Diana DeGette

Ms. DeGETTE

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

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Georgia holds up a picture of two beautiful little girls and says we would not want to destroy them for research. He absolutely has that right. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I take deep offense at any insinuation that we would kill children for this type of research. The thing to know, H.R. 3 specifically says the only embryos we will allow for this research is embryos created for IVF clinics which are slated to be thrown away, embryos which are never implanted and will never become babies. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California, a member of the committee, Mrs. Capps.

Ms. DeGETTE. No. The gentleman can use his own time.

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

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to motion to recommit.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, this motion does not ban human cloning. It does not ban reproductive cloning. What it is, is a desperate attempt to derail ethical scientific research on embryonic stem cell research, which is unrelated. Not a single person in this House supports reproductive cloning. But again, the motion doesn't ban reproductive cloning. What it does is it says, if you are an entity conducting research on Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer, which is a way to look at these cells, with private dollars, not even with public dollars, you will be prevented from receiving Federal funding for conducting embryonic stem cell research. This will, frankly, tie the hands of some of the preeminent research entities in the world from conducting this life-saving research. The motion is a thinly veiled attempt to define human life in a manner that can have profound implications beyond the issues raised in H.R. 3. It contains vague terms like ``assurances'' and undefined terms such as ``satisfaction of the Secretary.'' What the frank intent of this motion is, is to gut H.R. 3 by strapping it with undefined standards and terms that are extraneous to the bill. The motion is a procedural vote without meaning. It is a ruse, a red herring designed to frighten, to obfuscate and to distract. We all think that banning reproductive cloning is important, and that is why the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee has assured me that he will examine this issue further to see what legislation we can do to protect ourselves. And I will finally say, I do not know of one research institution which would be eligible for Federal funds through the NIH under H.R. 3 that is conducting any experiments or attempts for human reproductive cloning; it is unethical, and our research institutions are not engaged in these efforts. Rather than a sincere attempt to legislate on matters of great importance, this motion is partisan, and it should be defeated. With that, Mr. Speaker, I plan to vote ``no'' on this motion, I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.'' And I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

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

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly 2 years since the House of Representatives passed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act in an attempt to lift the crippling ban on lifesaving research. During those 2 years, a lot has happened. The Senate overwhelmingly passed the bill, President Bush issued the first veto of his 6-year Presidency to kill it, new elections were held, and a rash of new pro-research Members won, in many cases defeating incumbents who oppose this research. Public support has surged for stem cells. Over 71 percent of the public now supports this research, a stunning 20 percent increase since the vote in 2005. There are other developments that have happened in the last 2 years. Great progress in research is being conducted overseas, out of the hands and out of the oversight of our distinguished scientists here at home. Stem cell research is proceeding unfettered and, in some cases, without ethical standards in other countries. And even when these countries have ethical standards, our failures are allowing them to gain the scientific edge over the U.S. In Japan, scientists have used embryonic stem cell therapies to reduce hepatic failure in mice. In the U.K., the government has now committed to spending $1.3 billion on stem cell research in the next 10 years. Singapore is spending $7.5 billion on biomedical research over the next 5 years and is actively courting American stem cell researchers. The first embryonic stem cell line may have been created in the United States, but the majority of new lines are being created overseas. We were once on the cutting edge of this groundbreaking research, but we have now effectively handed over the reins to those outside our borders while our own researchers remain tethered by a restrictive 6-year-old policy and we still have no Federal ethical standards over this research. But there is one thing that has not changed since we last considered this bill. Millions of people in this country and around the world are still stricken by disease, accidents are still leaving people paralyzed, too many people are becoming victims of Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, heart disease, sickle cell anemia, diabetes, and many other debilitating diseases. Cancer hasn't been cured. Some suggest that it is Congress' role to tell researchers what kinds of cells to use, adult stem cells, cord blood, so-called ANT, amniotic, and others. I suggest we are not the arbiters of research. Instead, we should foster all of these methods, and we should adequately fund and have ethical oversight over all ethical stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research has shown the most promise of almost any current research today for potentially curing these and hundreds of other diseases and injuries. The distinguished minority leader is wrong when he says amniotic stem cells are a substitute for embryonic stem cells. The researcher at Wake Forest University in fact says specifically that these cells are not a substitute, and we need to have both types of research, as well as all of the other kinds to have the maximum potential to cure disease. The minority leader said we need to foster the kind of research that has the most promise. And there is the one place we will agree today, because the most promise, all researchers agree, is held by embryonic stem cell research. Well, here we are again, and here we are going to come time after time until this bill passes. This bill will become law, and we will not tire in our efforts until it does for the millions of Americans who suffer from diseases. Mr. President, today, we want to give you another chance to do the right thing. Today, the House will vote to give hope to millions of Americans. I urge my colleagues to vote for life, to vote for hope, to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 3. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am honored now to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) 3 minutes. (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield now 2 minutes to the distinguished new Member from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished new Member from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire) for his maiden floor speech.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, we have heard from several speakers on the other side that allegedly adult stem cells have cured a myriad of diseases. Apparently, the scorecard is now up to 72. In fact, as the researchers have shown, Dr. Shane Smith, William Neaves and Steven Teitelbaum, the opponents say that a myriad of diseases have been cured by adult stem cells, but, in fact, adult stem cell treatments fully tested, fully tested in all required phases of clinical trials, have cured nine conditions, not 65 or 72; and all of those conditions were blood- related conditions. They were not the kinds of conditions that embryonic stem cells have shown promise for and have shown hope for. Embryonic stem cells have only been around for about 8 years, and the President's restrictions have greatly hampered research; but, nonetheless, these cells show great promise. The researchers conclude: ``By promoting the falsehood that adult stem cell treatments are already in general use for 65 or more diseases and injuries, Prentice and those who repeat his claims mislead lay people and cruelly deceive patients.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

