pombo ) and the gentleman from california ( mr. cardoza )  for this legislation .  this legislation modernizes the endangered species act , or esa , to allow for more scientific review , better conservation plans , and to focus on a recovery process that is based on collaboration and not conflict .  after more than 3 decades , the esa has failed .  this legislation is a bipartisan effort to fix the flawed law .  less than 1 percent of endangered species have recovered , less than 1 percent .  the esa has only helped 10 of 1 , 300 species listed under the law .  thirty-nine percent of the species are unknown .  twenty-one percent are declining , and they are declining , and 3 percent are extinct .  this law has a 99 percent failure rate .  we need to update .  we need to update and modernize the esa to strengthen the species recovery by turning conflict into cooperation and allowing the use of sound science .  in the inland empire , the esa has prevented or increased costs for freeway interchanges , economic development , and things as simple as trash removal .  there are certain areas that are blighted in portions of our communities .  it is like walking into a mine .  you have got to watch every step that you take because you are afraid you are going to step on an endangered species .  in my district , we have two infamous endangered species .  i want to point to one , the delhi sand flower-loving fly , and of course , the other one is the kangaroo rat .  look at this fly .  if anyone were to see this fly , we would swat it .  it is our first , immediate reaction , and we have always heard the buzz at night when we hear a fly .  we do not stop to look at it to see if it is an endangered species .  immediately we react ; we swat it .  now , when we look at this fly , and it was buzzing around , i would swat it .  what would happen if a cow swatted this fly ?  would we fine the cow or the owner ?  it seems pretty ridiculous , i say .  esa has many ridiculous examples .  as we can see in these posters next to me , the fly costs san bernardino county medical center $ 3 million to move the hospital about 200 feet when the fly was found in the property .  that is about $ 600 , 000 per fly .  can my colleagues imagine what it would do to our communities , $ 600 , 000 to move a hospital ?  they reserved a certain area that is full with blight that is overlooking the hospital .  also in my district , ambulances driving to this emergency room at arrowhead medical center need to slow down so that the endangered flies will not hit their windshield .  can my colleagues imagine someone who needs emergency services can not get to the hospital , has to slow down because they are afraid this fly might run into the windshield ?  that is ridiculous .  it is about a life that we need to save , not a fly .  it has even been suggested that traffic be slowed down on interstate 10 .  interstate 10 goes into palm springs .  it is a route that moves traffic back and forth .  it is ridiculous .  they are saying , all right , this fly only comes out between july and september .  so people are suggesting when we travel on that freeway that you should reduce your speed limit from 65 to 25 miles an hour because we might endanger this fly and hit this fly .  can my colleagues imagine the traffic congestion in the area , the impact it would have in that area , on the flow of goods and others that would not be able to be moved ?  that is ridiculous .  the inland empire is indeed species rich , but we have been hit hard by jobs lost by esa .  that is why we need to take into account the human cost .  for example , in the cities of colton and fontana , california , a handful of flies , yes , flies are responsible .  the city of fontana alone has spent $ 10 million in legal fees associated with the esa and has been forced to put aside $ 50 million worth of land that has been intended for development .  a scrapped commercial center with a supermarket would have generated $ 5 million in revenue .  can my colleagues imagine what this would have done to the area , better schools , more police officers , new fire stations , teen centers , paving the streets , fixing our potholes ?  yet we have not been able to generate the kind of revenue that we need .  the esa is related to the development that led the city to default on bonds .  will the federal government restore the city 's credit rating ?  no .  it has hindered us .  imagine if endangered species suddenly thrive in the areas flooded by the hurricanes .  do we stop the hurricane construction ?  this law affects more people than what we think .  think of the farmers not able to harvest their crops because an endangered species is found in the field .  local cities have offered land for habitat , changed development plans and tried to partner in that process ; but esa , as written , will not permit that .  i support this legislation , and i think this is good legislation .  i ask my colleagues also to support the passage of this .  
R	mr. speaker , i am pleased that both sides of the aisle have recognized the need of some modifications in the endangered species act .  i would like to , mr. speaker , introduce you to a man by the name of john gochnauer .  john gochnauer was the shortstop for the cleveland indians in 1902 and 1903 .  in 1902 , playing full-time at shortstop for the indians , he hit a paltry .185 and committed a whopping 48 errors in that position .  nonetheless , he came back the next year to play for them in 1903 , where he once again , full-time player , hit .185 , and this time set a major league record , which has yet to be broken , of committing 98 errors as shortstop , which means out of every five times , he touched the ball , he booted or threw it away once .  the endangered species act has established 1 , 300 species for preservation and has been able to preserve 12 of them , giving that act a batting average of .010 , if you round up .  whereas john gochnauer hit .185 , the endangered species act is hitting .009 , which means the endangered species act is the most inept program we have in the federal government .  the endangered species act is the john gochnauer of federal programs .  the reason is quite simple .  the endangered species act creates more harm than it does good .  because if you are a good steward of the land , your practices which create and preserve habitat make you then open to government control and government regulations and produce an attitude of distrust and hatred .  the endangered species act is not there to prevent development or to change land use .  it actually penalizes the practices that help in the process , which is one of the reasons why this bill before us recognizes that , and especially in 13 ( d ) , a section that is in the bill but not in the substitute .  it is there to provide grants to encourage cooperation to solve the problem , not to encourage people running away from the fear of the federal government 's control .  i think that is probably one of the reasons why this bill is one of those unique bills to come before this body in which a majority of both parties in committee voted to support this particular bill .  this bill is indeed one of modifications .  it is a modification .  i want to introduce you to one other person .  i will call him jim , simply because i do not want to give the full name .  jim should today be a middle-aged person with a family , running a business , and living a healthy life in california .  but in 1995 , in california , there was a levee that was in need of repair .  on that levee they found 43 bushes .  the bushes were not part of the endangered species act , but a beetle who could potentially live in those bushes was , even though no beetle was found in those 43 bushes that grew up on that levee after it was built .  nonetheless , a mitigation plan was mandated , even though the directors of the levee said that it would weaken the levee .  sure enough , 1 year later , that levee broke .  five hundred homes were destroyed and three lives were taken , including jim 's .  mr. speaker , the record of the endangered species act over the decades here has been one of jobs lost , of property restricted , of homes destroyed and , sadly , of human lives lost .  that is why it desperately needs modification .  the bill before us does that type of modification .  
R	mr. chairman , i appreciate the opportunity to stand here and speak about this particular substitute .  as it was brought to the committee on rules last night , i noticed that it has been consistently called the `` bipartisan substitute. '' it does have eight cosponsors that are bipartisan .  but i would note that the actual bill itself has 95 co-sponsors and it has four times as many democrats on the bill itself as the so-called `` bipartisan substitute. '' so i would like to speak a bit about the bipartisan bill that is actually before us as well .  i have one of my good constituents , mr. child , who bought 500 acres of land and found an endangered species on it .  the snail .  the problem is not that the snail was on it .  the problem is he also had 11 geese , and the federal government threatened to sue him at the rate of $ 50 , 000 for every snail the geese happened to consume .  this meant that the federal government went in there and captured all 11 geese , forced them to vomit to find out how many snails were actually consumed by the geese .  this gives us some idea why a small private property owner , as soon as he finds an endangered species , the goal is to get rid of the endangered species .  and the problem is not the big guys .  the problem is that 90 percent of the habitat for endangered species is on private property .  our goal , if we are really serious about trying to preserve endangered species of all kinds , is to get control and cooperation with small private property owners .  the main bill does that by providing a grant program for the cooperation , whereas the substitute eliminates that provision .  it puts us backwards to the same old process of trying to threaten and intimidate , which does not work .  that is why the recovery rate is so abysmally low with the endangered species act .  in fact , it moves us somewhat backwards by weakening scientific standards and creating potential for more litigation .  we have agencies like the u.s. fish and wildlife service which year after year is bankrupt by rampant litigation .  this means they have little money and little funds left for actual recovery of species .  what we need to do is to make sure that we are engaging the private property owners so that they assist and work in cooperation with the federal government .  you can not do that by supporting both the substitute and the main bill .  
D	mr. chairman , i rise in support of this bipartisan substitute and in unwavering opposition to the underlying threatened and endangered species act of 2005 , which does not defend endangered species as it purports , but rather protects the special interests of private industry and landowners .  i am concerned about the environmental and fiscal health of our great nation and the path chosen by many of america 's leaders whose policies are painfully lacking in promoting conservation .  although americans may debate the need to update the endangered species act of 1973 , tesra is absolutely not the answer .  in fact , tesra is a step back , furthering the degradation of species and compounding man 's conflict with the environment .  what exactly is the urgency by which the majority has brought this issue at this time ?  america is still in mourning as we enter the early stages of rebuilding the gulf coast and fighting a war in iraq and afghanistan costing our nation hundreds upon hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars .  particularly egregious is that tesra will cost nearly $ 3 billion in new spending in just the next 4 years , which will be used not to protect threatened and endangered species , but rather the interests of private landowners .  taxpayers should be outraged by the fiscal irresponsibility of this congress .  if we have $ 3 billion to give away , let 's give it to families in need by renewing tanf or to expand rather than cut pell grants so that students who wish to attend college can meet the financial demands .  in my district , hardworking families are struggling to absorb the high costs of fuel into their budget while putting food on their tables and sending their children to college .  mr. chairman , the narrow-vision and short-term policy decisions made by this congress do not reflect middle-class values .  at what point will a clean environment and healthy future for our children and grandchildren become a priority ?  the american public deserves a future that includes true protection of our endangered species and the development of fuel sources that are clean , renewable and promote conservation and energy independence .  mr. chairman , i urge my colleagues to reject the underlying legislation to reform the esa and support the bipartisan substitute .  
D	mr. speaker , i rise in strong opposition to both the rule and the bill .  no matter how the proponents of the bill classify putting soft words and talking about it being reasonable or a compromise , it does not make it so .  this is less about reform of the esa and protecting species , and more about making it easier for the exploitation of the environment .  we have been in a state of stalemate for a number of years because the goal has not been reasonable refinement .  there are things we could do right now to make the endangered species act more efficient , more effective , for instance , adequately funding the enforcement and conservation mechanisms .  but the goal was not modest reform and improvement ; it was a radical adjustment .  the batting average analogy of my friend from utah simply misses the point .  it is not about just the species that have been restored .  it is the protection that has been extended across america to make it possible that we are not losing environmental ground , and given the environmental circumstances , that is no easy task .  i have literally watched it work in my own backyard .  i have an urban creek that flows 26 miles through the heart of my congressional district .  the salmon listing under the endangered species act prompted action by four local cities and two counties .  we were able to come forward with an innovative streamlining agreement to meet the standards necessary to comply with the endangered species act and move quickly through the permitting process .  we have been able to make progress .  i have seen it work when people are committed to doing so .  there are many troubling aspects of this legislation .  putting in the hands , we have seen in this administration , of political appointees really perverting the decisionmaking in the name of science , these are not people that i think we ought to turn this over to willy-nilly .  but the most troubling part of the legislation is found in the new entitlement program contained in section 14 .  it goes far beyond paying people to obey the law , far beyond compensating for loss of customary use .  it actually would create a perverse incentive for developers to propose the most environmentally destructive projects possible in order to get higher payment from the government .  if you think we have litigation under the endangered species act now , wait until you see people coming forward right and left with bizarre proposals for development seeking compensation for things that were never customary uses .  it is not only an unfunded mandate .  it is providing a form of environmental blackmail and promotes endless legal battles .  i urge my colleagues to reject the rule and this radical rollback of the endangered species act .  
R	mr. chairman , i would just like to correct a couple of things .  first of all , this is mandatory spending we are talking about .  secondly , we do not allow the taxpayer protection in this bill that is allowed in highway cases .  that is important to distinguish between the two .  mr. chairman , we are all in agreement .  there is broad and justifiable consensus that the act is overdue for reform , but reforming the law should not be a euphemism for gutting the law , and that is exactly what the bill would do .  the list of areas of disagreement are very strong , but i would also point out that we in the substitute bill embrace many of the provisions in the base bill because they need to be addressed in a responsible way and , in many cases , we take the exact language .  but section 13 is totally unacceptable .  that is the big controversy ; opening up an open-ended entitlement , putting the taxpayers at great risk .  i urge opposition to the base bill .  mr. chairman , i rise in opposition to the bill .  i have no quarrel with the stated purpose of the bill -- to reform the endangered species act .  chairman pombo is correct , there is broad and justifiable consensus that the act is overdue for reform .  but `` reforming '' the law should not be a euphemism for `` gutting '' the law , and that 's what this bill would do .  i urge my colleagues to look beyond the descriptions of the bill and to examine the bill itself .  the most advertised feature of the bill is that it gets rid of the current `` critical habitat '' provisions of the law and replaces the habitat requirements with flexible , comprehensive , science-based `` recovery plans. '' sounds pretty good .  and it would be pretty good if that were a full description of what the bill did .  but what the sponsors have obscured is that , under the bill , the recovery plans are utterly unenforceable .  no one ever has to abide by them .  not only that , the plans will be written through a process that guarantees delay , but does not guarantee that the best science will be used .  so is there a way to get rid of the current `` critical habitat '' burdens and to use recovery plans without weakening the law ?  of course there is .  and our bipartisan substitute shows how .  we eliminate all the provisions of current law that require critical habitat designations just as in h.r. 3824 , but we make recovery plans enforceable and we ensure that they have strong scientific basis .  that 's how you get real reform while still protecting real species .  it 's not impossible to balance the need for reform with the need to protect species .  but instead , we have a bill before us that is balanced in its rhetoric , but not in its effect .  the bill weakens just about every feature of law designed to protect species -- for example , the review of federal actions to make sure they do not unduly harm species .  now i am not trying to suggest that h.r. 3824 is all bad news .  in fact , many of its provisions -- the incentives for landowners to protect species , the public information requirements , the requirements to better involve the states -- are largely improvements to the law .  that 's why our substitute includes all those provisions , often in language identical to that in h.r. 3824 .  so we commend the resources committee for so many of the bill 's provisions and we embrace them .  but there is one provision of h.r. 3824 that our substitute does not include at all .  and that 's section 13 , which creates an open-ended entitlement that will open the federal treasury to provide mandatory payments to developers .  this is a bad idea on philosophical and legal grounds , but this is an especially bad time to expose taxpayers to such a burden .  we do n't have to endanger taxpayers in order to reform the endangered species act .  we do n't have to make it easier for species to become extinct to reform the endangered species act .  all we need to do to reform the act is to make sure that common sense is n't trumped by ideology .  i urge my colleagues of defeat h.r. 3824 , which just waves the banner of reform to distract attention from its actual content .  vote instead for real reform .  vote for the bipartisan substitute .  
R	mr. chairman , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. chairman , i rise in strong support of the substitute .  i want to thank all of our co-sponsors for their support , the gentleman from michigan ( mr. dingell )  , the gentleman from washington ( mr. dicks )  , the gentleman from new jersey ( mr. saxton )  , the gentlewoman from california ( mrs. tauscher )  , the gentleman from illinois ( mr. kirk )  , the gentlewoman from california ( ms. matsui )  , the gentleman from illinois ( mr. johnson )  , and the gentleman from new hampshire ( mr. bass )  .  that is a pretty good sampling of congressional centrists because there is a moderate , targeted solution .  our substitute truly reforms the endangered species act without endangering any species or the american taxpayer .  and that is where it differs from h.r. 3824 .  but before i describe the differences , i want to emphasize the similarities .  both the bill and the substitute eliminate the current requirements for setting aside critical habitat and rely instead on recovery plans to save endangered and threatened species .  they are identical .  both the bill and the substitute offer new financial incentives and legal protections to landowners to save species .  both the bill and the substitute require greater involvement of states in decisionmaking involving species .  both the bill and the substitute ensure that the public will have greater information about and a greater role in the decisionmaking .  in fact , while it is hard to quantify , i would guess about 80 to 90 percent of the language in the substitute is identical to the base bill .  that is because we developed the substitute by reading through the base bill , once we could seize a copy , and by incorporating into our substitute every word of h.r. 3824 that we possibly could .  what we could not accept was language weakening the act by , for example , making recovery plans unenforceable , sit on a shelf , gather dust or making it too easy for the federal government to take actions that would harm species .  and most of all what we could not accept was the new mandatory spending required by this bill which would open the federal purse to developers while eliminating basic taxpayer protections .  i laid out my specific concerns for that provision during the general debate .  i urge support for the substitute and opposition to h.r. 3824 as presented .  mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. chairman , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  this all boils down to a principal difference .  there are a number of differences , but a principal difference .  the substitute does not have the controversial section 13 in it ; the base bill does .  here is something that could actually happen under section 13 .  a developer could buy a parcel of land knowing that part of it could not be used because of the presence of endangered species .  the developer then could request permission to build , say , a hotel on the property without doing much more than outlining the proposal on the back of an envelope .  the developer would not even have to try to get necessary state permits or local zoning variances before submitting a claim .  when the federal government says that the hotel could not be built , that developer could get a payment from the government based upon what his appraiser said it was worth without providing much evidence that the project was realistic or serious .  then the developer could propose to build a landfill on the same site and go through the same process again and get money from the government again .  then the developer could propose to build a store on the same site and get money from the government again because the store could not be built .  in the meantime , the developer could proceed with the same project on other portions of the property , make substantial profits on his property , and never have that affect the steady stream of payments coming from the government from what was always known to be a problematic site .  this is no exaggeration , and it shows how right the provision is for abuse .  the bill puts the taxpayers at risk .  that is why the same concerns that we have expressed to our colleagues on the floor today have been expressed by the administration in the statement of administration policy , which is otherwise supportive of the bill , in part because of the provisions that we also have in our substitute .  the statement of administration policy warns : `` the new conservation aid program for private property owners provides little discretion to federal agencies and could result in a significant budgetary impact ... ..  the bill would affect direct spending .  to sustain the economy 's expansion , it is critical to exercise responsible restraint over federal spending. '' we want to help exercise responsible restraint by eliminating section 13 .  mr. chairman , there is no doubt about it .  the endangered species act has to be revisited .  that is the responsible thing to do .  the committee on resources has put a lot of hard work into and has come up with a product that , in many respects , is just wonderful , necessary .  that is why we embrace the product .  but section 13 is absolutely , totally unacceptable for a whole lot of very good reasons , and it is unacceptable to the taxpayers of america because , boy , does this impose a burden on them .  i urge support for the substitute .  it is responsible .  it is bipartisan .  it is thoughtful .  it eliminates section 13 .  it provides more opportunity for good science .  it emphasizes the need of small property owners , and we want to help them .  
