Michael Castle

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to remember the life of Mary M. Boggs of Seaford, Delaware. Born 82 years ago to loving parents Linden E. Boggs, Sr., and Addie Phillips Marvel, Mary would go on to have a tremendous influence on not only the Seaford community, but also all of Delaware. Upon graduation from Beacom Business College, Mary would embark on a distinguished career as the administrative service officer for the Department of Justice. After retiring, Mary would continue her service to the community with the Board of Directors for the Seaford Historical Society and as a member of the Acorn Club and VFW Post #4961 Auxiliary. While very active in the community, Mary's impact was felt most by the local, county, and State branches of the Republican Party. The consummate volunteer, Mary was always willing to help and expected nothing more than a ``thank you'' in return. Her involvement with the party began in 1944 and she would eventually serve as the president of the Seaford Republican Women's Club and the Delaware Federation of Republican Women. Additionally, Mary was a devoted member of the Senior Citizen's Task Force for the National Federation of Republican Women. On a personal note, Mary was instrumental in helping me throughout my political career, including my campaigns for Lieutenant Governor, Governor, and the United States House of Representatives. Many of us counted on Mary, and I can truly say she never let us down. Mr. Speaker, in closing, all who knew Mary were lucky to have been graced by her presence. While I know she will be greatly missed by her family and friends, Mary Boggs will always be remembered for the work she has done throughout the State of Delaware and for the Republican Party.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a Delawarean of great character, courage, and patriotism, who passed away on July 4, 2005 at the age of 71. Major General Richard A. Freytag, USAF (Ret.), was born on October 26, 1933, marking the beginning of a lifetime of distinguished service to his family, community, and country. General Freytag's 38 years of service with the United States Air Force began with his commission as a 2nd Lieutenant in 1956. Although he completed active duty in 1959, General Freytag's strong sense of duty compelled him to continue as an Air Force Reserve officer throughout his civilian career, holding positions at the Pentagon and the National Defense University in Washington. In 2000, already a decorated veteran, General Freytag was awarded the Medal for Distinguished Public Service, the highest tribute awarded to a civilian by the Department of Defense. In his civilian life, General Freytag understood the importance of education, working tirelessly to earn graduate degrees from both Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This ambition fueled a successful career with Citicorp Inc., eventually bringing General Freytag to New Castle, Delaware in 1984 to become President and C.E.O. of the Citicorp Banking Corporation. Despite his substantial time commitments, General Freytag was an active member in his local community. For decades, he was involved with numerous Air Force charities. Following his retirement from Citicorp in 1996, he volunteered with several organizations in Delaware, including the Delaware Bankers Association and the Medical Center of Delaware. A devoted family man; he is survived by his wife Pamela, children Richard and Bliss, and grandchildren Henley and Coryell. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to remember General Freytag as a man of character, courage, and compassion, who I was proud to call my friend. I join with my colleagues in celebrating the life lived by this great American, and offer my sincerest sympathy to his family and friends throughout Delaware and the United States.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a heroic Delaware firefighter, Joseph Evans, who tragically died in the line of duty at the age of 61. While responding to a house fire in the early hours of July 10th, 2005, Joe, an engineer with the Bridgeville Volunteer Fire Company, suffered a heart attack. Despite the best efforts of medical personnel, Joseph Evans passed away shortly after his arrival at the Nanticoke Hospital. For 41 years, Joseph Evans was a member of the Bridgeville Volunteer Fire Company. During his dedicated career with Station #72, Joe served in many capacities, including Director of Supplies, Assistant Chief Engineer, and Chief Engineer. In 1968, his work earned him recognition as Bridgeville's ``Fireman of the Year.'' Joe's efforts were not confined to Bridgeville; he also served with the Sussex County Firemen's Association, the Sussex County Fire Chiefs Association, the Delaware State Fire Chiefs Association and the Del-Mar- Va Volunteer Firemen's Association. In addition to his work with the fire department, Joe was successful in other pursuits. As a young man, he distinguished himself athletically as a member of the 1962 Blue-Gold All Star Football team. A lifetime farmer, Joe also worked as a telephone lineman for Diamond State and later Bell Atlantic, where he received the company's Spirit of Excellence Award. Mr. Speaker, in closing, Joseph Evans heroically gave his life in the service of others. This dedication, which is typical of firemen throughout the United States, is a testament to his courage and selflessness. I join my colleagues in remembering Joe's contributions and offer my sincerest sympathy to both his family and his colleagues at the Bridgeville Volunteer Fire Company.