Tom DeLay

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, as far as campaign finance reform legislation, we have no plans right now to consider any legislation. As far as the Central America Free Trade Agreement, the President has not transmitted any proposed agreement so we will not make any decisions about scheduling until he does.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DeLAY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. The gentleman is correct in saying that this gentleman is very interested in getting the Ethics Committee up and running. It is for the good of the institution. I do not agree with the gentleman in his assessment of the rules, because the rules also provide for other alternatives other than what he suggested. I have to say that I think it is unfortunate that some--no one that serves on the committee am I saying this about--that some would use the Ethics Committee for political purposes. I think it is unfortunate. I think that the Democrats that serve on the Ethics Committee and the Republicans that serve on the Ethics Committee are more than capable of coming to some resolution. The gentleman assumes and suggests that the leadership ought to get involved in it. I think the problem is that the leadership has gotten involved in it. In the 20 years I have been here, the tradition of this institution to maintain the integrity of the Ethics Committee is that leadership should not be involved in these matters at the Ethics Committee level; that the Ethics Committee is a bipartisan committee set up to function as a bipartisan committee, and when leaders start dictating to the members on that committee, it undermines the credibility of that committee. I would hope that the members of the committee could look at alternatives, and there have been alternatives suggested and allowed by the rules. For instance, if they can come to no resolution of one single director, you can have codirectors, allowed by the House rules. The ranking member can have a director hired by him, and the chairman can have a director hired by him, and the committee can function on the staff level as the committee is set up to function on the Members level. I think the involvement of either leaders on both sides of the aisle should encourage, publicly or privately, for the members of the committee to work this out and not be involved in the decision-making, nor the discussion, nor negotiations. The leaders should stay out of it. I would hope that the Ethics Committee would come together and work together and function so that issues before this House protecting the integrity of this House and the credibility of this House as an institution can go forward.

Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will yield, I do not agree with anything he said, and I appreciate it.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, it has been 140 years now since the United States finally severed its ties with the ancient inhumanity of slavery. At the end of a great civil war--a war fought over slavery and won to eradicate the ``curious institution''--600,000 Americans were dead, but 4 million were freed. The last of those 4 million were freed 140 years ago Sunday, June 19th, 1865, in Galveston, Texas--by a man named Gordon Granger. On his arrival in Galveston, Major General Granger of the United States Army, issued General Order Number Three to the people of Texas, informing them of the end of the war and the emancipation of slaves. As he read the words of President Lincoln's self-consciously legalistic Emancipation Proclamation, the world changed in front of him: ``This [order] involves an absolute equality of rights and rights of property between former masters and slaves, and the connection heretofore existing between them becomes that between employer and free laborer.'' The United States, the first nation in history ``conceived in liberty and founded on the proposition that all men are created equal,'' was, at long last, fulfilling that conception and proposition for the millions of African-Americans whose freedom had theretofore been denied. Juneteenth, then, is not merely a celebration for African-Americans, or for Texans--it is a celebration for all men in all times. It should instead be a celebration of humanity itself, and of the human race's universal yearning to be free. How many Americans--black and white--joined in arms decades after emancipation, to pass along the gift of human freedom to the continent of Europe in World War II? How many more risked and gave their lives together in the Cold War against communist aggression? How many more today are serving together to bring a new emancipation to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, who for too long have suffered under slave-like conditions at the hands of their oppressors? The answer? As many as it takes. Americans of all races today are joined in our hope for the freedom of all mankind, and will stand united against any enemy who would deny any people their human rights. Juneteenth, then, is a reminder not simply of the great freedom won 140 years ago, but of the great freedom to be secured in the coming years, around the world.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, there was a time 60 years ago, at the end of the war that took the lives of 30 million people, when the ancient sin of anti- Semitism seemed finally to have exhausted its appeal, even among the most hateful of men. When it was hoped, at long last, that Jews could take their place among the other free peoples of the world, that they could rise from their unique experience in that war, live their lives and pursue their happiness free from the genocidal evil that haunted our race. In the decades since, however, that hope has been ignored, undermined, and even attacked by two generations of U.N. bureaucrats and diplomats who remind one of Yeats's observation: ``The best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate intensity.'' The best, in this case, is the world's effete, elite diplomatic corps, among whom anti-Semitism is considered a harmless amusement, like smoking