R	mr. chairman , in washington everything looks perfect on paper and people hate to admit they made a mistake ; but the truth of the matter is how it works in real life is completely different , and we have a responsibility to make those changes .  i strongly support this recovery act and thank the gentleman from california ( mr. pombo )  for his leadership and the gentleman from california ( mr. cardoza )  for his hard work .  my east texas district , which was hit very hard by hurricane rita , is jam packed with trees .  the piney woods are our heritage .  they are our economy ; and they provide habitat for the red cockheaded woodpecker , among other endangered species .  but for decades , responsible landowners have been afraid that the federal government would swoop in and take their livelihood away for the sake of this bird due simply to the outdated and unsubstantiated burdens of the endangered species act .  america 's farmers and ranchers and private property owners in east texas have spent long enough fearing the federal government .  unfortunately , current law has created incentives for landowners to destroy species habitat to rid their properties of liability .  i strongly support this measure .  
R	mr. chairman , reforming the endangered species act is long overdue .  today the house has an opportunity to enact significant improvements to esa that restore balance and protections to species as well as landowners .  one of the most effective ways to protect species habitat is through development of habitat conservation plans .  the bill improves and encourages habitat conservation plans by codifying the no-surprise policy and eliminating unnecessary red tape that required multiple consultations regarding already approved actions .  these important provisions will free up limited government and landowner resources and ultimately improve conservation of species habitat by encouraging more habitat conservation plans .  my district in california is home to a large comprehensive habitat conservation plan both in riverside and orange counties .  in fact , the west riverside county multi-species conservation plan is the largest in the nation covering over 1 million acres of land .  the plan cost tens of millions of dollars to develop , years to put into effect , and will cost upward of $ 1 billion to implement .  once fully implemented , 500 , 000 acres in western riverside county will be set aside for species habitat .  it is our responsibility to ensure when landowners and local authorities undertake an extensive planning like that back in my district , the federal government lives up to its part of the agreement .  this bill does just that and removes unnecessary regulatory burdens that do nothing to benefit the species .  i just discovered in the miller-boehlert substitute that the habitat conservation plans that we put a lot of time in to work out in southern california may be put at risk .  that would be very , very difficult for areas that spent large amounts of money to put this into effect , not to mention time .  i want to make sure that we defeat the substitute , and i thank the gentleman from california ( mr. pombo )  for working with me to include language that improves habitat conservation plans .  
D	mr. speaker , i would like to thank the gentleman from massachusetts for yielding me this time .  i am put in the unenviable position today , as a lifelong democrat , to have to stand and oppose the democratic position on this rule .  as i have sat here and listened to the debate on the rule , i simply do not feel that some of the statements by my colleagues are accurately reflecting what is in the bill as it currently is written .  it is simply untrue that this bill allows skyscrapers to be built on the prairie to endanger species .  we are not going to be using taxpayer dollars to promote strip clubs or casinos , as one of my colleagues said .  it is simply not true .  the reality is that under the endangered species act , most of the provisions of the act , as it currently stands , will be in place .  what we are talking about is compensating farmers if their land is taken away , and if they want to continue to farm and under the act we have to protect a species , the farmer will be compensated for the right that has been taken away .  that is a longstanding right of this country , to be compensated when government takes one 's property .  we had a vote recently on this floor of over 400 members who said exactly that in one of the eminent domain cases that was recently challenged , when the supreme court took someone 's property .  we have a longstanding tradition here of protecting personal property rights but not when it comes to the endangered species act .  in my state , the fish and wildlife service said that 4.7 million acres of california had to be set-aside for the red-legged frog , 1.7 million acres for vernal pools and fairy shrimp .  this is not a new entitlement program .  this is compensating landowners when their property is taken away .  those in support of the substitute have been distributing a handout , and in the substitute it says virtually everything that the gentleman from california ( mr. pombo )  and i and others have written and coordinated on .  in fact , about 90 percent of this bill was written by democratic staff .  i will say that , frankly , that does not happen in this house very often where there is a bipartisan attempt to come to an agreement .  there is 10 percent disagreement on this bill , and virtually what that 10 percent disagreement is , is whether or not people are going to be compensated when their land is taken and the fact that there has been a new focus , according to some of my colleagues , of putting the onus of this bill mainly on to public lands .  well , the reality is most of the endangered species , in fact , 90 percent of the endangered species , are on private lands .  so that provision that is in the substitute simply will not work .  i urge my colleagues to reject the challenge to the rule , to support the rule , and to support the underlying bill .  
D	mr. chairman , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. chairman , when the endangered species act was adopted by congress in 1973 , it was heralded as landmark use of environmental legislation for the protection and conservation of threatened and endangered species .  at that time , it was clearly understood that the ultimate goal of the act was to focus federal resources on listed species so that , in time , they could be returned to a healthy state and be removed from the list .  i fully support the goal of species protection and conservation and believe that recovery and ultimately delisting of species should be the u.s. fish and wildlife service 's top priority under esa .  i am in full support of the threatened and endangered species recovery act that we are hearing today because i think it is an innovative and creative approach to ending the long-running conflict between protecting species and enforcing conservation actions on private land .  there seems to be no question that esa is due for an update since the substitute offered by many of my colleagues eliminates critical habitat in much the same manner as h.r. 3824 .  for good reason , too .  currently , the system of critical habitat designations is so dysfunctional that it seems to defy logic .  for example , in 2002 , the service proposed to designate 1.7 million acres as critical habitat in california and oregon for vernal pool species .  almost one-third of the entire acreage of merced county , where i live , would have been designated as critical habitat .  in 2003 , the service proposed over 4.1 million acres in california as critical habitat for the red-legged frog .  one must wonder , if it can be found on 4 million acres , then is it truly endangered ; or , on the flip side , are all 4 million acres truly critical habitat ?  the threatened and endangered species recovery act will fix the problems associated with critical habitat by replacing it with a recovery plan which will shift the focus from litigation to biology and recovery ; provide for greater cooperation between the service and landowners and states ; establish new incentives for voluntary cooperation efforts .  coming up with a thoughtful way to enable recovery of endangered species without costly litigation has been a top priority for me since being elected to the congress , and i am pleased that this bill does just that .  my original bill , h.r. 2933 , from the 108th congress , tied the development of a recovery plan to the designation of critical habitat .  the threatened and endangered species recovery act takes that idea one step further and elevates the recovery plan system to the primary mechanism to protect species .  i also feel compelled , however , to mention a few things that this bill does not do .  this bill does not , and i repeat , does not weaken current law ; it does not create a sweeping new entitlement program for landowners ; it does not allow for pesticides to be used at random to harm farm workers and at-risk species ; and it most definitely would not in any case allow for national treasures like the bald eagle and the grizzly bear to become extinct .  that has been reported by a number of my colleagues , and it is simply not true .  in fact , i think many of my colleagues would be interested to know that my office has been inundated by representatives from so-called industry lobbyists requesting that certain provisions that were once included in this bill be put back in .  this bill is in no way a home run for anyone .  in my opinion , it is a true balance between the sides , no side getting everything they want ; and , when you achieve that , you usually have the best policy .  i think it is unfortunate that the media and some members of the environmental community have chosen to vilify this bipartisan legislation over the past few weeks and provide nothing but a knee-jerk negative analysis because they have already prejudged chairman pombo 's bill as being the enemy .  now we are here battling it out on the floor against one another , and another opportunity could be lost for us to move the ball forward together .  i am proud of this bill , and i am proud of the work that chairman pombo and his staff have done to create a document that is truly a compromise , and it is a real shame we could not agree on these last few things .  whether some people want to admit it or not , the esa is not working to the best of its ability to protect the species , and it is our job as members of congress to do something about it .  we can do better , and better is voting in favor of this bill .  mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	mr. chairman , i yield myself 1 minute to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from california ( mr. pombo )  .  mr. chairman , i believe it is critical for us to make sure we do not change the regulatory landscape on property owners regulated under existing law .  these individuals , our constituents , are committed to doing what the federal government asked them to do in order to secure authorization to proceed with various activities .  we should not require those same landowners to renegotiate what they have already agreed to under the new rules of this bill after it is enacted .  based on that premise , i believe the threatened and endangered species recovery act should include a grandfather clause to cover any esa permits or approvals issued prior to the date of enactment of this bill , not just habitat conservation plans .  i would inquire , is that the intent of the gentleman from california ( mr. pombo )  ?  
D	mr. chairman , i yield myself the balance of my time .  i want to conclude by saying i thank the gentleman from west virginia ( mr. rahall )  for his offering of working on this piece of legislation , and we do so in the spirit of cooperation .  i also have to say , though , that in this chamber where we have seen lofty rhetoric for a number of years , i personally having witnessed it for 26 since i was first an intern here , i have frankly never seen the rhetoric not coincide with the reality more than in this case oftentimes .  this bill does not eviscerate the endangered species act .  this bill does several positive things .  it establishes recovery plans based on biology .  it establishes recovery habitat based on those recovery plans .  it encourages landowners to cooperate with biologists in the fish and wildlife service .  it lets landowners get answers to their biological questions , and it compensates landowners whose land is confiscated under the original endangered species act .  i ask members for their `` aye '' vote .  
D	mr. chairman , i rise today in opposition to the substitute being offered for a number of reasons .  the substitute basically takes the pombo bill and cuts out everything that is important to my constituents , the small farmers and ranchers of the central valley who are being driven out of our valley through arbitrary and capricious regulatory burdens .  it is my constituents who are the ones that are begging me to help them reform the endangered species act , and i think this substitute leaves them behind and brings our efforts back to square one .  what i can not support is the removal of 2 provisions that i find absolutely critical to any reforms to the esa : mandatory landowner notification , and the conservation compensation plans for effective landowners .  the first issue , the landowner notification is just a no-brainer issue .  landowners deserve to know what they can and can not do with their property and the service should be responsible for telling them .  many of the opponents of this provision claim that landowners can simply go to court and get a decision but in reality , they can not because the court has ruled in previous cases that unless the service tells them no directly they have no standing in court .  this provision is crucial , especially to the little guy who does not have millions and millions of dollars to higher lawyers , biologists and surveyors needed to take on the service .  mr. chairman , these little guys deserve an answer just like the big guys do .  i understand that there is a provision in the substitute that attempts to address this issue with a similar 180 day timeline .  unfortunately , there is no enforcement behind the language other than a report to congress , and we all know what we do with reports to congress .  the service is under a number of other time lines under esa such as a time line for completing political opinions which they also choose to ignore .  the substitute provisions would do exactly the same thing and bring us back to square one .  the second is the strong private property rights section that are good in h.r. 3824 .  they did not seem to make the cut in the substitute .  it is not a sweeping entitlement program as some would have you believe .  it is a program that will fairly compensate landowners and will provide species with conservation mitigation measures that would otherwise go unprotected .  i do have to say that i am pleased that my colleagues chose to include a number of provisions from the underlying bill in the substitute .  the fact that the substitute includes the same repeal of critical habit speaks volumes for the overall consensus that this act needs to be changed and updated to reflect the evolving circumstances on the ground that have impeded the accurate critical habit designations .  but the deleted provisions from h.r. 3824 and the new definition of jeopardy , under which , frankly , i am not sure if i could mow my own lawn , will do nothing to relieve the conflict that currently exists under that esa .  it will do nothing more than the underlying bill to recovery species , and this will simply put us back to square one .  mr. chairman , i have one final comment .  i must correct the record .  i would ask that the gentleman from oregon ( mr. walden )  place back up the slide that he had from the bill which outlines that under the pombo bill , actually , it is here , under the pombo bill you can only become compensated for what is an allowable use for what is the current state or local regulation , under the current zoning use .  so a farmer who is plowing his field and trying to grow a crop every day , if he is denied the use of that property , he can only be compensated for the loss of his farming income and he can not claim that it could be a high rise hotel in its place .  he only gets compensated for what he was currently doing on the property , and that is just simply an erroneous statement to say anything else .  mr. chairman , we need to defeat this substitute .  we need to pass the underlying measure .  
R	mr. chairman , would the chairman of the committee on resources agree to enter into a colloquy ?  
R	mr. chairman , it has come to my attention that certain federal agencies with permitting , licensing , and leasing authority are requiring some of my constituents to agree to stipulations in their coal leases that go beyond protecting threatened or endangered species .  for example , before the bureau of land management will issue a lease , they require the lessee to agree to potential modifications in the lease .  these modifications can be based not only on species that are threatened or endangered , but also on species that are proposed to be listed , candidate species , and distinct population segments .  section 10 of the bill authorizes cooperative agreements between federal agencies and states that cover candidate species and any other species that the state and the secretary agree is at risk of being listed as an endangered or threatened species .  is the intent of the legislation to broaden the scope of the esa by allowing the government to regulate species that are not yet threatened or endangered by imposing new potential regulatory requirements , withholding of permits and licenses , or requiring special stipulations on federal leases ?  
R	mr. chairman , reclaiming my time , i thank the chairman for his answer .  that was the way that i read the bill too , and i wanted the congressional intent to be on the record .  
D	mr. chairman , the substitute would be a great improvement for the current endangered species act .  it would treat landowners much as we do under the conservation reserve program ; but the underlying bill would be a disaster for taxpayers , a new entitlement .  the secretary shall pay no less than fair market value .  i guess the secretary , if they are feeling good that day , could pay more than fair market value with taxpayers ' money , borrowed money ; and it does not require the historic , usual , or custom use .  take a piece of remote farm land , propose a huge development on it ; it does not have to be proven to be economically viable .  you proposed it ; you were going to build 5 , 000 houses ; you were going to make $ 1 , 000 , $ 2 , 000 , $ 5 , 000 on each house .  you would have to be compensated for that .  you do not have to prove that this is economically viable , and sequential owners would get that right .  you then sell it to your next door neighbor ; they can make the same claim .  they sell it to the guy down the street , they can make the same claim , on and on and on .  what an incredible new , speculative market , helping the housing bubble , i guess ; but this is going to kill the taxpayers and the federal treasury .  you should vote for the substitute .  it will improve the endangered species act .  
D	mr. chairman , i rise in strong opposition to this bill .  the legislation before us today turns back the clock on 35 years of progress in responsible environmental stewardship by gutting the current endangered species act and replacing it with little to preserve endangered wildlife for future generations .  over 99 percent of the species that have been listed as threatened or endangered under current law have been saved from extinction .  but had this bill been the law of the land over the last 30 years , the fish and wildlife service points out that the bald eagle -- an icon of american freedom -- would exist only in our memones .  any law that is 35 years old should be looked at with a fresh eye , and so i am supportive of attempts to update and improve the endangered species act .  indeed , in my home state of connecticut , we are concerned that oysters , a key aquaculture product , may be unnecessarily characterized as an endangered species .  and so we should be willing to consider smart changes to the law .  but that is not the intent of the underlying bill .  rather , the purpose of this legislation is to remove obstacles inconvenient to special interests with whom the republican leadership is in partnership .  for this majority and their supporters -- developers , the oil and gas industry -- laws protecting the air and water are not a priority -- they are a nuisance .  as such , this legislation would eliminate conservation measures on tens of millions of acres of land around the country , the `` critical habitat '' of endangered species , and prevent such conservation activities in the future .  it also reveals the majority 's clear disdain for sound science .  current law requires a review of all scientific and commercial data by a panel of outside scientists .  this , mr. chairman , ensures that the peer-review process -- a central tenet of sound scientific research -- guides the process , not ideology and politics .  instead , this bill would allow the secretary of the interior to make a determination about whether a species is endangered based on `` all available information '' -- that is to say , information that opens the door for phony science supporting special interests .  finally , mr. chairman , the bill fails the fiscal responsibility test .  by allowing for payments to land owners who do not develop land that is home to protected species , it actually creates a system where people and businesses -- mostly big oil and gas companies -- are paid for following the law .  if only we were all so fortunate .  this bill is nothing more than yet another entitlement program for special interests -- as always , with this majority , at the expense of the taxpayer .  little wonder that even conservative groups like taxpayers for common sense have expressed their grave concerns regarding this legislation .  mr. chairman , the endangered species act is a statement of our priorities as americans .  it is an affirmation of our belief that , just as we desire better economic opportunity for our children and future generations , so too do we hope to leave them a healthier environment .  unfortunately , the underlying bill will accomplish neither .  this is simply the continuation of a decade-long assault by the majority on our clean air , our clean water and our environment .  and it should be rejected .  
D	mr. chairman , when the contract with america was written , this provision was scored by cbo at $ 3.2 billion ; $ 3.2 billion .  