Ms. DeGETTE

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

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday next for morning hour debate.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5682, the ``United States and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act of 2006.'' As the world's largest democracy in a strategically important part of the world, India is a critical ally for the United States. Continuing the process of improving our relationship is thus very important. This agreement, H.R. 5682, will help us build a stronger partnership with India by allowing the United States to provide nuclear technology and fuel in order that India may meet its growing energy needs. This agreement also is an improvement over the current situation with respect to India and the threat posed by the spread of nuclear weapons. As a nonsignatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), India is outside the international nuclear nonproliferation scheme. This agreement provides incentives to gain its cooperation because under H.R. 5682 the United States can only provide India nuclear assistance if the President certifies that India is taking certain specific steps to reduce the spread of nuclear weapons. These steps include the provision of a credible plan to separate its civilian and military nuclear programs, an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to apply IAEA safeguards to its civilian nuclear apparatus, and the taking of steps to prevent the export of sensitive nuclear materials or technology. Furthermore, after the President makes the necessary certifications, Congress still has to approve any nuclear supply agreement with India before it can go forward. This provides an opportunity for Congress to make its own independent analysis of the extent to which India has followed through on its commitment to nuclear nonproliferation. I do have some concerns about this legislation. It does not provide as many protections against the proliferation of nuclear weapons as I would have liked. And, I would have preferred that as a condition for aid India would at least have been required to agree to halt or limit its production of fissile material used for nuclear weapons. I will support the amendments offered by Representatives Sherman and Berman which would achieve this later goal. Despite the fact that it is not perfect, H.R. 5682 is a net plus for the United States and the world. This legislation and the resulting nuclear supply agreements with India should improve an important strategic relationship and reduce the likelihood nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of those wish to do us harm, including rogue states and terrorists.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am listed as voting ``yea'' during rollcall vote number 401 on H.R. 5013, the ``Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006,'' when it was before the House of Representatives on Tuesday, July 25, 2006. This is an error. I oppose H.R. 5013 and want it noted that had my intention been properly expressed I would be recorded as having voting ``nay.''

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green). (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), a leader on this issue. (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, of course, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania refers to the South Korea experiment which was not embryonic stem cell research. Rather, it was somatic cell nuclear transfer, not at issue today. And, furthermore, it only points out why we need Federal oversight and ethics in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).