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment to restore funding for Amtrak. I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio's work on this effort, and I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), the subcommittee chairman for his willingness to work with Members on this extremely important issue. While I agree that reform is necessary, the administration's goal of ending Federal support for passenger rail is at best half-baked. Unlike aviation highways and transit, there is no dedicated fund for investing in passenger rail development. Although these other modes rely on user fees for a great deal of their funding, they still receive a large amount from the General Fund. In addition, these other modes all operate on predominantly Federally owned or Federally assisted infrastructure and rely largely on government supported security, research and traffic controllers. Despite the fact that passenger rail has proven to be such an easy security target in other parts of the world, the TSA's fiscal year 2005 appropriation included only about $12 million for passenger rail, compared to the $4.32 billion that was allocated for aviation security, close to half of which comes from the General Fund, not aviation security user fees. While the TSA is currently spending $16 million a year on new uniforms for airport screeners, passenger rail relies on a total force of 342 Amtrak officers to protect 25 million yearly passengers traveling on 22,000 miles of track in 46 States. When you consider the fact that 20 percent of all Americans live in the northeast, and approximately 1,700 commuter trains travel the northeast corridor every day, we need to seriously consider the amount of congestion and overcrowding that would occur if these trains stopped running. Passenger rail can be extremely effective in relieving congestion, cutting pollution and lowering our demand for oil while creating jobs and increasing security. We have barely scratched the surface of passenger rail's potential, and a commitment from Congress to improving the viability of this system would lead to greatly expanded possibilities. The facts are clear. Amtrak needs Federal support to survive just like highways, ports and airlines. America is a world leader in all other modes of transportation. When it comes to rail, we are quickly falling behind. Mr. Chairman, many Americans depend on Amtrak for both business and pleasure. Instead of bankrupting the organization, we should work together to improve passenger rail. Pass this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment to restore funding for Amtrak. I appreciate Mr. LaTourette's work on this effort and I thank the Subcommittee Chairman for his willingness to work with Members on this extremely important matter. The $550 million provided by the subcommittee is $650 million less than the funds appropriated for passenger rail in FY05. Based on the bill's instructions, Amtrak may use the funds to operate the North-East Corridor and short-distance trains, but will be prohibited from using funds to operate its 15 long-distance trains and 3 shorter distance routes. However, when you take into account Amtrak's considerable mandatory debt payments and the severance expenses that would result from shutting down these routes, there is a significant question as to whether anything would be left for operating expenses in the North- East. While I strongly agree that reform is necessary, the Administration's goal of ending Federal support for passenger rail is at best half- baked. Unlike aviation, highways, and transit, there is no dedicated fund for investing in passenger rail development. Although these other modes rely on user fees for a great deal of their funding, they still receive a large amount from the general fund. In addition, these other modes all operate on predominantly federally owned or federally assisted infrastructure, and rely largely on government-supported security, research, and traffic controllers. Despite the fact that passenger rail has proven to be such an easy target in other parts of the world, the TSA's fiscal year 2005 appropriation of $5.15 billion included only about $12 million for passenger rail--compared to the $4.32 billion that was allocated for aviation security, roughly half of which comes out of the general fund--not aviation security user fees. While the TSA is currently spending $16 million a year on new uniforms for airport screeners, passenger rail relies on a total force of 342 Amtrak officers to protect 25 million yearly passengers traveling on 22,000 miles of track in 46 states. When you consider the fact that 20 percent of all Americans live in the North-East and approximately 1,700 commuter trains travel the Northeast Corridor every day, we need to seriously consider the amount of congestion and overcrowding that would occur if these trains stopped running. I-95 is already clogged and lines at airports are increasing. If this plan goes through, millions of travelers would be added to this already extremely congested transportation system. The facts are clear; Amtrak needs Federal support to survive, just like highways, ports, and airlines. America is a world leader in all other modes of transportation. When it comes to rail, we are quickly falling behind. I tend to believe that any successful plan to fix passenger rail will require vision and truly bipartisan collaboration. We need the foresight to ensure the survival of this system by improving the safety and efficiency of passenger rail. Putting Amtrak on the chopping block directly contradicts this goal. Dozens of reform proposals exist without jeopardizing the viability of Amtrak and they should be openly debated in Congress. Mr. Chairman, many Americans, including thousands in my State, depend on Amtrak for both business and pleasure. Instead of bankrupting the organization, we should work together to improve Amtrak. The Department of Transportation's Inspector General estimates that Amtrak needs at least $1.4 billion to survive and the Amtrak Board recently put forward a strategic reform initiative that requires $1.82 billion to make important improvements to the system. The funding included in this amendment would simply allow passenger rail to squeeze by in the short-term and provide Americans with effective transportation options. Passenger rail can be extremely effective in relieving congestion, cutting pollution, and lowering our demand for oil while creating jobs and increasing security. We have barely scratched the surface of passenger rail's potential, and a commitment from Congress to improving the viability of this system could lead to greatly expanded possibilities. Reform will take time and require cooperation. I know many of my colleagues, and the Chairman of the Rail Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, join me in my commitment to defining an appropriate reform strategy. In the meantime, supporting this amendment can help to sustain Amtrak for millions of Americans.