D	mr. chairman , the part that i have trouble with is that we did not authorize any new money to fund this .  you just said , take it out of the interior appropriations bill .  well , i want to tell you , we have not funded the endangered species act properly under this administration , and if there is not any money , it is going to have to come out of somebody else 's hide .  it is going to be the fish and wildlife service , it is going to be the park service ; somebody is going to have to fund this , and it is going to cost a lot more than $ 10 million a year .  that is laughable .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank my friend for yielding me this time , and i thank him for his very important work on this vital piece of legislation .  i rise to support the rule and the underlying legislation and to begin by praising the gentleman from california ( mr. pombo )  , the very distinguished chairman , for all of the effort that he has put in to assembling a bipartisan compromise on this .  i will say i am somewhat disturbed with what i just heard from the gentleman from california ( mr. cardoza )  that 90 percent of this legislation was , in fact , crafted by democratic staff .  but i will say that if it embraces the core republican goals that the gentleman from california ( mr. pombo )  is pursuing , i still will be supportive of it .  but i think that that is demonstration of the fact that we are working in a bipartisan way and the gentleman from california ( mr. pombo )  has demonstrated his willingness to do just that .  when i think about the long struggle which the gentleman from california ( mr. pombo )  has been involved in for a decade to try to bring about reform of the endangered species act , i think back to one of the challenges that we have in southern california , and the gentleman from california ( mr. calvert )  , who has worked long and hard on this , represents part of riverside county , and i recounted up in the committee on rules yesterday the fact that dealing with the stephens ' kangaroo rat , an endangered species , we had conflicting directives that came from government .  the fire department in riverside county said you should clear the brush away from your homes to ensure that you do not face the threat of fire .  the county of riverside said to comply with the endangered species act we would be jeopardizing the stephens ' kangaroo rat 's life .  and , by the way , the stephens ' kangaroo rat had been found in great numbers later in texas , but we would jeopardize that if you did clear the brush away from your home .  what happened ?  to their benefit , many people who followed the directive of the fire department , their homes were saved ; and , of course , those who did not tragically lost their homes because of fire .  we right now in southern california are dealing with tremendous fire problems in that area ; and , frankly , i do believe that the kind of reform that is going to be assembled in a bipartisan way on the endangered species act will go a long way toward preserving property and to make sure that we diminish the kind of threat that does exist out there .  recovery efforts , coupled with compensation for private property , that is a big part of what this effort is about .  i congratulate , again , the gentleman from california ( mr. pombo )  ; and i know the gentleman from california ( mr. cardoza )  has been working very hard on this , obviously , because he has had a lot of impact , as he just outlined .  mr. speaker , i think that we can come with , i hope , a very , very strong vote from both democrats and republicans for both the rule and the underlying legislation .  i thank again my friend for his efforts on this .  
R	mr. chairman , i rise in strong support of the threatened and endangered species recovery act , h.r. 3824 .  i want to first of all commend the gentleman from california ( chairman pombo ) and the gentleman from california ( mr. cardoza )  for what is very commonsense , bipartisan legislation ; and i want to thank the chairman and his staff for all the long hours and the hard work they have put into this bill .  the latest figures i have show that my home state of tennessee has one of the highest numbers of listings on the endangered species list .  as my colleagues can imagine , this is a very big issue in my state .  i think everyone has read and heard horror stories about ridiculous rulings that have come out over the years , very unfair rulings , under the endangered species act .  the burden of compliance under present law is , by far , the hardest for the smallest of our landowners .  it is a simple fact that the existing law hits the hardest on the small- and medium-size farmers and ranchers and landowners , and these are the people least able to fight it .  the wealthiest people and the biggest corporations always seem to be able to get their way .  they have enough money , and compliance with the law is either a simple nuisance or just a small cost of doing business .  i think , and the fact is , that the way the present law is , it drives out a lot of the competition for the big guys by getting rid of some of the little guys .  i think that anyone who approaches this legislation with a truly open mind would call this a very moderate bill .  in fact , in almost any other country in the world , h.r. 3824 would be held as great environmental legislation .  the united states has made greater progress in regard to environmental protection than any other country in the world in the last 30 years .  yet there are some extremist groups that simply can not seem to admit we have made this progress .  right now , these groups are telling their members how terrible this legislation is .  however , if we look at their mailings , they always tell their members how bad things are , and i think it is probably more related to fund-raising and money than it is to actual concern about endangered species .  if people want to both protect endangered species and not force small farmers or small landowners off their land and force them to sell to big developers or big government , then this is balanced legislation that will accomplish these goals .  
D	mr. chairman , there is an old saying `` the south will rise again !  `` well , the bill before us today is proof the `` era of big government has come again !  `` let no mistake be made , those who support this bill can not claim to be dedicated to fiscal responsibility and smaller government .  this bill blows another hole in the federal deficit .  i oppose this sham overhaul of the endangered species act .  enacted in 1973 , this landmark legislation has been hugely successful in saving many species from becoming extinct and has been an important conservation tool .  the endangered species act must be strengthened not decimated .  of the more than 1 , 800 plants and animals protected by the act , only 9 percent have been declared extinct .  those species that have survived continue to grow and flourish .  newly named , the threatened and endangered species recovery act ignores this success and carves out loopholes in the act that will allow developers and others to avoid the law 's protections .  this legislation eliminates extremely critical habitat designations , giving many species no opportunity to survive .  it is a travesty that the leadership in this house , is yet again giving business the upper hand over sensible and effective environmental protection law .  private landowners will now have no incentive to protect their land .  in fact , the federal government will now pay landowners for merely abiding the law !  mr. chairman , this act does not `` modernize '' or `` reform '' the endangered species act , it guts it and should be called the landowner and developer welfare act .  
D	mr. chairman , today i rise in opposition to h.r 3824 , the threatened and endangered species recovery act .  under the constitution , we are charged with securing this country 's blessings not only for ourselves , but for our posterity .  this bill turns its back on our posterity .  the endangered species act has been a model for the protection and preservation of endangered species since 1973 .  when this legislation was first passed , many species in this country were on the brink of extinction , and many more were in severe decline .  esa is essential to safeguard our natural resources and ensure the biodiversity that is critical to a healthy environment for all species , including human beings .  esa is a great american success story that should only be altered with the greatest of care .  in the thirty years since the passage of the endangered species act , we have seen an amazing turnaround in both the population numbers of species that were in decline , as well as in the significant environmental improvements that have fostered their recovery .  i acknowledge the concerns of landowners and farmers about the current law , and i agree that the current law needs to be reformed .  this is why i support the miller-boehlert substitute bill .  the substitute helps small landowners by dedicating funding for technical assistance for private property owners , and it provides conservation grants for landowners who help conserve endangered species on their property .  finally , it provides assurances that private citizens will get timely answers from the fish & amp ; wildlife service regarding the status of endangered species requirements on their land .  the miller-boehlert substitute provides positive changes to the current esa without reversing the progress that has been made over the past thirty years .  the bipartisan substitute is not perfect legislation , but it is far superior to h.r. 3824 .  h.r. 3824 was introduced just last week and was marked up without any public hearings , yet this legislation would most certainly rank as the most sweeping and significant change of environmental law in the past three decades .  i have grave concerns about provisions in the bill that give political appointees the power to remove species from the endangered list based on political decisions rather than on sound science .  habitat degradation is the leading cause of species decline , and this bill proposes to eliminate critical habitat designations .  i do not understand how eliminating protected areas can result in greater protection of endangered species .  the endangered species act needs an update , but we must not reverse course on significant progress and results for endangered species .  we have a solemn obligation to maintain responsible stewardship of america 's bounty , and this legislation would abandon that responsibility .  i urge my colleagues to vote against h.r. 3824 , and to vote in favor of the balanced , bipartisan substitute legislation for esa reform .  
D	mr. chairman , i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time , and i rise as a member probably more affected by this law than anybody else in the united states congress .  i probably represent more critical habitat in the coastal counties of monterey bay than anybody .  that is the big sur , carmel , pebble beach , santa cruz region .  that critical habitat has made us a lot of money on what is watchable wildlife .  watchable wildlife is the largest business , fastest-growing business in the united states .  of all the sports in this country , watchable wildlife exceeds them all .  this bill undermines the greatest economic asset we have , which is our natural things by creating a new issue on takings .  you argue the bill is broken because the administration has not been able to administer it .  well , it is not the bill that is at fault ; it is the united states congress and the president of the united states that are at fault .  i am on the committee on appropriations , and in 2003 the fish and wildlife service said it needed approximately $ 153 million to address the critical backlog of listings of critical habitat ; yet the president only asked for $ 18 million .  this is the way to kill an organization .  you do not fund it , and say , look , the law does not work , you have a backlog .  so let us take the law .  every city councilmember , every city supervisor in the united states ought to wake up and look at this law because now they give full development rights under this law .  if you do not like the way the law is , you have trees in your backyard that the government says , the community says you ought to preserve , you do not have to worry about that now because you can say that is a taking .  pebble beach , cut all of your cypress trees and pine trees , which are the monterey cypress and the monterey pines , because now instead of beautiful scenery , you can build hotels all over that land .  and if they do not allow you to do that because of the trees , the government will pay you .  mr. speaker , guess what , the government has no money .  it can not even pay the bureaucrats that are responsible for carrying out the law .  this bill is a gun to the head .  this bill says if you do not grant that development , by god , government , you have to pay it .  the lawyers say , government , you have no money , you better grant the request .  this is a full development rights .  it is an attack on america 's greatest heritage .  it endangers wild and scenic species .  
D	mr. chairman , when you do take , meaning you have no value left , then you have just compensation , was the supreme court decision .  
R	mr. chairman , i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time , and i appreciate the chairman 's efforts to reach across the aisle and produce a true bipartisan bill , and i thank the gentleman from california ( mr. cardoza )  for working on this .  if any of my colleagues have served on the committee on resources , as i have , you know that this is a truly bipartisan bill .  the gentleman from west virginia mentioned that everybody can find an example of how the current esa is out of whack , and he uses that as an excuse not to move forward with a bill that reforms it .  i would say that that is precisely the reason we need to reform it , because everybody can find not just one but two or three or a dozen examples in their own state of how the current law is not leading to recovery , but it is , rather , tying people up and making individuals and organizations simply pay for a regulation rather than recovery .  the purpose of this bill is to lead to the recovery of species , and that is what this is all about .  my own state of arizona has had its own issues with the endangered species act .  many times , those who manage water resources have been tied up with regulation that has required them to spend money on that rather than the recovery of species .  this will make it far easier to do that .  this bill will also mean a deal between a landowner and a federal agency is a deal .  so for many reasons , i would support the bill .  
R	mr. chairman , i appreciate the opportunity to stand in strong opposition to the substitute and in strong support of the underlying bill .  unfortunately , i may not be able to stay for the vote because there are fires in my district and my neighborhood is being evacuated .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time .  mr. speaker , i am in strong support of this rule .  i also want to compliment the chairman of the committee on resources .  he has been in congress for seven terms .  he has worked very hard on the things that he believes in .  he has been relentlessly patient to deal with a number of issues that have affected his district and those in the western areas of the united states , and he has presented to us today a bill that will reform , refine , and reauthorize the endangered species act .  now , i do not agree with everything in the chairman 's bill or his approach , but i want to state here this morning that i respect his courage and his relentless patience to take years to bring something to the floor that he believes in .  the substitute which i support , and i hope my colleagues in this body will support , is not a whole lot different than the base bill .  we went through the base bill hour after hour after hour , members and staff ; and we changed a few words here and there that we feel will present the approach to protecting endangered species in the appropriate way .  most people who are concerned about the endangered species act either are concerned because , like the chairman here from the committee on rules stated this morning , if you see a dam and it creates deep water and you can get your barges down with your grain , you appreciate the fact that the dam is there .  so you have some concern about that .  or if you are downstream and you want more coho salmon and you believe the dam is degrading the habitat for coho salmon or other species of salmon , you are less likely to appreciate the dam ; but both sides look at the endangered species act as either reducing their economic viability or reducing species viability .  i think we need to do a number of things that we have done in the substitute .  we have taken the words out of the base bill .  we create a scientifically acceptable procedure , look on page 2 of the substitute , methods , practices and procedures that are acceptable science .  we have made a requirement for making a determination for what species are listed .  look at page 4 of the substitute , five specific criteria before you can list that species .  we are reviewing all species every 5 years to see if the change of status is there , page 5. we repeal the critical habitat requirement in the base bill and replace it with a slightly different recovery plan .  the recovery plan has a number of significant and important elements : a time frame for that recovery plan ; objective measurable criteria ; a description of where the site should be , and the emphasis is on federal land and not private land ; and an estimate of the cost and time it will take to recover that species .  look on page 20 .  there are a number of changes that we have made here to the gentleman from california ( mr. pombo )  which i think improves on the bill .  support the substitute .  
R	mr. chairman , i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time .  i , too , come from a rural area .  the two major industries in my district are agriculture and fishing .  so we know the landscape and people cooperate .  the present esa , maybe it is because we are on the east coast , the present esa bill is working fine .  i know we need to tweak it because it does not work the same way all over the place , but i would urge my colleagues to support the substitute .  here are some reasons why : in the substitute , there are specific criteria for science laid out .  members want good science ; the methods , procedures , and practices are laid out .  what species should be determined endangered , there are five criteria laid out on page 4 of the substitute .  members should review all species that are designated every 5 years .  we have repealed the critical habitat designations , but we have replaced it with recovery plans found on page 20 of the substitute .  it has time frames and objective , measurable criteria .  it has a very specific description of where that species should be recovered , and the emphasis of where that species should be recovered is not private land ; it is public land .  the emphasis is on public land ; but whenever you go on private land , there should be some restitution , some sharing of federal dollars with those private landowners ; and 10 percent of the appropriated amount on an annual basis of this substitute will go for that very specific purpose .  what if livestock are endangered or threatened by a reintroduced species ?  that is taken care of .  landowners are going to be reimbursed for that lost livestock .  what about national security ?  take a look at the substitute .  there is a very specific exemption .  page 43 of the substitute , there is a national security exemption .  i urge my colleagues to vote for a specific , balanced esa bill .  vote for the substitute .  
R	mr. chairman , i think we are here in some sense , past all the clutter of people articulating their most emotional feelings , is a bill set aside some 30 years ago to have an understanding about how we as members of congress , the government , can restore the prodigious bounty of god 's creation .  how do we understand nature 's design ?  how do we use our intelligence to understand the facts behind how nature sustains itself ?  well , in the real world , well , actually , in the real world which is nature , but in the reality of the human condition , we have a lot of other little things that we have to take into consideration .  how do you afford an endangered species act ?  what do you do about private property rights ?  do you get enough science ?  is the recovery plan appropriate ?  do you deal with farmers that have a problem with reintroduced species on the property eating their sheep or their cows ?  all these things have to be taken into consideration so that we create a policy that protects private property rights , that brings individuals on those farms and that landscape into the process and helps pay for their contribution to the process , that brings federal agencies in so they can view the landscape , not from just one small little fly or tiger beetle or some other particular species , but upon which the landscape that supports that species , supports clean water , supports clean air , supports the whole ecosystem including human beings , including us as a species .  we are not separate from clean water .  we are not separate from clean air .  we are part of nature 's design .  we are part of this bounty of god 's creation .  so how do we clarify all these different perspectives and views based on different things that happen in our districts ?  well , we come up with the best available science .  we come up with the best available recovery plan .  we come up with the best policy for not only the species but for private property , and we come up with the funds that are appropriate to deal with all these issues .  i would tell my colleagues that i feel strongly this is the best policy change , the best reauthorization plan that we can use to deal with the endangered species act that will deal with nature 's design and man 's impact on nature 's design , which includes private property rights , which includes reimbursements for helping to preserve endangered species , and by the way , in this substitute is a provision to pay those private property individuals .  i urge an `` aye '' vote on the substitute .  
R	mr. chairman , i rise in support of h.r. 3824 , the threatened and endangered species recovery act .  i congratulate the gentleman from california ( mr. pombo )  and the gentleman from california ( mr. cardoza )  for their outstanding work on this legislation .  this legislation will reform the 1973 endangered species act so that real species recovery can be achieved while minimizing conflict with landowners , businesses , public land managers , and communities , and particularly the farmers and ranchers of america that my committee represents .  since the gentleman from california ( mr. pombo )  introduced this bill , we have heard groups on both sides of the issue recite statistics with the intent of proving or disproving the effectiveness of the law .  well , i do not believe i can change many minds simply by pointing out that over 99 percent of the species placed on the list are still on it .  i would like to make a comparison that may put this dismal success rate in perspective .  if i , for instance , ran a hospital where only one half of 1 percent of the critical patients who checked in recovered , i could hardly claim to be doing a good job .  what we need is an endangered species law that not only protects the species , but allows them to recover , to expand and to get off of the endangered species list as a thriving species .  this is , however , the record the endangered species act has today compiled , one where only one half of 1 percent of the species have recovered .  & lt ; center & gt ; & lt ; pre & gt ; [ page : h8539 ] & lt ; /pre & gt ; & lt ; /center & gt ; its proponent , nonetheless , continue to claim that that is a success .  along with its glaring shortcoming , the law contains numerous unintended consequences that have proven to be extremely harmful to landowners and local communities .  in fact , landowners have come to fear the endangered species act as it has evolved into a giant regulatory menace .  under the current law , the u.s. fish and wildlife service has the power to halt lawful landowner activities if an endangered species is identified on their property and it is determined their actions would take that species .  the landowner and his right to use his land are then simply left to the mercy of the courts .  private property rights are fundamental rights embodied in the constitution , and congress periodically needs to take steps to ensure that government is protecting them , not trampling on them .  in my own committee , the committee on agriculture , we have recently examined another example of the infringement of property rights through the use of eminent domain .  i commend the gentleman from california ( mr. pombo )  for working with us to address that problem as well .  tesra achieves a balance between environmental concerns and property rights protection through its compensation and cooperative conservation provisions .  through these provisions , this legislation will fairly compensate landowners when they must forego use of their property and provide varied and unique ways to work with landowners .  the bill also makes other important changes , such as doing away with the act 's emphasis on designating critical habitat by placing emphasis instead on functional recovery plans .  these reforms will not only be more effective in achieving species recovery , but do so in a flexible , non-adversarial manner .  i believe the protection of endangered species is exceedingly important , however , a law that forces federal wildlife officials to simply catalog declining species while alienating landowners and discouraging good management practices is a bad thing .  support this legislation .  failing to improve the lot of species in more than 99 cases out of 100 is n't working .  tesra is a commonsense step towards improving and modernizing the 35-year-old law , and i urge my colleagues to support this important legislation .  
