Diana DeGette

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the top student historians in the State of Colorado. Colorado History Day, an affiliate of National History Day, is a year-long education program that engages students in grades 6-12 in the process of discovery and interpretation of historical topics. Students produce dramatic performances, museum- style exhibits, multimedia documentaries, and research papers based on their own research related to a broad annual theme. Their projects are then evaluated in a series of local and state competitions, culminating in an annual national competition. Nationwide, more than 800,000 students are involved in the National History Day program. More than 4,000 Colorado students participate in History Day activities at the local level each year, and they represent every type of Colorado community, from the cities and suburbs of the Front Range to rural plains towns and mountain communities. At the Colorado History Day State Competition on April 23, 2005, held at the University of Colorado at Boulder, 54 students qualified to represent Colorado at the National History Day competition June 12-16 at the University of Maryland, College Park. This year's National History Day theme, ``Communication in History: The Key to Understanding,'' encompasses endless possibilities for exploration. Students embark on journeys of discovery that teach them about various facets of world, national, regional, and local history as they produce their original research projects. By encouraging young Coloradoans to take advantage of the wealth of primary historical resources available to them, students gain a richer understanding of historical issues, ideas, people, and events. Students in this program learn how to analyze a variety of primary sources such as photographs, letters, diaries, magazines, maps, artifacts, sound recordings, and motion pictures. This significant academic exercise encourages intellectual growth while helping students to develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills that will help them manage and use information, now and in the future. For more than 25 years the National History Day program has promoted systemic educational reform related to the teaching and learning of history in America's schools. The combination of creativity and scholarship built into the NHD program anticipated current educational reforms, making National History Day a leading model of performance-based learning. These impressive students represent educational excellence in America, Every student in Colorado should have the opportunity to participate in this enriching program. These students' teachers also deserve our respect. They are fine examples of the best in the teaching profession. Their encouragement and dedication has encouraged these students to strive for excellence and be successful in their endeavors. The winners from Colorado's First Congressional District are Bryon Christman, Jacob DeCroce, Zander Chanin, Shannon Desmond, Tracy Fielder, Riley Price, Chloe Armao, Nyasha James-Davis, Aura Cruz, Jaqueline A. Meraz, Eboni Coleman, Faryn Tobler, Brigitte Siller, Norah Kissell, Jon Shockness, Akil Lugman, Nick Thorne, Alisha McKenzie, Jake Mundel, Kelsey E. Isberg, Annie Woodward, Ryan Brown, Kara Miller, Sarah Goode, Lila Creighton, Gabe Stein, Avery Colomb, Aaron Bernhardt, Adrian Leanzu, Brian Lays, Meera Rao, Laura King, Kira Newman, Adrienne Russman, David Schneider, John Stanford, Natalie Lays, Christie Collins, Madeleine Winslow, Chelsea Proctor, Cassie Cherry, Elliott Collins, Scott Sigman.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concern that funding for Title VII programs have been cut in this bill. VII programs provide direct financial support for healthcare workforce development and education. It is imperative to provide adequate funding so that well- trained health care providers can continue to meet the needs of the American people. The house showed great leadership last year by providing $300 million in funding, and I believe that any decrease could hamper the programs' ability to train health professionals to care for the neediest populations. The President's budget proposes, for the fifth year in a row, to eliminate many of the programs that educate and train a variety of health care providers, such as pharmacists, dentists and pediatricians. For a number of years now, I have organized Members to express support for this important program, and urged the Appropriators to fully fund it in the Labor-Health and Human Services-Education bill. For the first time this year, the House has failed to restore this funding. These massive cuts will eliminate key programs that make it possible for our health professions schools to develop training infrastructures and high quality education. The Title VII Health Professions programs are also the only federal programs designed to train providers in interdisciplinary settings to respond to the needs of special and underserved populations. The programs have shown to increase minority representation in the health care workforce, which I believe is absolutely essential for our health system. At a time when the American people have come to rely on their health care providers more than ever, eliminating this resource would be devastating to the country's neediest communities.

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, despite its claims to the contrary, the Bush Administration continues to be dishonest with the American people about the situation in Iraq. First, it leads our country into war with Iraq under false pretenses--a war that has already cost more than 1,700 American lives and thousands more Iraqi lives. The Administration then refuses to admit that it does not have a viable plan to win the peace in Iraq and possesses no strategy for a withdrawal of United States troops. And most recently, while the President campaigns as a so-called ``War President,'' he refuses to request funding for military operations in Iraq in his own budget, instead funding it through the emergency appropriations process, a tactic that allows the President to keep the high costs of war out of his budget. Although today Congress has the opportunity to insert some much- needed accountability into the funding process, it will--like it has so many other times--function as a rubber stamp and approve another large funding bill--$45 billion--for Iraq without demanding answers from the Administration. Once this is approved, total funding for the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will reach a mind-boggling $322 billion. And this certainly won't be the last of it. In fact, at current expenditure rates, the $45 billion will only cover the first six months of 2006, which means that Congress will be forced to approve tens of billions more in funding for Iraq in a matter of months. I believe it is critical that our country properly fund the operations in Iraq to ensure that our soldiers in the field have the equipment, munitions and protection they need and the benefits they so rightfully deserve when they return home. The majority of the $45 billion will go directly to support our troops in the form of equipment, body armor, increased pay and improved benefits for them and their families. While I will vote for this $45 billion funding package, I am concerned that the Majority in Congress has once again rebuffed efforts to require the Administration to be honest with the people about the situation in Iraq. To date, despite repeated requests from members of Congress, the Administration refuses to provide any sort of timeline for the withdrawal of United States troops, will not account for much of the current funding to Iraq, and resists coming clean about the full cost of future military efforts in Iraq. At the same time the Administration and the Republican Majority in Congress unabashedly spend billions of dollars in Iraq without question, they make cuts to crucial domestic programs in the name of fiscal responsibility--cuts, which compared to the budget for Iraq, have a negligible impact on our country's deficit. In fact, funding for this misguided war so significantly dwarfs funding for domestic programs that if we were to take just a fraction of this spending package for Iraq, we could fully fund No Child Left Behind, the Small Business Administration loan program, Head Start, Medicaid, and numerous other programs that make a daily difference in the lives of Americans. I find it truly ironic that Congress will spend a good portion of this week discussing the alleged lack of accountability at the United Nations, but refuses to acknowledge the abrogation of all accountability and responsibility that has been allowed to occur for too long in its own backyard--at 16th and Pennsylvania. It is time that the Administration owns up to the situation it has needlessly thrust our country in--it needs to formulate and disseminate a strategy for an eventual U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and must be upfront with Congress and the American people about the future costs of military operations in Iraq.

Ms. DeGETTE

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

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for the purpose of making a unanimous-consent request. (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am intending to reserve the rest of my time for closing.

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

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

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

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished and patient gentleman from California (Mr. Stark). (Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. DeGETTE. 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey). (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), who has been a wonderful help on this bill.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 35 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), and that he be allowed to yield that time.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans).

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

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind). (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. DeGETTE. 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. Mr. Speaker, I am now delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished minority leader.

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

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson). (Mrs. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. 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 cannot 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.