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay tribute to the newly elected President General of the National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution (SAR), Roland G. Downing, Ph.D. Following in the footsteps of Howard F. Horne, Dr. Downing is the second Delawarean to lead the SAR in the past 5 years. While growing up in Nashville, Tennessee, Roland was active inside and outside of the classroom, attaining the rank of Eagle Scout, playing for his high school football team, and serving as the President of the student body. This commitment to excellence would continue at Vanderbilt University, where Roland earned a degree in organic chemistry. After graduation, Roland would embark on a successful career with the Delaware-based DuPont Company, culminating in a 38-year tenure as Research Manager, Product Manager and Market Development Manager. During this time, Roland would take a brief hiatus to further his education, earning a PhD in organic chemistry. In addition to being a successful scientist, Dr. Downing served in the United States Naval Reserve for over 20 years, including a 3-year deployment at sea during the Korean War. Prior to his election as President General, Dr. Downing held numerous other positions within the SAR, including: Secretary General, Treasurer General, Historian General, Regional Vice-President, and membership on the Executive Committee. Joining him in celebrating this new position are his lovely wife Norma, a son, two daughters, and eight grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I congratulate the SAR on their exceptional choice of Dr. Roland G. Downing as President General. He is an exemplary citizen, devoted family man, and most of all, a proud American.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of this important legislation, and I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) for working on this bill for the past several months. He has worked extraordinarily hard on it and deserves a lot of credit. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, he is a fierce defender of our environmental resources, and specifically the Delaware River; and we all appreciate it in that neck of the woods. I do share his goal of protecting the viability of the Delaware River as a valued environmental resource, and I also believe that the commerce channel is a top priority for the surrounding States. Last November, a tragic oil spill, which has been referred to by the previous speakers, in the Delaware River set off a course of events which has led to the important legislation here before us today, the Delaware River Protection Act. Beginning with a congressional hearing in January, it has been a top priority to not only address the cleanup of the oil spill but how we can look to the future. One clear outcome is prevention, working together as a region to learn from this accident. The gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman LoBiondo) has worked hard to draft legislation that I believe will make a real difference in protecting the Delaware River from another spill and in protecting the Delaware River as a valued natural resource. I support the bill, which will establish the Delaware River and Bay Oil Spill Advisory Committee. A regional committee will be paramount to addressing issues facing the Delaware River, both environmental and industrial, and will serve as a sounding board for issues concerning the Delaware River. Some of the committee's responsibilities will include developing recommendations for Congress on the prevention of and response to future oil spills on the Delaware River and bay; reporting to Congress regarding important issues affecting the health of the Delaware River, while ensuring that there is a balanced approach to the issues. The committee will be made up of appointed experts in many different areas, from the operators of oil refineries to environmental advocates. As a result, this committee will be able to examine the breadth of issues facing the river. The recommendations need not be unanimous, allowing representation of transparent and likely divergent viewpoints. In the coming years, our States will face numerous proposed industrial and government activities that have potential safety, environmental, and economic consequences. This bill will help our region to be prepared and assure that important steps are taken to preserve the Delaware River. Again, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) and the others who worked on this, and I sincerely encourage my colleagues' support for this legislation. I hope that, with the cooperation of the Senate, this will become law shortly to protect the Delaware River.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. James (Jim) H. Gilliam, Sr., the founder and first chairman of the board of directors of the Metropolitan Wilmington Urban League. After a 13-year career with the Housing Authority of Baltimore City, Maryland, Jim came to Delaware in 1965 to serve as the Director of Neighborhood and Housing Services for the Greater Wilmington Development Council. Jim's determination soon lead him to become the Director of New Castle County's Department of Community Development and Housing, where he would serve with distinction until his retirement in March 1990. Regardless of retirement, he had much left to accomplish. In 1999, with one million dollars in start-up funds and the assistance of more than 70 community and business leaders, Jim formed the Metropolitan Wilmington Urban League. In only nine-months, the Wilmington chapter of the National Urban League was formed; the fastest an affiliate has ever been organized. The formation of this wonderful organization was only the beginning of Jim Gilliam's many successes at the Urban League. The Metropolitan Wilmington Urban League envisions a community where African Americans and other people of color from a wide array of income levels, backgrounds and experiences directly benefit from and contribute to a multi-racial alliance that is committed to principled advocacy, action-oriented public policy research and the coordination of public, private, and non-profit resources. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to once again commend Mr. James Gilliam. Under his skilled leadership, the Metropolitan Wilmington Urban League has been a tremendously successful community organization, and I have no doubt he will maintain the organization's commitment to excellence.