R	mr. chairman , i thank the chairman for yielding me this time to speak on an issue that is very important to me and my constituents .  the endangered species act plays a prominent role in my state of missouri with over 25 endangered and threatened species located within the borders and nine in my district .  mr. chairman , the esa is broken and needs to be fixed .  over the last 30 years , less than 1 percent of all listed species have been removed , and most of them have been removed because of poor data .  i thought the intent of the esa was to recover species and not leave them on the list indefinitely .  also , landowners seem to be getting cheated when species are identified on their property resulting in lower property values , less production and limited use .  these unintended adverse impacts have resulted in a law that is hurting landowners while not recovering any species .  this is why i introduced h.r. 3300 , the endangered species recovery act .  i want to thank the chairman and staff for working with me to develop and incorporate this bill into the overall esa bill .  the language in section 10 of the bill creates `` species recovery agreements. '' basically , it is an all-inclusive incentive program that will compensate landowners for their conservation efforts .  it is my hope that this provision will foster a better working relationship with landowners and the federal government resulting in recovery of more species .  my underlying goal is to protect landowners while keeping intact the spirit of the esa .  as part of the farming community , i have heard stories of farmers afraid to report an endangered species on their land because of the implication it would have on their property and their farming operation .  `` shoot , shovel , and shut up '' was often the case when a species was identified on their property .  my point is that the esa was more of a burden on landowners , and without the cooperation of landowners , species recovery , i do not think , will ever be successful .  another reason why i chose to get involved in this debate is because of the implication this act has on the management of the missouri river .  the missouri river is a vital waterway for midwest farmers , providing cheaper and more efficient transportation for their grain .  the flood control act of 1944 authorized the army corps of engineers to maintain flood control and navigation along the river .  then came the endangered species act and this all changed .  the esa seems to supersede the flood control act , and now transportation along the river is unreliable .  ultimately , i would like to see the provisions in this bill fix the situation so navigation becomes more reliable .  again , i commend the chairman on his efforts and look forward to working with him on this bill and getting it passed this afternoon .  
D	mr. chairman , today i rise in opposition to h.r. 3824 .  in the 1960s , rachel carson 's book `` silent spring '' documented the harmful effects of ddt and other pesticides on songbirds .  this prompted a ban on ddt and the passage of the original endangered species act .  the ban on ddt , which the epa said posed unacceptable risks to the environment and human health , saved the bald eagle and countless other species from going extinct .  today we are considering a bill that would usher in another silent spring by eliminating the oversight for the registration of pesticides which harm wildlife and people .  h.r. 3824 contains a provision allowing epa to consult with itself in determining the potential impacts of pesticide registration on endangered wildlife and fish , instead of consulting with the fish and wildlife service or the national marine fisheries service , which are the expert agencies whose mission is either in whole or in part to conserve species .  h.r. 3824 would take away the ability to stop pesticide use even when necessary to prevent extinction .  without existing checks and balances on pesticide use , the effect on wildlife could be devastating .  humans could be hurt too , because toxic pesticides are applied by farm workers that make their way into our nation 's streams , rivers , and food supply .  pesticides poison 10 , 000 to 20 , 000 agricultural workers each year and are estimated to kill more than 67 million birds annually .  but the epa currently only requires balancing the profits from using a pesticide against the dollar value of harm caused by that pesticide .  the endangered species act , on the other hand , recognizes what almost all americans believe , that no dollar amount can be placed on the extension of our nation 's treasured wildlife or on the human health of people who work in those fields .  the substitute to h.r. 3824 would leave existing law unchanged .  it would leave in place current safeguards by requiring an analysis based on the health of wildlife , not the company 's bottom line .  for this reason and many others , i urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this controversial bill and voting `` yes '' on the miller substitute .  
R	mr. speaker , by direction of the committee on rules , i call up house resolution 470 and ask for its immediate consideration .  
R	mr. speaker , for the purpose of debate only , i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts ( mr. mcgovern )  , pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself the balance of my time .  mr. speaker , there has been a lot of rhetoric thus far on the rule , and i suspect there will be a lot of rhetoric when we debate the bill ; but there is one underlying thread here that needs to be mentioned .  it was mentioned by the gentleman from utah ( mr. bishop )  , the gentleman from california ( mr. cardoza )  , and the gentleman from maryland ( mr. gilchrest )  .  that is that the endangered species act needs to be updated .  i came here 10 years ago , and this is one of the big issues that was very important to my constituency when i first ran .  there was talk then about amending the endangered species act , but there was no agreement at all .  we did get a bill out of committee .  unfortunately , it did not go any further .  but now we hear today that there is 90 percent agreement on the need to change the endangered species act , but there is violent 10 percent disagreement on what those means should be .  i contend that is huge , huge movement from where we have gone in 10 years .  i do not know what the reasons are , but i expect the reasons are the inflammation of the existing act .  so with that , mr. speaker , i urge support of the rule .  mr. speaker , i yield back the balance of my time , and i move the previous question on the resolution .  the previous question was ordered .  
R	mr. chairman , i rise in support of the legislation offered by the gentleman from california ( mr. pombo ) and would like to give you an example of why this bill is needed .  seven years ago , the fish and wildlife service contacted my office to state they were going to list the preble 's meadow jumping mouse as a threatened species .  it was n't even a surprise .  state and local authorities had known the mouse might be listed for years .  and , at first , it did n't even seem like it would be that much of a problem .  the mouse was a nocturnal animal that dwelt within a hundred feet of either side of streambeds .  the front range of the rockies could also claim at least three government reservations -- the u.s. air force academy , rocky flats and warren afb in wyoming -- which offered the mouse almost untrammeled range in which to roam .  but over the course of the next seven years , the lines moved .  now the mouse 's range extended beyond the stream beds , sometimes by miles .  habitat had to be protected , not only where the mouse had been found but also where it might be found if indeed a three-inch-long rodent could travel several miles to get there .  over the past seven years , the state of colorado spent approximately $ 8 million to preserve the mouse .  counties up and down the front range spent even more money to acquire open space and to develop habitat conservation plans , few of which , to my knowledge , were ever completed or even begun .  this is not even counting the impact to private property owners , not knowing whether they could use or develop their property .  and after all this , all the money spent , all the needless planning and contention , it turned out the fish and wildlife service was wrong .  the preble 's meadow jumping mouse was not threatened .  it was n't even a separate subspecies .  a scientist at the denver museum of nature and science stated this and the scientist whose 1954 work led to the original listing , agreed with the new data .  and so the delisting process started .  hopefully , we 'll see it completed sometime in the near future though there is some evidence that fish and wildlife is taking its time in doing so .  but meanwhile , the states of wyoming and colorado and its front range counties and cities and residents are out at least $ 8 million and probably more for no good reason .  after all this time and expense , nothing has been produced .  that is why this bill is needed .  if we are going to undertake these massive land-planning schemes , then the feds ought to be sure of their facts .  if they are going to mandate conservation planning and land set-asides , then maybe they ought to send the money along to do that .  the states , counties and cities have other things they could spend their tax dollars on .  the esa , as it currently stands , does nothing but keep attorneys and interest groups busy and needs reformed .  so i say , let 's try this approach .  i urge your support of h.r. 3824 .  
R	mr. speaker , i rise today in support of the rule and in strong support of the underlying bill .  the endangered species act is a law with good intentions , but it has spun wildly out of control with tragic consequences for average americans .  the northern california district i represent has been ground zero for some of the worst examples of the human impacts of this law gone awry .  in 2001 , a community of family farmers in the klamath basin of northern california and southern oregon had their entire water supply shut off to prevent a perceived threat to two species of listed fish .  families who for generations had worked the soil to produce food for our nation were literally left high and dry .  to add insult to injury , it was later determined that that decision was not scientifically justified .  several years ago a levee protecting one of the communities i represent had deteriorated , and the army corps of engineers predicted that in the event of high water , there would be a significant threat to human life .  for nearly 7 years , local officials tried to repair that levee , mr. speaker , but those repairs were stymied because of the endangered species act .  those delays had tragic consequences .  the levee did break , just as the corps predicted .  tragically , three people drowned .  mr. speaker , the impact of this inflexible law have been real and devastating .  the reforms proposed by this common sense legislation are long overdue .  i commend the gentleman from california ( mr. pombo )  on his good work and urge my colleagues to support it .  
R	mr. chairman , would the chairman of the committee on resources agree to enter into a colloquy ?  
R	first let me say to the gentleman that i am very appreciative of his efforts here to make the esa a better law .  mr. chairman , it is my understanding that the legislation would provide the president the authority to waive or expedite any provision of the act in the event of a major national disaster .  i also understand that the legislation would require the secretary to develop regulations establishing procedures for an expedited application or waiver of the act for agency actions that would be undertaken to address threats to human health or safety .  
R	i thank the chairman .  as you know , mr. chairman , a terrible situation occurred in my district in northern california several years ago where a levee that protects one of the communities i represent had deteriorated to such a point that the corps of engineers predicted that this degraded levee , without repair , presented a threat to human life .  regrettably , repairs to that levee were unable to proceed in a timely manner due to the lengthy consultation process , even though this very serious warning had been issued by the corps .  i am sure the chairman has heard of other similar examples where the application of the endangered species act has complicated or delayed urgent and targeted levee repairs from occurring when they are needed to protect people from flooding .  
R	mr. chairman , it is my understanding that the secretary currently has in place emergency regulations that allow for expedited consultation in the event of an immediate threat to public safety , as , for example , when the floodwaters are rising and are feet or perhaps even inches away from breaking or breaching a levee .  is the chairman 's understanding that the intent of the legislation is to require the development of additional regulations that would allow the secretary to expedite the application of the act for agency actions necessary to address threats to human health or safety ?  
R	mr. chairman , i thank the gentleman for that clarification .  again , mr. chairman , i want to commend the gentleman for his leadership and years of work he has invested in making the endangered species act a more responsive and effective law .  
D	mr. chairman , i rise today to express my strong opposition to the threatened and endangered species recovery act of 2005 .  despite the deceptive title of this bill , it is a measure designed to weaken the protections secured under the landmark endangered species act ( esa ) .  while scientists are uncertain about the exact rate of extinction , they estimate that it is probably thousands of times greater than the rate prior to human civilization .  in 1973 congress enacted the esa to address this problem of species extinction .  the esa is a comprehensive legal measure that is used to identify and protect species that are determined to be the most at risk .  under this law , once a species is designated as either `` endangered '' or `` threatened , '' powerful legal tools are available to aid in the recovery of the species and to protect its habitat .  without these strong federal protections hundreds of species including the bald eagle , grizzly bear , florida panther , and the manatee would all be extinct .  the bill we are debating today is flawed in many ways , but i am particularly concerned with its removal of habitat protection from the endangered species act .  habitat destruction , degradation , and fragmentation is the most significant cause of species extinction .  this legislation blatantly ignores the integral role habitat plays in the survival of a species by eliminating the designation of `` critical habitat. '' without this special designation , our government 's ability to recover species will be severely undermined .  it is disconcerting that some of my colleagues do not value saving our unique natural treasures , but it is appalling that they refuse to acknowledge that the endangered species act is about much more than saving a unique species .  it is undeniable that the world in which we live is an intricately connected environment that is suffering from human abuse and neglect .  the loss of a species interrupts the life cycle of the ecosystem it was part of and alters our environment in ways far beyond this isolated event .  the endangered species act is a vital tool in preventing and reversing these life cycle disruptions before they ripple out and cause further damage to our natural communities .  we all agree that this law should be revisited and improvements to the law should be implemented .  i understand the concerns of my colleagues that this law has been abused at the detriment of their constituents ' rights .  however , i believe there are ways to balance the needs of development and property rights with the need to protect the health of the environment which we all share .  instead of working towards a true compromise , we are considering legislation that is based on the fallacious premise that environmental protection requires a trade-off with private interests .  it takes a very short-sighted , short term view of our world and our economy .  it ignores the long term damage catering to these private interests will have on our future .  the threatened and endangered species recovery act of 2005 severely hampers the effectiveness of the endangered species act .  i urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation that will result in far reaching and detrimental impacts .  
D	mr. chairman , i thank the gentleman for yielding me time .  the time is insufficient , not only to explain my position , but also the time for consideration of this bill has been insufficient .  thirty-two years ago , we passed a bill that a republican president , richard nixon , signed to protect and conserve species in danger of extinction .  unfortunately , though , the underlying bill , which has been fast-tracked since its introduction , would substantially undermine the endangered species act .  that is what this is about .  for example , this bill would undermine the ability of the responsible federal agencies to ably perform their oversight roles , and it fails to recognize the importance of sound science to species recovery and restoration .  the bill also creates a fiscally irresponsible , open-ended entitlement program that effectively pays landowners to comply with the law .  in contrast , the bipartisan substitute offered by the gentleman from california ( mr. george miller )  has a far more reasoned approach .  it ensures consultation between the secretary and other federal agencies with proposed actions that may jeopardize species .  it strengthens the definition of what constitutes jeopardy and requires the secretary to ensure that proposed recovery plans identify and include areas necessary for species survival .  i urge support of the substitute and opposition to the underlying bill .  mr. chairman .  thirty-two years ago , congress passed and a republican president -- richard nixon -- signed the endangered species act to protect and conserve species in danger of extinction .  today , there are 1 , 268 species listed as endangered or threatened in the united states , including 26 in the state of maryland .  this law is not perfect , but it has been very successful .  roughly 40 percent of listed species have witnessed the stabilization or growth of their populations .  and , less than one percent have been declared extinct since the law 's enactment .  the fact is , this law has enabled the very survival of some of our most vulnerable species -- including the bald eagle , the gray wolf , the california condor , and the whooping crane .  unfortunately , though , the underlying bill -- which has been fast-tracked since its introduction last week -- would substantially undermine the endangered species act .  for example , this bill would undermine the ability of the responsible federal agencies -- the departments of commerce and interior -- to ably perform their oversight roles , and it fails to recognize the importance of sound science to species recovery and restoration .  the bill also creates a fiscally irresponsible , open-ended entitlement program that effectively pays landowners to comply with the law .  in contrast , the bipartisan substitute offers a far more reasoned approach .  it ensures consultation between the secretary and other federal agencies with proposed actions that may jeopardize species .  it strengthens the definition of what constitutes jeopardy and requires the secretary to ensure that proposed recovery plans identify and include areas necessary for species survival .  the substitute also creates conservation programs that would provide technical and financial assistance to landowners committed to efforts that protect species .  mr. chairman , we have a responsibility to protect our environment -- as well as the diverse forms of life that share it .  the bipartisan substitute will help us achieve the goal .  i urge my colleagues to support it .  
D	mr. speaker , i would like to address my comments to the members who do have serious concerns about the endangered species act who have had frustrations from their citizens about its application , but still believe that we ought to have a workable act , and i want to suggest that voting for this bipartisan substitute and `` no '' on the pombo bill will really satisfy their needs for five reasons .  reason number one , the substitute bill will make a significant change to reduce the amount of frustration that landowners feel by moving the listing process of habitat from the time of listing to a time of the development of the recovery plan .  and the reason this will alleviate much frustration by landowners is it will allow these services to make a more acute and scientifically sound judgment where this land needs to be listed for habitat and will relieve significant frustration of landowners .  second , the substitute will make sure that we try to use public land first when we try to protect habitat to take care of these species .  third , and importantly , it will have a conservation grant program to allow the use of federal funds to help private landowners who will agree to use their lands to help in the preservation of these species .  these are three very significant changes to the environmental protection act which will help property owners avoid some of the frustration that now exist while still moving forward with the purposes of this act .  but we then need to vote `` no '' on the underlying bill for these two reasons : first , the underlying bill is a massive entitlement program that could be subject to massive fraud because the language is so loose and so speculative , we would be expecting the american taxpayers to shell out literally millions of dollars on highly speculative developments .  when a developer comes in there , buys up land that is used for a wheat field and says he wants to put in a strip club or a casino , american taxpayers , under the underlying bill , would now have to pay entitlement funds where there is no money in this bill appropriated to do it , or even especially authorized for these highly speculative enterprises .  why should the taxpayers have to pay for this flim-flam type of speculation ?  and , by the way , nowhere in american law is any taxpayer required in any jurisdiction in this country to do that right now .  this is a radical change which exposes the taxpayers to millions of dollars of loss that is not required by the u.s. constitution and makes no common sense .  and second and lastly , very importantly , the underlying bill provides no enforceable protection for the habitat of these species .  sure , it says that the agencies have to draw these maps , but what is a map if they do not have to follow the map ?  five reasons .  members can vote for this with honor , go home and tell their constituents this they have relieved their frustration and protected these species and protected the taxpayers .  respect for the taxpayers and respect for god 's creatures at the same time .  
D	mr. chairman , what possible reason is there for taxpayers to have to pay three , four times for the same protection of endangered species ?  under the bill as written , the taxpayer would have to pay a landowner once for the privileges of not building the casino .  that landowner could then sell it to his brother .  the taxpayer has to pay his brother a second time for the same project .  his brother could sell it to his cousin , and the taxpayer would have to pay a third time for the same casino .  this is a failure in drafting .  reject this bill .  
D	mr. chairman , i rise today to request that my name be removed as a cosponsor of h.r. 3824 , the threatened and endangered species recovery act of 2005 ( tesra ) .  species conservation is an essential tenet in the effort to promote and maintain a healthy environment .  although i agree with congressman pombo 's initiative in principle , after reviewing the legislation closely i came to the conclusion that this bill would jeopardize critical habitat protections that endangered plants and animals need to survive and recover their populations , and it would do little to protect the planet 's most threatened wildlife .  as a senior member of the house science committee , i also have serious reservations that in its current form , h.r. 3824 attempts to substitute politics for sound science in decisions involving endangered species , letting expediency and profit motives influence what should be scientific decisions .  
D	mr. chairman , i appreciate the approach that the committee is taking in trying to revamp and revise the endangered species act .  this has been a vitally important and successful act throughout recent decades .  and while there is wide agreement here on the house floor that it should be amended and tweaked and improved on in light of past experience and modern times , we need to do it responsibly ; and i believe that responsible approach is better reflected in the substitute that is being offered here today .  unlike some in this chamber who believe that the endangered species act has been an unmitigated failure , there are countless success stories around the country .  in my home state of wisconsin , an example of how well it has worked , working with local officials and the stakeholders involved , the higgins eye mussel has come back in the mississippi river , which acts as a great filtration system in the river basin .  the karner blue butterfly , on the verge of extinction in wisconsin , due to the endangered species act and the recovery plan that was in place , is making a healthy comeback .  the whooping crane is making a strong comeback in the necedah wildlife refuge , as has the granddaddy of them all , which has been referenced here today , the american bald eagle .  if members would like to see some bald eagles , come to western wisconsin along the mississippi during the spring and fall ice flows , and you will see literally thousands of them .  there are new nests that are going up in habitat where they had never been found before .  they are on the verge of being delisted because of their success story .  epa identified the adverse effects of ddt , congress took action , and the bald eagle is resurging today .  and the grizzly bear that is about to be delisted in yellowstone and portions of montana from the threatened species list , i can personally attest to the strength of their comeback , having just been in glacier park in august and coming within 20 yards of a big grizzly bear and her two cubs .  fortunately , i was able to retreat , or i would have been a threatened or endangered species during that time .  the act has worked , and the point is there is a responsible approach that recognizes the bureaucratic red tape that we streamline , working with private property owners and also putting in place a strong recovery plan for species that makes more sense .  that is the substitute .  i encourage my colleagues to support the substitute .  
D	mr. chairman , the endangered species act remains an enduring testament to the importance the american people place on preserving plant and animal species for future generations .  that sentiment was reflected in president richard nixon 's words during his signing of the act on december 28 , 1973 when he said , `` nothing is more priceless and more worthy of preservation than the rich array of animal life with which our country has been blessed .  it is a many-faceted treasure , of value to scholars , scientists , and nature lovers alike , and it forms a vital part of the heritage we all share as americans. '' i am also reminded of the wisdom of my recently passed friend and hero , senator gaylord nelson , who said , `` we must recognize that we 're all part of a web of life around the world .  anytime you extinguish a species , the consequences are serious. '' thankfully today , citizens can see firsthand in every state the progress being made in bringing wildlife back from the brink of extinction .  for example , in wisconsin , for the first time since its 1991 listing as an endangered species , the winged mapleleaf mussel , a species found only in a small area of the st .  croix river , have been found to be slowly rebuilding their numbers .  another success of the esa is the karner blue butterfly .  although 99 percent or more of the karner blue butterfly 's range has been destroyed , wisconsin helped bring the species back using a conservation plan that takes into account the butterfly 's entire life cycle .  the state 's project , which involves 38 public and private partners , began after the butterfly was listed as endangered in 1992 .  lastly , perhaps best known , is that bald eagles are increasing in wisconsin , where 645 pairs occupied territories in 1997 , up from 358 in 1990 .  in fact , since eagles are relatively numerous in wisconsin , the state has donated them to other areas from which they have vanished , including to the nation 's capital -- washington , dc .  i mention these successes because many of the comments made on the floor today cast esa as an unmitigated failure .  i do n't believe that is the case at all ; and the scientific journal , ecology letters , recently published a study of the status of threatened and endangered species that showed more than half on the list for 5 years or more have either stabilized or are improving .  that said , i agree with my friend and colleague , congressman john dingell , author of the original esa in 1973 , that this landmark bill could use an update -- that it could be and should be strengthened in ways that cuts bureaucratic red tape , broadens stakeholder participation , and most importantly better facilitates the revival of more threatened and endangered species .  mr. chairman , the bipartisan substitute does a substantially better job in these areas .  for instance , it is widely agreed the esa has done a good job in preventing the extinction of many species but it has been less successful in bringing about `` the recovery of listed species to levels where protection under the act is no longer necessary. '' i believe it is crucial the legislation provides for the development of strong , comprehensive recovery plans within a short period of time after a species is listed as threatened or endangered .  the boehlert substitute , like the base bill , would repeal the current requirement that the secretary designate `` critical habitat '' for endangered fish , wildlife , and plants before formulating a plan for species recovery .  but it adds crucial language requiring the secretary to identify -- during a 3-year recovery planning process -- lands that are necessary for the conservation of the species -- first on public lands and then , if necessary , on private lands .  i also agree that private landowners have been required by esa to individually shoulder too much of the burden .  more than two-thirds of threatened and endangered species reside on private lands where the endangered species act is least effective .  it is imperative landowners be regarded as part of the solution and given the tools and incentives necessary to engender their help and support .  i believe we should have at least considered expanding the habitat conservation plan land acquisition program in h.r. 3824 which has proven itself effective in reducing conflicts between the conservation of threatened and endangered species and land development and use .  that , unfortunately , is not in the base bill .  instead , h.r. 3824 provides a new , uncapped entitlement program in section 13 that will only plunge our nation 's finances deeper in the red , and then prohibits common-sense steps that could at least provide some protection to the taxpayer .  for example , under h.r. 3824 the government can be forced to pay out repeated claims for different proposals to use the exact same piece of property .  these claims do n't even need to be backed up by proof of compliance with state or local land use laws .  and instead of lessening the number of esa related lawsuits , even cbo has stated this provision is likely to increase the amount of litigation .  in contrast , the boehlert substitute would establish a land owner incentive program that would operate much like a farm bill conservation program , with 70 percent cost sharing .  from eqip it adds language that would require the secretary to maximize the conservation benefit for every dollar expended , put federal money where it will do the most good .  a technical assistance program would be established , and the safe harbor regulations would be codified .  mr. chairman , i urge my colleagues to support the responsible , bipartisan boehlert substitute that answers the concerns of landowners , states , and sportsmen , while improving the ability to achieve timely recovery of endangered and threatened fish , wildlife , and plants .  let 's mend it in light of past experience and the demands of modern times , but let 's do it responsibly -- support the substitute .  
R	mr. chairman , i would respectfully disagree with the minority leader that this bill is not republicans versus democrats .  this is largely east versus west with western democrats supporting the underlying bill and eastern republicans opposing .  for me , i would quote from the house republican majority committee on the budget that warned that the underlying legislation `` creates a new entitlement program. '' this spring , moderates of the republican tuesday group and conservatives of the republican study committee worked together to put forward budget reforms to end deficit spending .  the heart of our reform was a prohibition against new entitlement spending .  entitlement spending already makes up two-thirds of all federal spending .  our deficit , because of hurricane katrina and related costs , will top over $ 500 billion this year ; and i do not believe that we can afford a new entitlement program .  i would urge our chairman to reform the provisions in the bill , to keep the spending within the budget , and make it subject to appropriations .  the grant portion of this bill that compensates landowners is responsible .  the mandated spending portion of the bill is not responsible .  cbo warns that in their score of this bill both costs and litigation will go up under the bill .  following cbo 's fiscal advice , i would urge adoption of the more fiscally responsible substitute .  
D	mr. chairman , i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time , and i rise in opposition to the threatening endangered species from recovering act .  this legislation , as many of us know , will do nothing to improve our ability to help species recover .  as a matter of fact , this legislation will repeal all endangered species act provisions that protect threatened and endangered plants and wildlife from the harmful impact of pesticides .  let us focus on this for a moment .  every schoolchild in america is aware that pesticides are threatening to birds .  our own national symbol , the bald eagle , is threatened with the provisions of this bill that would repeal the pesticides provisions that currently exist and which help protect endangered species .  we would not spray pesticides on a bald eagle , would we ?  and if we would not do that , why would we vote for this bill ?  pesticides have played a large part in the decline of many species , including the bald eagle .  the bald eagle is the symbol of our national unity .  there is something about the endangered species act which represents something even greater than talking about plants and wildlife .  there is a recognition that plants and wildlife and human beings are all part of the same interconnected process ; that we are interdependent ; that we are all one .  to act as though plants and wildlife and insects are just here for our use , for our commercialization , for our disposal actually rejects our own humanity .  there are deeper questions here about who we are as human beings that are reflected in legislation like this .  i could talk for a while about how this bill is going to provide giveaways to developers at the expense of wildlife and endangered species .  i could talk about how it is going to require the government to use taxpayer dollars to pay big developers to not violate the endangered species act .  i could talk about how this threatening endangered species from recovery act would call for a tentative schedule for developing recovery plans for species that are currently protected .  i could talk about all that , but i want to stress that what we are really doing here in voting for this bill is rejecting the whole idea of interdependence and interconnection ; rejecting the idea of a bald eagle which stands for national unity and that we are all together .  
D	mr. speaker , i appreciate the comments of my colleague on the committee on rules , the gentleman from utah , but he uses statistics very selectively .  let me cite a more important statistic , and that is more than 1 , 800 species currently protected by the act are still with us .  only nine have been declared extinct .  that is an astonishing success rate of more than 99 percent .  so this has been a successful act .  i will also provide for the record an article that appeared in the salt lake tribune by ben long , who is a contributor to the writers on the range , a service of high country news , who has written a great article about how the endangered species act succeeds with flying colors .  species act succeeds with flying colors the endangered species act -- which is being reviewed by congress this week -- is a soaring success .  just look up .  look skyward for a while and you might spy an american bald eagle .  hundreds of them live in my home state of montana .  across the united states , the bald eagle is a living , flying example of what works about the endangered species act .  rep .  richard pombo , r-calif. , is spearheading the effort to change the landmark , 30-year old anti-extinction law .  `` the act is n't working to recover species now , '' pombo said in a recent speech in washington state .  `` at the same time it has caused a lot of conflicts. '' pombo evidently spends too much time inside his stuffy washington office .  if he got out in the forests and rivers more , he might know the story of the bald eagle .  the american symbol was listed as endangered in 1978 .  that year , surveys turned up only 12 bald eagle nests in all of montana .  then , environmental laws such as the endangered species act and a federal ban on the pesticide ddt kicked in .  they protected the birds from chemical poisoning , destruction of habitat and needless , wasteful killing .  the results were gradual , but dramatic .  by 2005 , the number of bald eagle nests in montana multiplied to 300 nests -- 25 times the number before the bird was included on the endangered species list .  that 's just one state .  eagles were similarly successful in other states as well .  in 1999 , the bald eagle 's status was upgraded from `` endangered '' to `` threatened. '' if trends continue , they will soon be officially recovered and all america will celebrate .  today , montana is one of the top 10 eagle-producing states in the united states .  in a recent winter , i watched more than 30 eagles clean up a carcass in a rancher 's back pasture .  bald eagle congregations have been tourist attractions at places like canyon ferry and libby dams , where they feed on fish in the winter .  no matter how many times i see a bald eagle on the wing , i am taken aback by its beauty -- and thankful for the endangered species act .  conflicts over endangered species make headlines .  success happens in quiet obscurity .  but over time , the successes are dramatic indeed .  gray wolves are another endangered species act success story in the northern rockies .  wiped out by over-zealous predator control a century ago , wolves began trickling back into montana in the 1980s .  now , there are hundreds of wolves in western montana , and more in neighboring idaho and wyoming .  because montana stepped up to the plate and agreed to manage these animals for the future , the federal u.s. fish and wildlife service recently handed wolf management over to the montana department of fish , wildlife and parks .  this is evidence of the flexibility built into the law .  while i do n't like to see any animal needlessly wasted , i respect that ranchers need to protect their stock to make a living .  the endangered species act has allowed wildlife managers to kill problem wolves -- even wipe out entire packs that made a habit of killing livestock .  we humans now dominate planet earth .  we share a responsibility not to push species into extinction .  for 30 years , the endangered species act has helped keep america the rich and beautiful land we love .  my 17-month-old son loves watching finches and chickadees at the feeder outside our kitchen window .  he will grow up also watching bald eagles , some perching on a snag close to our backyard .  what a change .  when i was a kid , the only eagle i ever saw was on the back of a quarter .  
D	mr. speaker , i yield myself the balance of my time .  mr. speaker , i would again urge my colleagues to , first of all , vote `` no '' on the rule , and i would also urge them to vote `` no '' on the underlying bill .  i appreciate the work that the gentleman from california ( chairman pombo ) and others have put into this bill , but the bottom line is that the underlying bill eliminates habitat protections ; it abandons the commitment to recovery of endangered species ; it repeals protection against hazardous pesticides ; it politicizes scientific decision-making ; it eliminates the vital check-and-balance of consultation ; it requires the fish and wildlife service to allow unfettered habitat destruction ; it would require taxpayers to pay developers , oil and gas companies and other industries , for complying with the law ; and it is an entitlement .  i know the chairman has kind of objected to that characterization , but that is not my characterization .  it is what cbo has concluded .  it is what our colleague from illinois ( mr. kirk )  who testified yesterday on behalf of the republican study committee and the republican tuesday group said last night in the committee on rules , that this bill creates an expensive new federal entitlement program .  mr. speaker , the endangered species act has done a great deal to protect endangered species .  everybody agrees that there needs to be adjustments .  everybody agrees that we can come together and make those necessary adjustments .  but what we object to is that the underlying bill guts the endangered species act .  it is a bad bill ; it is bad policy .  i would urge my colleagues to vote `` no '' on the rule and the bill .  
D	mr. speaker , on that i demand the yeas and nays .  
D	mr. chairman , i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time .  i just want to say that when the gentleman talks about a taking , that is not what his legislation does .  all that has to happen is that a landowner proposes a use for his property , and if that use is ruled as a taking , the landowner gets compensated .  the landowner does not show that they could do that , that they could go through the city zoning , they could go through the county zoning , that they would get those permits to build those houses or whatever else he wants to do , or he could build that commercial establishment , no showing of that .  yet , under this legislation , he is entitled to compensation .  nothing has been taken , only the suggestion in the proposal on a plan .  
D	mr. chairman , i demand a recorded vote .  
D	mr. chairman , i thank the ranking member , my friend , for yielding me this time .  `` shortsighted men , in their greed and selfishness will , if permitted , rob our country of half its charm by the reckless extermination of all useful and beautiful wild things. '' so said republican president theodore roosevelt almost 100 years ago , and how relevant his remarks are today .  if we can not find a way to live in harmony and conserve our natural resources in a sustainable way , we humans may , too , be doomed to extinction .  the endangered species act is a litmus test on the degree to which we are willing to conserve our livable environment .  to date this act has succeeded .  its success rate is 99 percent .  only 7 out of 1 , 200 species , according to fish and wildlife service , have become extinct , and they became extinct because of their status before they were listed .  there are problems with the act that need to be addressed , but many of the changes embodied in this bill are not designed to fix the problems .  they are designed to eviscerate the law .  the proposal before us today will gut the law by making any recovery plan unenforceable and by creating a new compensation program for those who own land that may host a threatened or endangered species .  we are a nation of laws and constitutional rights , but where in the constitution does it say property rights are an immutable and an open-ended entitlement ?  where would we be as a nation if the law did not allow reasonable government regulations of private property without payment of compensation if undertaken for the public good ?  that kind of regulation occurs every day in every state in every locality throughout the country .  it occurs as a result of practically every regulatory statute we pass .  it is a long-standing principle of the jurisprudence of our courts .  but this bill turns that principle on its head , and in so doing it creates a very dangerous precedent that this body should not knowingly adopt .  section 13 of the bill establishes a new program of conservation aid ; and under this program the government must provide compensation to landowners whenever an esa restriction prevents a particular use of property , regardless of the fact that other uses of the property remain and those uses are very valuable .  this new aid program , therefore , requires the payment of compensation to landowners even though no governmental taking of their property has occurred .  and rather than compensation being required where a restriction essentially strips property of all of its valuable uses , the standard under the takings clause , which exists today , this bill requires compensation whenever a restriction prevents a single use of property .  it is a standard for compensation that goes far beyond the standard imposed under the constitution 's `` taking '' clause , and it does not exist in any other federal statute .  if enacted , this bill will set a very dangerous precedent that could lead to the insertion of similar provisions in other environmental and regulatory statutes .  it has to be rejected .  mr. chairman , as a member of the interior , environment , and related agencies subcommittee of the committee on appropriations , i know that there are some problems with the implementation of this act .  the current `` critical habitat '' designation needs to be revised and should be established later in the process during the development of species recovery plans .  in that regard , the approach taken by the substitute put together by the gentleman from michigan ( mr. dingell )  and the gentleman from washington ( mr. dicks )  and others is the right way to go and should be adopted .  mr. chairman , federal land belongs to all of us .  the endangered species act is a vehicle through which we can conserve our land and balance the needs of all against the short-term and destructive interests of the few .  i urge my colleagues to oppose the threatened and endangered species recovery act , but strongly support the substitute .  