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to honor and pay tribute to Reese Edward Phillips of Milford, Delaware. Known to his family and friends as ``Pappy,'' Mr. Phillips was born in Zion Grove, Pennsylvania on May 5th, 1916. Mr. Phillips was a deeply patriotic man who went to great lengths to defend our freedom. A proud veteran of the United States Air Force, his 32-year career in the military spanned both World War II and the Korean War. Although he retired from the service in 1972, Mr. Phillips would continue his unwavering devotion to our Nation's veterans for the rest of his life. Mr. Phillips was instrumental in the planning and development of countless projects for Delaware's veterans, including the Delaware Veterans Cemeteries located in Bear and Millsboro, the state's first veterans home, and the establishment of the Governor's Veterans Advisory Council, known today as the Delaware Commission of Veterans Affairs. Mr. Phillips would serve with distinction on the Commission from its creation until his recent passing, a period that included tenure as Chairman from 1991-1992. In addition to these projects, Mr. Phillips was actively involved in other community organizations, including membership in the Walter L. Fox Post #2 in Dover, the Disabled American Veterans Department of Delaware, and the Calvary United Methodist Church in Milford. Mr. Speaker, in closing, Reese Edward Phillips was a persistent man whose community involvement greatly benefited the entire state of Delaware. Those of us with the good fortune to know Mr. Phillips were touched by his kindness and caring. While he is greatly missed by his family and friends, ``Pappy'' will always be remembered for the work he has done on behalf of the veterans of our great Nation.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise with great respect for both the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) in this. While we can all agree that our country, as the biggest contributor to the U.N., must help the organization become more efficient and effective, the Lantos-Shays substitute finds a compromise that I think reflects where the majority of Americans come down on this issue. The Gingrich-Mitchell task force takes serious issue with much of the damaging policies that have occurred at the U.N., but it refrains from calling for mandatory withholding of dues. President Bush has also signaled his opposition to many of these provisions, which may hinder our Ambassador's dealings with the organization. Under the Lantos-Shays substitute, we can send the same message to the international community without undermining our efforts to promote democracy and protect those in need. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lantos/Shays substitute. Chairman Hyde has been an indispensable Member of this body for many years, and I commend you for bringing this important debate before us. While I strongly agree with Chairman Hyde, that serious and fundamental problems exist at the United Nations, I prefer the President's approach of continuing to pursue negotiations for reform through diplomatic means. Regardless of preference for this bill, we can all agree that the U.N. and the international community should hear our outrage for the mismanagement of what is meant to be an example of unity and peace. I commend the Chairman and the full committee for trying to improve the accountability of those at the U.N. and hope this debate will trigger reforms in the functioning of this embattled, yet well-meaning organization. The Lantos-Shays substitute reflects the significant reforms outlined in the Chairman's bill. However, it makes an all important distinction in rightly leaving the Secretary of State with the discretion to decide when, and if, the ultimatums are a hindrance to our national interests. Alternatively, automatically withholding funds may derail our international and global commitments and could have a devastating impact on poor nations around the world. While we can all agree that our country, as the biggest contributor to the U.N., must help the organization become more efficient and effective, the Lantos-Shays substitute finds a compromise that I think reflects where the majority of Americans come down on this issue. The Gingrich-Mitchell task force takes serious issue with much of the damaging policies that have occurred at the U.N., but it refrains from calling for mandatory withholding of dues. President Bush has also signaled his opposition to many of these provisions, which may hinder our Ambassador's dealings with the organization. Under the Lantos-Shays substitute, we can send the same message to the international community without undermining our efforts to promote democracy and protect those in need.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

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

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman physician from the State of Michigan (Mr. Schwarz).

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. CASTLE. 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 cannot 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 hasn'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.

Mr. CASTLE. 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.

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

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

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis). (Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Hampshire.

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

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the chairman of the Committee on Science.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad).

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I just left a press conference; and four of the speakers there spoke about their diseases, none of which could be cured by adult stem cell research: a form of cancer, Parkinson's, juvenile diabetes, and a person who is a paraplegic. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that every single one of us has many constituents who have been to our offices over the years who have had these problems and have come to our offices for help. This is not the time to allow bad science or ideology to get in the way of doing what is right for the people of this country and of the world. There are 110 million people in the United States of America who potentially could be helped by embryonic stem cell research. I have just been going through what some of the experts have said. One said: ``Umbilical cord and embryonic stem cells are not in any way interchangeable,'' David Scadden, co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute. 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.'' ``The bottom line, as far as I'm concerned, is we just don't know at this point what each can do, and we ought to be investigating both,'' Dr. Joanne Kutzberg at Duke University. One expert after another has said that there is tremendous potential there. Let us not let it go to waste. Vote ``yes'' on both of these bills.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. 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.