R	mr. chairman , i serve a very rural district , a lot of landowners .  currently , a landowner with an endangered species on his land often sees the species as a threat to his survival .  that is not good for the species , and it is certainly not good for the landowner .  it is not working .  it is largely adversarial .  h.r. 3824 provides incentives for landowners to preserve endangered species , and this will help the species , and it will help people as well .  in 1978 , 50 miles of the central platte river in nebraska was designated as critical habitat for whooping cranes .  only 3 to 4 percent of the whooping cranes visit the platte river annually .  the great majority of whooping cranes never see the platte river , never visit it at all ; and so many have questioned this designation because this designation has led to a cooperative agreement between nebraska , colorado , and wyoming involving thousands of acres of lands , hundreds of thousands of feet of water to support critical habitat ; and it is still not complete after 8 years of spending millions of dollars .  so we have case after case after case like this where this thing simply is not working well .  hopefully , applying the best available current science required by this legislation will improve this process .  i think it will .  i thank the gentleman from california ( chairman pombo ) for his efforts , as well as the gentleman from california ( mr. cardoza )  , and ask support for h.r. 3824 .  
R	mr. chairman , the endangered species act is broken and needs to be fixed .  those are not my words , those are the words of a city counselor from santa barbara , california .  in a hearing we had on endangered species last year , she described california as being the greenest state , santa barbara as being the greenest of the cities in california , and she as being the greenest of the green .  she said that the endangered species act is blocking people from making additions onto their homes , it is keeping the beach closed , it is stopping development in their town , and they are tired of it .  they either want it eliminated or fixed .  elimination of the act is too extreme .  the gentleman from california ( mr. pombo )  , our chairman , has taken a very good stance in reforming it .  in new mexico , we have the silvery minnow .  in order to keep the flow in the rio grand river at the level that the biologists said we had to have , we had to release storage of water that had been building up for 50 years in four different reservoirs .  and storage for water like that in new mexico is not easy to get .  when we empty those , we can not maintain the flow .  so one of the most important provisions in this bill is that sound science must be used for any decision .  we also are affecting the outcome for our private property owners , and so i thank the gentleman for his hard work on this and i support the bill .  
D	mr. chairman , i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time , and i thank him for his extraordinary leadership on behalf of the american people in terms of the air they breathe , the water they drink , in protecting god 's beautiful gift to us , this beautiful legacy that we have in our environment , and i commend the ranking member , the gentleman from west virginia ( mr. rahall )  , for his leadership as well .  he has been a champion as well in this area .  mr. chairman , i rise in opposition to this legislation which would critically undermine protections for our nation 's endangered species .  i support the bipartisan substitute that the gentleman from new york ( mr. boehlert )  is putting forth with the gentleman from california ( mr. george miller )  , and commend them for this good proposal because it provides common sense proposals to strengthen the endangered species act , and yet give a common sense enforcement to it .  i rise as house democratic leader , of course , in support of the substitute , but i also rise as a mother and as a grandmother ; mother of five and grandmother of five .  my husband always says i just like to know how long into a speech it is before you start talking about your grandchildren .  but we teach our grandchildren , and i did teach my children when they were little , that everything in nature is connected and that there is a reason , a balance to it all , this beautiful web of life that is nature .  today 's bill of course in this debate points out what value we place on that .  with the passage of the first endangered species law in 1966 and the modern endangered species act in 1973 , congress made a commitment to future generations of americans , at that time that would be our children , my grandchildren .  we made a commitment to maintain the web of life and preserve the myriad species that form an essential part of our natural heritage .  we must keep that commitment for the sake of our children and our grandchildren .  the endangered species act is a safety net for wildlife , fish and plants that are on the brink of extinction .  when other environmental laws have not provided enough protection , the endangered species act is there to give endangered species one last chance to survive .  of the 1 , 800 species protected by the law , only nine species have been declared extinct .  an impressive achievement .  earlier in the debate , i heard the gentleman from washington ( mr. dicks )  speaking , and i see he is still in the chamber , and i thank him for his very enlightening presentation about how many species have been saved during the life of this law .  that was very inspiring and encouraging .  the safety net saved our majestic national symbol , the bald eagle , and the peregrine falcon .  it saved the florida manatee , the grizzly bear , the southern sea otter , sea turtles , and many other animals and plants , all important in the balance of nature .  on the floor of the house , week after week , month after month , the republican leadership pushes through legislation shredding the safety net for children , for veterans , for the elderly , for the poor , for the sick and the disabled , so it comes as no surprise today that they bring a bill that will shred the safety net for the endangered plants and animals .  this is really unfortunate , because , again , it all relates to the balance of nature .  we find these words from the psalms : `` how many are your works , o lord !  in wisdom you made them all ; the earth is full of your creatures .  there is the sea , vast and spacious , teeming with creatures beyond number , living things both large and small. '' in wisdom god has made them all `` living both things both large and small , '' and in wisdom we should preserve and protect them .  we have yet to learn the roles that many creatures play in the web of life , and we are yet to discover the practical effects many species may bring to humankind .  one example in california is the pacific forest yew .  once considered virtually useless , a trash tree , became extremely valuable as the source for the anti-cancer drug taxol .  many of us have dear friends or family members whose chances of survival have been increased by the use of taxol .  the bill we consider today is loaded with provisions that will make it harder to preserve endangered species .  it undermines sound science by directing the secretary of the interior , a political appointee , to issue regulations locking in a static definition of specific acceptable scientific data .  it repeals all protections from pesticides , it drops the requirement for other federal agencies to consult with wildlife experts at the fish and wildlife service or the fisheries experts at the national marine fisheries service .  it establishes an extraordinarily new entitlement program for developers and speculators that requires taxpayers to pay them unlimited amounts of money , and the list goes on and on .  reasonable people agree that there are ways to improve the endangered species act .  many people who care very , very much about the environment , about the balance of nature , about the web of life have concerns about the enforcement .  i think that is why it is important for congress to be very clear what our intent is , so that intention of congress and that clarity of our voices here will give guidance to those who enforce the law so that is the implementation and the execution of it is not in a way that is so risk averse as to be counterproductive .  we can do better than the current law , but it is hard to do worse than the legislation being proposed by the gentleman from california ( mr. pombo )  .  that is why my colleague , the gentleman from california ( mr. george miller )  , joined by a group of members and also the gentleman from new york ( mr. boehlert )  , taking the lead on the republican side , have developed a substitute to this bill that gives landowners assistance and incentives to protect endangered species , strengthens the science behind the endangered species act , and requires improved coordination with the states .  i urge my colleagues to strengthen the endangered species act by voting for a bipartisan substitute and opposing the underlying bill , and in doing so , to truly , as members of congress , show our children that we mean it when we say that we all know that everything in nature is connected and it is important to maintain the balance , the web of life .  in isaiah in the old testament , we are told that to minister to the needs of god 's creation , and that includes our beautiful environment , is an act of worship .  to ignore those needs is to dishonor the god who made us .  let us minister to the needs of god 's creation .  let us support the substitute and oppose the underlying bill .  
R	mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman for yielding me time .  first of all , i want to thank the major coauthor of the bill , the gentleman from california ( mr. cardoza )  , for working with me in a bipartisan way over the last several months to craft a bipartisan solution to the problems that we have got with the endangered species act .  i also would like to thank the gentleman from west virginia ( mr. rahall )  , the ranking member on the committee , for all of the work that he put in , and that his staff put in , particularly jim zoia , who did yeoman 's work in putting this bill together .  lori sonken , tod willens , and rob gordon worked tirelessly to try to compromise and work out a bill that we could all be proud of , along with hank savage from the office of legislative counsel .  we have come a long way , a long way , from where we were .  this debate over endangered species has been raging across this country for years , and our effort was to throw away everything that we had tried to do in the past and put it aside and try to start again and say how do we sit down as members of the committee on resources and come to a solution that we can all agree with .  that is what we attempted to do .  we knew that the endangered species act had problems .  we knew that there were things that had to be fixed , that just were not working in current law .  it is kind of ironic this morning to hear people come to the floor and talk about how radical the bill is and how quickly we moved on it .  we have held over 50 hearings on the endangered species act .  we traveled around the country , going to places where people actually have to live with the implementation of the law and listened to them and what they told us .  and we came back and we started to craft a bill .  i did not push through the bill that i wanted .  i did not allow the gentleman from california ( mr. cardoza )  or the gentleman from west virginia ( mr. rahall )  to push through the bill they wanted .  we sat down and worked it out .  it is amazing to hear all of this stuff that is supposedly in the bill .  from what i see , all of these folks are going to vote `` no '' on the bill and they are going to vote `` no '' on the substitute , because the substitute claims to be the same thing .  it claims to deal with all the same issues , and in fact they use the exact same language .  `` critical habitat. '' both bills use identical language .  `` provide certainty for landowners. '' both bills use identical language .  `` provide incentive for landowners. '' both bills use identical language .  and on and on and on .  what is the major difference ?  what is the major difference ?  in our bill , we protect the small property owners .  yes , we do .  and we should .  if the federal government steps in and takes somebody 's land for a highway , we all pay for it .  i do not see people running down here screaming it is an entitlement .  i do not see people running down here screaming that it is a budget buster if we pay people if we take that property for a highway .  if we take it for a wildlife refuge to protect a wildlife refuge , we pay them for it , and nobody is down here screaming about it saying it is an entitlement .  nobody is down here screaming , saying it is unfair to pay somebody if you take their property for a wildlife refuge .  if you take their land for a national park , we pay them for it , and nobody is saying that is an entitlement .  nobody is saying that we are busting the budget .  but when we get to endangered species , we tell a farmer , you can not farm part of your land , 10 percent , 20 percent , 50 percent , whatever it is , you can not farm that part of your land , now , all of a sudden , oh , we can not do that .  well , we have got the responsibility to do it .  if you take away somebody 's private property , if you take away the use of their private property , you have to pay them for it .  there is nothing wrong with that .  why you guys are so wed to the old debates and the old rhetoric , i have no idea .  we sat down as a committee and we worked out this bill .  half the democrats that voted in the committee voted for it .  it was a bill that was worked out .  it is not everything i wanted ; it is not everything the gentleman from california ( mr. cardoza )  wanted .  it was a compromise , a reasonable way to protect endangered species , to protect the habitat in which they need to recover ; and if that does involve private property , yes , we pay them for it .  and , dang it , we should .  
R	mr. chairman , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  we bring up today the endangered species reform act with the purpose of trying to deal with what some of the real issues are , what some of the real problems are that we have had and have developed over the last 30 years .  if one goes back and reads the original endangered species act , it becomes difficult to be critical of specific language that is it in because the purpose of the endangered species act was to , first of all , prevent species from becoming extinct but , more importantly , to recover those species .  and as we look at what has happened over the intervening 30 years , we begin to realize just what problems are with the act and the way it is being implemented today .  i came into this debate originally because i did not like the way that private property owners were treated under the implementation of the law .  that became a big issue in my district and throughout much of the west .  private property owners felt threatened that they would lose their private property and that they could lose control and the ability to use their private property under the implementation of the law .  that became a big problem , and it is something that we began to work on , to try to have some kind of property rights protections in the law .  but the more i got into the endangered species act , the more i realized the law was just not working in terms of recovering species .  about 1 , 300 species have been listed under the endangered species act .  of those 1 , 300 , 10 have been removed because they were recovered .  more species have been removed from the list because they became extinct than were recovered .  that less than 1 percent is a complete failure , so we began to really look at the law and see are species really doing better under the endangered species act , and we came to the conclusion that they were not .  about three-quarters of the species are either declining in population or the fish and wildlife service has no idea .  that is not a success .  when people talk about the act and its importance , they are right , it is important .  it is something we all share in terms of preserving wildlife and preserving species .  but when the law is not working , we have to respond to that and step in and reauthorize the bill , put the focus on recovery and protect private property owners .  as we have gone through this last several months , i have had the opportunity to work with the ranking member , the gentleman from west virginia ( mr. rahall )  , and his staff ; and i thank them for all of the work that they put into this bill to get us to this point .  we worked extremely hard to try and find a compromise bill .  in the end , there were a few issues that we just disagreed on , there were issues we could not come to a conclusion on , but the vast majority of what is in the underlying bill was an agreement that we were able to work out and that i stand by .  i believe it is good work , that it is something that is extremely important .  but i will say that , in the end , private property rights , the protection of those property owners , has to be in the final bill , because the only way this is going to work is if we bring in property owners to be part of the solution and be part of recovering those species .  mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	yes , mr. chairman , i would .  
R	the gentleman is correct .  
R	mr. chairman , i am certainly well aware of the situation that the gentleman is speaking to .  i was a member of congress at the time that that levee broke and tried at that point to help the gentleman to take care of that problem before it broke .  
R	the gentleman is correct .  
R	mr. chairman , i move that the committee do now rise .  the motion was agreed to .  accordingly , the committee rose ; and the speaker pro tempore ( mr. goodlatte )  having assumed the chair , mr. sweeney , chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union , reported that that committee , having had under consideration the bill ( h.r. 3824 ) to amend and reauthorize the endangered species act of 1973 to provide greater results conserving and recovering listed species , and for other purposes , had come to no resolution thereon .  
R	yes , that is our intention .  
R	yes , they would .  
R	mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. chairman , that is the intent , yes , sir .  
R	yes , mr. chairman .  
R	no , mr. chairman .  it is not in there .  
R	mr. chairman , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  i look forward to the gentleman 's opposition to the highway bill and any new purchases of land , to the wildlife refuge system , to the park system , or any other thing that we spend money on , because he sees it as a big giveaway , a big government giveaway system .  again , what the underlying bill does is if you step in and take habitat from a private property owner and you tell them that you restrict them and you tell them they can not use part of their property , then we set up a system of incentives and grants .  but , if in the end , the secretary says your property is necessary for the recovery of an endangered species , therefore you can not use it , we compensate them for that and we pay them for it .  if we build a highway across somebody 's property , even though that may increase the value of the rest of the property , we pay them for it .  if we take part of their property for a wildlife refuge , even though that may increase the value of the rest of their property , we pay them for it .  but , if we take their property for endangered species habitat , we tell them , you are out of luck .  now i have guys coming down here saying , this is a big , new giveaway system , that we are going to give away things to people .  no .  this is a big takeaway .  you are taking away from them .  you have been doing it for 30 years .  now it is time to pay for it .  you are taking land away from people .  every little small farmer , rancher across the country , every homeowner across the country who has had their property taken away from them should be compensated for it .  you are taking away their land .  there is nothing wrong with that .  
R	mr. chairman , reclaiming my time , this provision was not in the contract with america .  nobody seems to be constrained by the truth here .  this is a brand-new way of dealing with compensating property owners whose land is taken .  cbo scored this at $ 10 million .  this is a brand-new way of dealing with a very real problem and assuring some kind of protection to my property owners and your property owners .  mr. chairman , it was just a couple of weeks ago that the supreme court came out with a decision where this congress stood up and said , you can not use eminent domain to take away private property , to take someone 's house away from them and give it to another individual .  and all of you ran down on the floor and said you were all in support of that .  we are going to stop the government from being able to use eminent to take away somebody 's house and give it to somebody else .  but , under that provision , you have to pay them for their house .  under current law , you do not have to pay when you steal somebody 's property for declared habitat at this time .  you guys are all fine with that .  is that because we are talking about farmers and ranchers ?  is that why you do not want to pay them ?  but when we are talking about somebody 's house , all of a sudden you want to pay them ?  i mean , you guys have no consistency in this whatsoever .  i believe if you take away somebody 's private property , you should have to pay them for it , and that is what we are trying to do in this underlying bill .  i know that some of my colleagues are just philosophically opposed to that , and god love you .  but the fact of the matter is , if you take away somebody 's private property , you ought to have to pay for it .  
R	mr. chairman , reclaiming my time , that is not what the constitution says .  the constitution says , nor shall private property be taken for a public use without just compensation .  that is what it says .  it does not say the government can step in and take 90 percent of your value and then it is okay ; it does not say they can take away 30 percent of your value and that is okay .  is the gentleman going to oppose the highway bill because we compensate people when we take their land away for a highway , even though we do not take 100 percent of the use ?  why is it okay in that instance , but it is not okay when it comes to protecting habitat ?  you guys talk big about wanting to protect habitat and protect species , but 90 percent of the habitat for endangered species is on private property .  the only way you are going to recover species is if you bring in the property owners and have them be part of the solution .  you are stopping that from happening right now under current law and in the substitute .  you are wrong on this one .  we have to pay when you take away somebody 's private property .  that is what we have to do .  that is what is in the underlying bill .  i am sorry if you have a philosophical problem with paying for what you are taking .  mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. chairman how much time remains ?  
R	mr. chairman , i yield myself 30 seconds to say , this is another area where you guys are just not consistent .  one of you comes down and beats us up because we are spending too much money about this massive increase in spending under this bill .  somebody else comes down and says , you do not fully fund endangered species under this bill .  either we spend too much or we do not spend enough .  you can not have it both ways .  either we spend too much or we do not spend enough , but you can not keep coming down here and trying to make both arguments .  
R	mr. chairman , i yield myself the balance of the time .  mr. chairman , i say to my friend from west virginia , i appreciate all the work that he and his staff put into this bill .  this was an important thing for us to go through , and i think that we produced a good bill at the end of that .  i know that there are issues in the underlying bill that we disagree on , and we probably always will .  i will tell the gentleman , as we continue to work forward , i will continue to work with the gentleman as this bill moves through the process , continue to work with the gentleman and try to work out whatever differences that still exist under the bill .  the gentleman from west virginia operated under good faith with me , i believe i did the same thing with the gentleman throughout this entire process , and i pledge to the gentleman that we will continue to work together to produce the best possible bipartisan bill we can to deliver to the president 's desk .  
R	mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. chairman , i yield myself the balance of my time .  well , george , we have come a long ways .  we have come a long ways , because , as you know , i have been working on this since i got here , and when i first started , all i heard was there is nothing wrong with the act that a little bit more money would not solve .  here we are today , everybody saying that there is problems with the law and we have to fix it .  so we have come a long ways , and i am being attacked for spending more money under the act on the reauthorization .  first of all , i wanted to respond to your comments on jeopardy .  we stay with current law .  that is what is in the bill , is current law .  we stay with current law .  we had a different definition in the bill originally , and that caused the administration to say that it would result in new litigation , so we said we will stay with current law ; and that eviscerates the act , staying with current law that they have so dutifully defended .  i have heard here today that the underlying bill guts , eviscerates , euthanizes , is unreasonable , and then i get a handout that talks about how much the substitute is like the base bill .  when it comes to critical habitat , both bills use identical language .  when it comes to providing certainty for landowners , both bills contain identical language .  when it comes to providing incentives for landowners , both bills contain identical language , and on and on and on , about how much alike the bills are ; and yet they gut , eviscerate , euthanize , and they are unreasonable .  the gentleman from new york ( mr. boehlert )  i think is right about this : the real difference between the two bills is how private property rights is protected .  the gentleman from west virginia ( mr. rahall )  and i spent months debating the meaning of a word , and we finally came pretty close to getting a bill put together .  the substitute represents , i think , a step back in the negotiations in that everything that you wanted that you did not get , you put in the substitute ; change the words a little bit so that they really do not mean anything .  there is no protection for private property owners .  i remember 10 years ago , i introduced a bill on endangered species , and one of the major provisions in that bill was to utilize public lands , and i got ripped over it because 90 percent of the species have their habitat on private land .  you can not just put the focus on public lands .  you can not .  but if it is going to work , if we are truly going to put the focus on recovery , if we are truly going to try to bring these species back from the brink and do the responsible thing , private property owners have to be part of the solution .  we hear a lot of horror stories about things that have happened in my district and mr. cardoza 's district and mr. costa 's district and mr. baca 's district , in your district , mr. miller .  if you do not do something to protect the property owners , those stories are never going to stop .  the act has been a failure in recovering species .  now we can all agree .  when it comes to protecting private property owners , regardless of what all the hot rhetoric is , what the underlying law says is that if you meet state and local zoning laws , if you go through the process of getting that approval , then you have something .  if you are a farmer farming your land and they tell you that you can not farm your land anymore , you can get compensated for agriculture land .  if you are a developer who has gone through the process , gotten your land zoned and they tell you you can not use it , then that is what you get compensated for .  but once land has that restriction on it , whoever buys it can not come back again and say they want something else , because they know it is restricted .  so this argument is totally out of line and off base .  we protect private property owners .  that is what leads to recovery .  the substitute just does not .  vote against the substitute , support the base bill , and let us move on with some decent legislation .  
R	mr. speaker , i demand a recorded vote .  
D	mr. chairman i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	mr. chairman , i yield myself 30 seconds .  mr. chairman , in response to the last colloquy that just took place between the two gentlemen from california in regard to emergency powers that would be granted the president to waive provisions of the endangered species act , i just wanted to respond that the endangered species act did not get in the way in any manner whatsoever of recovery efforts in response to hurricanes katrina and rita .  whatever provisions that were needed to be waived were waived under current law , without any additional authority being needed by the president .  so i just wanted to make that clear for the record that esa did not hamper any recovery efforts for any of the most recent hurricanes .  
D	mr. chairman , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. chairman , there is probably not a member of this body that can not get up and tell some horror story with the current administration of the endangered species act .  we all agree there is need for reform and change .  the previous gentleman , while not speaking to the legislation whatsoever , should take note , and he has referred to the cost to a hospital in his district that had to pay some enormous costs , but it is important to realize anytime we allow species to go extinct we lose enormous potential to understand and improve our world and to create medicines that many times can save people 's lives .  nowhere is that more evident than in the world of medicine .  i have my chief of staff who has returned from the hospital , thank the lord to many medicines that have been produced from nearly extinct species .  it has made him well and brought him to this floor , and i could go down the list .  there are a number of important medicines , including possibly the next effective treatment of cancer , aids , or heart disease that can come from species that we are trying to protect and save on this world .  
D	mr. chairman , who has the right to close ?  
D	mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	mr. chairman , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. chairman , i say to my chairman , i appreciate his concluding comments there and , as i have said all along , we have negotiated in good faith , and i do want to continue that relationship that we have .  maybe we can still work on this bill together ; i hope we can .  but we will see as the process goes forward .  mr. chairman , how much time do i have left ?  
R	mr. chairman , i want to thank the gentleman from california for keeping this issue on the front burner .  i have come to learn in my time in congress that people support reform , as long as it does not change anything , and that is what we find with the endangered species reform .  i thought i was given a great honor when i first got here in the year 2001 .  the gentleman from alaska ( mr. young )  of the committee on resources put me on the study group to talk about the endangered species act , to try and finally get it off the dime .  the gentleman from west virginia ( mr. rahall )  , the gentleman from michigan ( mr. dingell )  , and the gentleman from california ( mr. george miller )  were the democrats ; and the gentleman from alaska ( mr. young )  and the gentleman from california ( mr. pombo )  and myself were the republicans , and , unfortunately , it took us literally 6 months to finally agree what time to meet and where .  the difficulty with the endangered species act is it is failing endangered species .  anytime you start getting t-shirts and bumper stickers and jokes about a law , you know you have got a problem .  i brought along a shovel today because the biggest joke in montana is shoot , shovel , and shut up .  the problem is there are those that want to protect species .  they do not want them to become extinct .  they want to do the right thing .  but this congress many years ago created a disincentive to do the right thing , rather than an incentive ; and if you learn anything about public administration or government , when you create a disincentive , usually you are pretty successful .  we are not saving the species we need to .  we need to get off the dime .  we need to finally solve this issue .  everybody recognizes it is broke .  we can no longer use the excuse that it is just not exactly what we want .  it is time to end the joke of shoot , shovel , and shut up .  i want to thank the gentleman from california for bringing this issue forward and finally getting off the dime and giving us an opportunity to vote for a reform package that truly does what we need to do , and that is save the species of this country .  
R	mr. chairman , i rise in support of h.r. 3824 .  reform of the endangered species act is much needed .  the law has adversely affected thousands of farmers , ranchers and homeowners whose private property has been taken without compensation .  over 90 percent of endangered plant and animal species are found on private property .  there should be a balance between the rights of property owners and conservation .  h.r. 3824 will allow the secretary of interior to compensate private property owners for the fair market value of the loss of use of their property when the secretary concludes that the use of the property would be a taking .  the compensation will be made available as aid and through a grant program .  this is a fair and long-overdue process that will actually promote preservation and conservation of endangered species and at the same time protect private property rights .  
D	mr. chairman , i rise today in opposition to h.r. 3824 , the threatened and endangered species recovery act .  the republican majority has already dismantled nearly every government program for people , and now it appears they 're moving on to other species .  they constantly preach that god 's creations are precious , yet once again they are showing their hypocrisy that they would be so careless with the lives of god 's creatures .  perhaps if some of these endangered species were in a persistent vegetative state , republicans would come rushing to their aid .  perhaps if scientists would concede these same plants and animals were fashioned during the week of god 's creating the world , the right wing would be willing to help .  the republicans want us to believe that this bill represents a fair and balanced way to protect endangered species without infringing on property rights .  not true .  this bill grants unprecedented and immeasurable subsidies to land owners rather than ensuring their fair costs are covered ; so much so in fact , that the nonpartisan congressional budget office can not estimate the potential impact to the federal budget .  this bill is nothing more than an assault on our environment .  i urge my colleagues to join me , and every environmental organization on god 's green earth , in opposing this bill .  
D	mr. chairman , i thank my good friend from california ( mr. george miller )  for yielding me the time , and i join him in offering this substitute , because the bill we are considering today , h.r. 3824 , will make it less likely that threatened and endangered species will recover ; but today we can support this bipartisan substitute which will update and improve the endangered species act .  i reject the notion , mr. chairman , that we can not preserve both our natural environment for future generations while supporting strong economic growth .  our substitute gives private property owners the opportunity to protect species on our own land while ensuring they will not face additional regulatory burden .  importantly , this substitute actually discourages the use of private land for public purposes .  the substitute says if we can protect a species on public land , we should .  in some cases , private property owners will be asked to mitigate for the effects of preserving threatened and endangered species .  however , we can and should provide incentives for private property owners who are complying with the law , and the substitute does just that .  the substitute strikes a careful balance between the rights of private property owners and the preservation of our natural resources .  i encourage my colleagues to join me and a bipartisan group of members in supporting this reasonable , better substitute and opposing h.r. 3824 .  
R	mr. chairman , we heard about theodore roosevelt .  indeed , 100 years ago this year , theodore roosevelt created the great forest reserves .  he also created the klamath wildlife refuge .  he created the forest reserves for both the future home building needs of the country and for water , if we read his statements , and , of course , for nature as well .  he created the wildlife refuge in the klamath basin to ensure that we would have healthy wildlife populations for generations to come ; and , indeed , the wildlife refuge is home to the greatest concentration of bald eagles in the united states , in the lower 48 .  ninety-six years after he created that refuge , this federal government made a decision to shut the water off to 1 , 200 farm families in that basin based on the endangered species act and interpreted by the government scientists without peer review , without peer review .  when the national academy of sciences reviewed the decisions , they said the agency made mistakes in the outcome under the endangered species act ; and further they went on to say that those decisions put in jeopardy potentially those very species , the sucker fish in the upper klamath lake and the coho salmon in the klamath river .  it potentially could have damaged both of those .  this act changes that .  this act changes that , because we put into law for the first time really clear criteria and guidance about science .  and unlike the substitute that will be offered soon , we allow a full public process , a 1-year timeline for the secretary to further define the criteria of the science .  we do not define it in the statute ; we give guidance and then there will be a full public process .  we require empirical data and peer review and the secretary to have that opportunity , and peer review is certainly important .  the other alternative does not do that .  it sets it in standard .  it is politicians writing it .  science is critical .  let me talk about the private property rights .  i believe in them .  when the government says it is going to build a highway across your property , the constitution says the government has to pay you for it .  the esa is the environmental highway across your property .  but it does not open the door as a blank check to developers to go out and pick the most sensitive wildlife habitat area in the country and say , i am going to build a $ 50 million hotel and casino here .  not at all .  let us go to the law that we are proposing .  page 15 , open your manuals , sub ( c ) : `` the foregone use would be lawful under state and local law and the property owner has demonstrated the property owner has the means to undertake the proposed use. '' it eliminates the speculative things that people were concerned about .  we heard that .  this is an improvement .  this clearly says that .  and there is no double-dipping .  this section says you can not come back and get a second bite at the same apple , so you have to follow state and local zoning ordinances and laws , you have to prove you are financially capable of undertaking the activity , and the government has to give you an answer when you propose to do something on your private , private , property here .  that is one of the great things about this country .  we can talk about the bald eagle , and i am a big fan of them , but one of the underpinnings of our great democracy is our private property rights .  in the case of the klamath basin , in many respects they were taken away when their water was cut off and 1 , 200 farm families were left destitute .  i believe in recovery , i believe in species , and i think what we are changing in this bill will build new partnerships that will bring landowners and the government together like never before , that respects the rights of private owners of property , and will actually result in increased recovery of species and habitat .  mr. chairman , i urge approval of the underlying bill .  
R	mr. chairman , first of all , to respond to my colleague from washington , a simple deed restriction takes care of that .  they do not go through this and pay and pay and pay and pay .  they put it in the deed when they cut the deal , and they pay fair and just compensation for taking somebody 's property .  that would be stupid to do that over and over .  they do that in the deed , and that is a restriction that carries with the property .  let me talk about a couple of the differences between these two plans and why i support the underlying pombo bill .  among other things , section 10 , page 18 , they give 3 years , the government , to come up with a recovery plan .  our plan says 2 years .  so if they want to recover species , we say get it done in 2 years with the recovery plan ; they say 3. if my colleagues want to talk about spending , they create a new science board .  gs15s , section 20 in the bill , $ 1 million a year .  cbo says we will compensate private property owners to the tune of maybe $ 6 million in the first 5 years .  that is all they score out .  this , $ 1 million a year for bureaucrats , and private property owners are left carrying their own costs .  that is not fair and right in america .  so if the members want bigger bureaucracy , pay gs15s here in washington , a total of $ 1 million combined over the year , and they get just as much as we are talking about trying to help out the private property owners .  and if they ask the government for some sort of safe harbor for entering into a habitat conservation program , basically they get back a written determination under our provision that prevents them from being prosecuted , from the government 's coming back and double-timing them , saying , yes , go ahead and we will not prosecute if you do everything you said you were going to do .  under the alternative , as i read it , whatever they do , they would have to get an incidental take permit and then they still do not have any kind of protection from the government 's coming back again after them .  so what we are trying to do is create cooperative partnerships with private landowners through new conservation programs and give certainty over 10- , 20- , and 30-year periods to recover species and set up recovery programs that would come together in 2 years , not 3 , and provide for compensation when somebody loses their farm or a portion thereof just as if a highway ran through it .  
D	mr. chairman , we must protect what we can never get back .  we are not only protecting wildlife , but we are defending our citizens as well .  the stringent regulations in the endangered species act have benefited many species in our great country .  our national symbol , the bald eagle , is one of the most profound stories of recovery in progress .  the american alligator , the peregrine falcon , and the california condor are but a few examples of species that have benefited by the provisions in the bill .  according to the united states fish and wildlife service , nearly half of the species that had been on the list more than 7 years were stable or improving , and those are the facts .  mr. chairman , h.r. 3824 is full of giveaways to large development companies and other special interests .  the pombo legislation includes provisions that require the government to use taxpayer dollars to pay developers and other special interests not to violate the endangered species act , instead of creating commonsense incentive programs that would foster greater involvement in conservation efforts .  congress should choose to send a national message regarding the mindful stewardship of our country .  if not , further abuses will occur as evidenced by governor schwarzenegger in my own home state of california .  tuesday , the governor fired all six members of the state reclamation board , an agency that oversees flood control .  the board had recently become aggressive about slowing development on the flood plains .  is the governor 's protection of developers and big landowners worth the devastation that oversight can avoid ?  congress would be wise to take notice , in light of the no-bid contracts , pleas to exempt all environmental regulations in the gulf states after katrina , and the same old companies slurping up federal funds in egregious excess .  mr. chairman , the gentleman from california 's bill is not the legislation we need .  it would also allow the unlimited use of dangerous pesticides at the expense of the people , plants , and wildlife .  this bill would repeal all endangered species act provisions that regulate the use of pesticides like ddt , which nearly resulted in the extinction of the american bald eagle in the mid-20th century and decimated the california brown pelican population in my own state .  we must protect what we can never get back .  mr. chairman , i strongly urge my colleagues to defeat this bill .  
D	mr. speaker , this bill represents a new low .  wasteful drilling in the arctic and dismantling the clean air act are bad enough , but now the republican majority wants to weaken the endangered species act , weaken it by handing out subsidies to oil and gas companies and land speculators for not killing endangered species , meaning taxpayers will be giving money to these land developers for simply following the law or for taking a risk by making a big investment in land so they can sell it at a higher price .  what next ?  will taxpayers be asked to foot the bill to pay companies to follow other laws of the land ?  mr. speaker , i know we can do better .  protecting our endangered species is never easy , but if we do not do it right , if we do not depend on sound science , if instead we yield to greed and politics , there is no second chance .  i urge my colleagues to vote against the bill and protect the environment for our children and their children and vote for the bipartisan substitute .  
D	mr. chairman , i thank the gentleman from california for yielding me this time , and i wish to engage the chairman of the committee on resources in a colloquy .  for many years , mr. chairman , the u.s. army corps of engineers has engaged in river management practices that have harmed several species of native wildlife that live in and near the missouri river and undermine the economic livelihood of many communities along the upper missouri river basin .  my state , and others in the upper reaches of the basin , have repeatedly endeavored to influence the decisions of the corps as it makes critical river management decisions .  the interagency consultation provisions found in the current law are one of the few tools at our disposal .  so i am concerned that the alternative procedures defined but not specified in section 12 of the threatened and endangered species act would create a way for the corps to disregard the consultation requirement , and i want to make sure the alternative procedures provision is not designed as a way to eliminate consultation between federal agencies .  therefore , under the new bill , would the corps be required to manage the missouri river in a manner that meets current standards under the esa ?  
D	mr. chairman , i thank the gentleman for recognizing my concern and clarifying the intent of the bill .  i am satisfied the bill will not weaken the interagency consultation requirement , and i appreciate your consideration .  
D	i thank the gentleman very much for that clarification .  
D	mr. chairman , i rise today in support of this important very important reform legislation because it is an issue that is very important to me and many of my constituents in my district .  as we all know , the challenge we face in reforming the esa is to create a balance between the important goal of conservation and preservation of our nation 's species and making sure property owners , businesses , workers and communities do not suffer unnecessarily for these efforts .  under the current structure of the endangered species act , these two goals have unfortunately been at odds and have been a barrier to important economic development .  by reforming the current law , we have the opportunity to craft balanced legislation that brings all stakeholders together in common interest .  i feel strongly that this legislation achieves that balance and , therefore , should be approved .  a community in my district seeking this balance is durant , oklahoma , which is in part of the `` historic range '' of the american burying beetle .  the leaders of durant have worked hard and have had success in bringing business to their area of far southeastern oklahoma , but each year , the construction of new sites for these businesses is brought to a screeching halt , always looking for the burying beetle , but no presence of the beetle has been found for a number over years .  this disruption costs the community time , money , and the potential for future job growth .  there must be a better way to balance the needs of the species and the needs of the communities .  this bill provides important reform .  it does not gut the law , but actually continues to provide important protections for endangered species which we all care about deeply .  this reform should improve the recovery process and provide real success in saving our national treasures .  i commend the hard work of those who have brought us here today .  
D	mr. speaker , i thank the gentlemen for yielding me time .  despite what the member from florida said , there are some who would like to speak to this issue .  he said what does 30 days matter ?  should it be 29 ?  guess what ?  the congress assembled on behalf of the american people , and this administration will borrow $ 1.3 billion a day every day for those 30 days .  we will be $ 39 billion deeper in debt a month from today .  what would we do if we had an open rule ?  well , perhaps we could make some real cuts in wasteful programs in the budget , instead of attacking the vulnerable , the students , kids getting lunches at school .  they are just eating too much .  kids in foster care , long term care for seniors .  maybe we could go where the real money is .  they asked willie sutton , why did you rob banks ?  because that is where the money is .  the republicans do not want to go where the money is because that is where the special interests are , the people who fund their campaign machine to keep them in the majority , to keep them borrowing $ 1.3 billion a day , indebting the american people as far as the eye can see .  what cuts might we have to make ?  well , let us see .  the president has this bizarre idea that we should borrow a trillion dollars , one thousand billion dollars to go to mars while we can not meet the needs of people here on earth , here in the united states of america .  we do not have money for levees , jetties .  we do not have money for the school lunch program .  we do not have money for student loans , but we should borrow a trillion dollars to go to mars .  but before that , let us borrow $ 100 billion to go back to the moon to get some more dust .  great idea .  no , personally , i would like to have an up or down vote on borrowing $ 100 billion to go back to the moon .  a few other things , let us revisit star wars .  the general in charge of star wars gave us some very , very encouraging news .  he said the system to protect us against missiles that will never be fired against the united states because we could track them back and retaliate , they will smuggle a bomb in if they want to attack us .  but he said it has a better than zero chance of working , better than zero after $ 100 billion and abrogating the anti-missile treaty .  whoa , that is good .  well , maybe we could visit that issue in an open rule .  how about corporate farm subsidies ?  the american people are going to borrow around $ 25 billion this year to give subsidies for surplus crops being grown by corporate farmers and others .  well , maybe we could visit that issue on the floor .  no , they would not want to touch that .  there is a lot of money coming in there .  how about the $ 19 billion in the energy bill in subsidies to the oil industry in the hope that they will take money , borrowed by the taxpayers , given to them to go out and explore ?  of course , those same oil company execs , of course they were not under oath , i have got to admit that , said that that money , the head of exxon said it is nothing , it is chump change , and it has no effect on our operations .  so maybe we could take back that $ 19 billion and spend it on lunch for hungry kids or maybe we could put the money back into the student loan program that you want to cut out in the reconciliation bill .  then we have a few tax giveaways out there , offshore companies like accenture , largest homeland security contractor in the history of the united states , $ 10 billion , who has moved their headquarters to the bahamas so they will not pay any taxes in the united states of america , but they are going to defend us against foreign enemies , but they just do not want to pay any taxes here .  i would like to be defended against them and those giveaways .  
D	mr. speaker , reclaiming my time , i would schedule some up-or-down votes on these sorts of major cuts in a much expanded reconciliation under an open rule .  
D	i object to borrowing $ 1.3 billion a day between now and then without any attempt at fiscal restraint .  
D	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. speaker , i thank my friend from florida ( mr. putnam )  for yielding me time .  i also thank him for bringing the real florida orange juice to the 7 a.m .  rules meeting this morning .  i oppose this closed rule , mr. speaker , and the underlying legislation .  mr. speaker , i wondered to myself earlier this morning as the rules committee majority members passed yet another closed rule which stifles debate and shuts off meaningful contributions from members of this chamber .  what is the problem ?  congress has only had since january 3 of this year to complete work on the 12 annual appropriations bills , the so-called `` must pass bills '' that congress works on every year .  in case anyone is unclear , so far the president has signed only five of the 12 appropriations bills that must pass and become law before september 30 .  defense appropriations ?  not done .  military quality of life and veterans affairs ?  not done .  transportation , treasury , hud ?  not done .  of course , the bill which funds this very institution , the legislative branch appropriations legislation , well , we did that to protect our branch .  and the sad part ?  no one is to blame but the party in control .  it is an irrefutable fact , the last time that there was sole democratic control of congress and the white house , all 13 appropriations bills were passed by september 30 .  we had a balanced budget .  and oh , yes , budget surpluses as far as the eye at that time could see .  my , how times have changed .  now we have debt as far as the eye can see and disdain from much of the rest of the world .  the people here are the modern day incarnations of nero .  the majority fiddles while the nation burns .  more than 45 days have passed since congress passed its last continuing resolution , 48 to be exact ; and in that time , republicans have managed to pass a measly three of the ten outstanding appropriations bills at the time of the last continuing resolution .  in baseball , their batting average would be pretty good .  but in the real world where salaries and promotion are based on accomplishments and contributions , getting done 30 percent of what you are supposed to get done is absolutely abysmal .  in any other job in america , 30 percent would get you fired .  it should here too , mr. speaker , and i hope america is paying attention .  so i ask , what in the world have the majority members been doing over the last month and a half that they can not get these constitutionally-mandated appropriations bills done on time ?  we know that they have not dealt with fema .  i have been trying to get them to deal with fema since the agency messed up florida recovery efforts in the year 2004 .  and now look at where their neglect got us .  republicans have not dealt with the national security leaks in the bush white house .  they have not dealt with increasing access to health care or investing in affordable housing for low and moderate incomes .  they have not dealt with unemployment in this nation .  in fact , this morning the chairman of the rules committee said to us that we have `` full employment '' in this nation .  he identifies that as 6 percent .  i guess there is no one looking for a job in san dimas where he is from or the greater los angeles area .  so forgive me , mr. speaker , if i feel it unnecessary to grant republicans another 30 days to fix a problem that they , one , created on their own , and two , have shown zero ability that they are capable of leading our country in a responsibly fiscal manner .  the problem is not hurricanes katrina or wilma or other disasters .  it is not even the failing war in iraq .  the problem republicans have is their beloved tax cuts that 95 percent of the people in this country barely benefit from .  their problem is themselves and their failed fiscal policies .  mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
D	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. speaker , i would inform my good friend from florida that getting up for a 7 a.m .  rules committee does not alter my temperament .  the suggestion that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle should have completed their work by september 30 is mandated by our responsibilities here in the house of representatives .  and i find it disingenuous to speak of the other body , which i heartily endorse what my colleague said with reference to the gentleman from california ( mr. lewis )  in this house of representatives but the other body is controlled by the majority .  the white house is controlled by the majority .  and it is y'all that have it all .  and so under the circumstances , it is your responsibility to have done it by september 30 .  to answer the gentleman , what we would have done perhaps if we did not go home for thanksgiving and take thanksgiving dinner up here .  the gentleman asks for another date or debate about this continuing resolution , doubtless what we would have been able to do is stay here and that may have lit a fire under some of the people in the other body who need to get their work done .  we have all sorts of problems in this nation and there is no reason for us not to complete our work .  
D	mr. speaker , that is worth avenue in palm beach , not west palm beach .  our colleague mark foley represents that area , a republican .  i represent pahokee and belle glade , which are also in palm beach , and you are talking about no tax base .  i just want to have that correction made .  
D	in private schools .  
R	mr. speaker , pursuant to house resolution 558 , i call up the joint resolution ( h. j. res. 72 ) making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2006 , and for other purposes , and ask for its immediate consideration .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. speaker , i do not intend to consume much time at all .  this is a continuing resolution that simply includes a change of date extending our work through december 17 in order to give the president and others enough time to review these conference reports and other pieces of legislation being sent to the administration in rapid fire .  mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , on that i demand the yeas and nays .  
D	mr. speaker , i yield myself 10 minutes .  mr. speaker , i will not take very long on this bill either , but i do think it is important to take note of a few facts .  at the beginning of this year , it was made quite clear by the majority that they desired to finish all appropriations bills on time and that there be no omnibus appropriations bill lumping all kinds of disassociated items into the same package .  we on the minority side of the aisle have provided procedural cooperation at virtually every step of the way .  we have provided time limits on debate on virtually every bill that we were asked to provide them .  those time limits were sometimes stringent and they met with objection from a number of members .  we provided unanimous consent so that the scheduling of legislation could be accelerated on numerous occasions .  and despite that fact , today some 6 weeks into the fiscal year , we have four bills which are still not finished .  those bills are the treasury , transportation , hud bill , the military quality of life bill , the labor , health , education and social services bill , and the defense appropriations bill .  together , those four bills , which we have yet to complete , represent 78 percent of appropriated financing for the coming year .  why are we still not finished ?  it is certainly not because of any failure on the part of the appropriations committee .  the appropriations committee kept to its schedule and every bill was passed earlier than almost any year that i can recall .  and yet we are here with so much unfinished business on the appropriations side of the ledger .  the reason i think is very clear .  despite the fact that the white house , the senate and the house are all under control of the majority party , despite that fact we have reached this delay and are forced once again to seek another continuing resolution .  the reason that has occurred , in my view , is because the budget resolution was so skewed in favor of the ideological right within the majority party caucus that in the end , even a number of republican moderates have not wanted to vote for some of these bills , most especially in the senate .  and we find that even republican committee chairmen , like senator specter , have described one of the bills as being totally inadequate to its responsibilities .  this country is in the middle of fighting a war .  that war has a huge cost , and yet the republican majority is in pursuit of its goal of providing huge tax cuts , a huge percentage of which will be put into the pockets of the most wealthy people in this country .  their desire to do that has led them to a willingness to borrow whatever it takes in order to put the money in those pockets and then use the resulting deficit as a reason to cut back on a number of other bills .  they use it as a reason to make significant cuts in education , in health , in science , environmental protection and the rest , and then pretend that the cost of katrina is what made them do it , when , in fact , the cost of tax cuts for persons in the top 1 percent of income in this country over the next decade will cost about 10 times as much as the cost of katrina .  so then we are forced because of the squeeze , we are forced to endure delays , and we have to bring forward a continuing resolution such as we are doing today .  and i would point out that after we have gone through all of this effort , we , in the end , are probably still going to be stuck with an omnibus appropriations bill at the end , despite the fact that the majority party indicated they were going to move heaven and earth in order to avoid such an eventuality .  the game plan apparently is to try to pass three appropriations bills yet this week , and then that will leave us in december with the defense appropriations bill , and evidently the intention at this point is to attach everything but the kitchen sink to that bill so that we will , in effect , have a recreated omnibus .  it is my understanding that the people expect to attach the bird flu appropriations , the appropriations for katrina supplemental , and every other special deal that somebody can conjure up and attach it to the defense bill , and then hide it behind the skirts of military spending .  the betting is that members will want to support funding for the troops and so they will vote for whatever other garbage is attached to that bill by way of nongermane items .  that , i think , would be a dysfunctional result , but that appears to be where we are headed .  it could be avoided if the majority had chosen to be a little less ideological , if they had chosen to pull the rubber band just a little less tightly , and if they had chosen to cross the aisle and work in a bipartisan fashion on taxes , on spending , and on other items that affect the shape and nature of the budget .  we have not seen that , and so that is why we are here today with the necessity to pass a continuing resolution .  i will vote for the continuing resolution at this point because we need to keep the government open , but i am certainly not very pleased with how we have gotten here .  
R	mr. speaker , by direction of the committee on rules , i call up house resolution 558 and ask for its immediate consideration .  
R	mr. speaker , for the purpose of debate only , i yield the customary 30 minutes to my neighbor and friend , the gentleman from florida ( mr. hastings )  , pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume .  
R	mr. speaker , house resolution 558 is a rule that provides for consideration of house joint resolution 72 , making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2006 .  as we approach the end of the week and the time that we will be taking in our districts to celebrate the thanksgiving holiday , this particular rule and the cr probably are among the least controversial things that the gentleman from florida and i will discuss today .  i look forward to an abbreviated debate on this .  the rule provides for 1 hour of debate in the house equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations .  the rule waives all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution and provides one motion to recommit .  i want to commend chairman lewis , ranking member obey , and the entire appropriations committee in the house for the determined effort this year to avoid an omnibus spending bill .  this is something that unfortunately has become a routine part of our end-of-the-year appropriations process and chairman lewis under tremendous leadership with a great committee behind him has managed to avoid that this year , in fact , setting almost a record by completing all of the house 's work on the appropriations process before july 4. the committee has practiced due diligence and is working to pass each of these bills individually rather than having them attached as a train at the end of the year .  this continuing resolution is necessary because our friends on the other side of the rotunda are a little bit further behind in their appropriations process and we are working through the conference report stage .  this cr will allow the appropriators to continue that conferencing work to ensure that we have a clean appropriations process where bills are moving individually in the regular order .  today we are considering the labor , health and human services and education appropriations bill which leaves just three outstanding appropriations conference reports .  the underlying resolution permits congress to finish its work and provide the president adequate time to review the measures before signing them into law .  h. j. res. 72 simply extends the previous continuing resolution through december 17 .  in fact , mr. speaker , it is a one sentence change , only shifting the date to december 17 for the continuing operations for the government .  the cr is a clean continuation of h. j. res. 68 , which passed the house in september by a vote of 348-65 , and which funded programs and activities at the lowest of the house-passed level , the senate-passed level or the fiscal year 2005 current rate and included language prohibiting agencies from resuming or initiating programs for procurement not funded in fy 2005 and prohibited agencies from awarding new grants and other forms of assistance during the period of continuing resolution .  throughout the appropriations process , the appropriators have demonstrated their commitment to fiscal responsibility by working within the framework we established in the budget resolution earlier this year .  again , i want to express my gratitude to the gentleman from california ( chairman lewis ) , the ranking member , the gentleman from wisconsin ( mr. obey )  and the entire committee and staff of the appropriations committee for their hard work this year .  i urge members to support the rules and the underlying continuing resolution so we can finish the appropriations process in regular order and continue on our way toward responsibly funding the needs of america .  mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	just briefly , i respect the gentleman 's observation that the majority party in the senate is the party that i share , the republican party , but i learned a long time ago to stop trying to answer for that chamber over there .  that is a tough body to figure out .  the gentleman knows as well as i do that they tend to bog down in the oratory and slow down on the action .  
R	mr. speaker , the gentleman clearly has come to the floor a little bit early , because all of these things are going to be eligible for debate here in another several hours when we move forward on our deficit reduction package , and the gentleman will have an opportunity to exercise through his vote that savings process , that deficit reduction process .  but i am just curious , in all the gentleman 's rhetoric , what would you do differently about the continuing resolution that funds government through december 17 until we finish our regular appropriations process ?  
R	would the gentleman shut down the government to prevent that from occurring ?  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  the gentleman is passionate about his concern for the fiscal well-being , but he is clearly misdirected in the sense that he will have an opportunity to vote on a number of these deficit reduction measures , a number of these savings , a number of these government reform mechanisms ; and he will have the opportunity to present all of the things that he talked about in his own recommittal motion , which is a right that has been granted to the minority party .  so all of the things that he talked about , all of the things that he objects to , the sound agricultural policy that guarantees that we continue to have the safest , cheapest food supply in the world , if you want to cut those things , you can put it in your program .  if you do not like the fact that we are taking pell grants up , you could object to that through your recommittal motion .  the point is that we are here today debating the rule on the continuing resolution of the government because we have three regular order appropriations bills yet to move , because i believe , to our credit and to this chamber 's credit , to the credit of the entire house , we are not moving a last minute omnibus choo-choo train that all of us have to go home and then discover something in that that we are not real terribly proud of .  i think it is a credit to the appropriators on both sides of the aisle and a credit , frankly , to both chambers , and as the gentleman from florida has pointed out , under republican leadership , that are bringing us 11 individual appropriations bills that can be voted on up or down .  you have an opportunity to make your position publicly known on each of those bills , rather than having things stuffed into a last-minute train , which all of us object to and which diminishes the status of the house .  mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  mr. speaker , i am prepared to close , and we have kicked off quite a debate here this morning .  we know that it is going to be a long day as we approach the debate over the labor , health and human services appropriations bill , the ongoing debate over the continuing resolution to fund our government , and later today the deficit reduction package , which i dare say will not take food from any child in america 's mouth , despite the overheated rhetoric of the gentleman from oregon , respectfully the gentleman from florida and a number of others on that side of the aisle who it would appear from their media statements discuss in the salons and parlors of the beltway whether republicans hate children or old people more .  i dare say that as we bring up this deficit reduction act , which finally for the first time since 1997 puts us back on a serious track to finding savings not just in the discretionary side of our spending but in the mandatory side which makes up over half of federal spending today and which slows the rate of growth in government , again , one of those washington , d.c.-style cuts , where budgets grow 7 percent instead of 7.3 percent or they grow 6 percent instead of 6.3 percent , and we find $ 50 billion worth of savings in a $ 2.5 trillion per year budget .  so $ 50 billion in savings over 5 years in what would then be a $ 14 trillion pot .  i think that almost any american would say i think that my budget growing 7 percent instead of 7.3 percent is acceptable , and i dare say to my friend from florida , who represents , among other counties , palm beach county , florida , the home of lake worth avenue among other places .  i think there are a number of counties that would gladly trade their tax base for his , and i would also say that i believe that somewhere in palm beach county there is an afterschool program of some shape or form .  there must be an afterschool program somewhere in all of palm beach county , florida .  i believe that as we move through this debate it is important for us to be responsible in our rhetoric and keep our eyes on the ball , which is the looming fiscal crisis that is out there if congress does not have the courage to get its arms around mandatory spending , which is consuming federal spending , making up over 50 percent of it today and two-thirds of federal spending .  
R	mr. speaker , reclaiming my time , the gentleman referred to the entire county , not his piece of the county , and i certainly am well aware of pahokee and belle glade and the challenges that they have gone through .  but i believe somewhere in your county you have an afterschool program .  
R	mr. speaker , i yield back the balance of my time , and i move the previous question on the resolution .  the previous question was ordered .  
R	mr. speaker , on that i demand the yeas and nays .