or bribery. The worst, on the other hand, Mr. Chairman, are the leaders and legitimizers of a bloody cult, bent not only on the destruction of Israel but on the slaughter of the Jewish people. Either in the interests of consensus or for more malicious ends, the institutions of the United Nations have become infected by a relentless hostility to Israel, Zionism, and Jews themselves. The U.N., which could not bring itself to offer even the mildest rebuke to the aggressors in three wars aimed at Israel's destruction or even against the campaigns of terror waged against Israeli civilians, has littered Lower Manhattan with its countless condemnations of Israel's self- defense. The U.N., whose charter calls on all nations to ``practice tolerance and live together in peace,'' for 2 decades declared that ``Zionism is a form of racism.'' The U.N. General Assembly has hosted countless forums for slander against Jews, like the charge that Israel had injected Palestinian children with the HIV virus, that contain no mention of the deceitfulness of the attacks. In too many parts of the world, Mr. Chairman, including those parts which should be most sensitive to unchecked anti-Semitism, the U.N.'s tolerance of such hostility is dismissed as diplomatic necessity. It is, instead, diplomatic terrorism. Hatred of Jews, unchecked, begets violence against Jews; and violence against any race of people ultimately leads to violence against all races of people. The United Nations should know better than to allow its institutions to be poisoned by hatred. Hopefully, this amendment by the gentleman from Ohio will help the U.N. learn that valuable lesson.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his longstanding leadership on issues related to the United Nations and human freedom. No one has greater respect for him in this body than I do. But in this case, Mr. Chairman, I think and I believe that the Lantos substitute just falls a little short. Six decades ago, the United Nations was formed to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war; to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small; and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained; and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom. These words, from the preamble of the United Nations' historic Charter, today hover over that institution not as a symbol of its founding mission, but as a reminder of its abject failure. Far from saving future generations from the scourge of war, the United Nations' history of hand-wringing, appeasement, and moral equivalence has exacerbated the scourge of war. Far from reaffirming faith and fundamental rights and the dignity of the human person, the United Nations has overseen the degradation of human rights even of vulnerable human beings in its own care through routine abuses of power, corruption, and even horrific sexual exploitation of peoples at the hands of U.N. peacekeepers. Far from reaffirming faith in the equal rights of nations large and small, the U.N. has instead adopted an institutional posture favoring belligerent tyrannies at the expense of freedom-loving democracies, standing with Palestinian terrorists against Israeli families, standing with Saddam Hussein against the civilized world, and too often standing with anyone against the United States of America. Far from promoting justice and respect for international law, the United Nations has become one of the world's greatest apologists for tyranny and terror where justice is merely one point of view; a place where Sudan and Syria and Castro's Cuba are given a soap-box on which to lecture the free world on human rights; a place where international lawyers scheme to haul American soldiers before a rogue court, irrespective of constitutional rights; a place where an international humanitarian mission to feed and heal the Iraqi people resulted in $10 billion in siphoned bribes and kickbacks. And far from promoting social progress and the better standards of life in larger freedom, the United Nations has become a hindrance to both progress and freedom. Just ask the besieged citizens of Israel whose every gesture of goodwill has been returned by violence from their enemies and condemnation from the U.N. Diplomatic pretenses aside, Mr. Chairman, corruption has infected the United Nations. And yet given its organizational structure, how could it be otherwise? There is no independent financial oversight. There are no standards of transparency. Most U.N. divisions are exempt from democratic accountability. And most U.N. leaders are protected from the law by diplomatic immunity. The rampant corruption that today infects the United Nations is not a function of its personnel. Not really. It is a function of its structure. That is what we get, Mr. Chairman, from an organization driven by consensus instead of principle. And as long as tyrants and terrorists get as much say in policymaking as democratically elected leaders, the U.N. will continue to betray its charter and betray the billions of people on this planet who look to it for hope. This substitute essentially agrees with that conclusion. It just does not do enough about it. But what more do we need to hear, Mr. Chairman? The U.N.'s corruption is so breathtaking in its scope as to be almost universal: peacekeepers raping women that they are sent to protect; sexual exploitation of children at the hands of their humanitarian relief workers; institutional anti-Semitism so brazen that Yasser Arafat was considered a moderate; $10 billion, $10 billion, stolen from sick and starving children in Iraq; bribery, embezzlement, misappropriation of funds, and conflicts of interests so extensive that the financial management of many of the U.N. agencies resembles that of a second-rate kleptocracy. What further evidence could we possibly need? The pervasive corruption at the U.N. is not a problem; it is a crisis. No one denies this. And in response to the overwhelming evidencing, the Democrat substitute says the reforms in the underlying bill should happen. But, Mr. Chairman, it is not enough to say that these reforms should happen. They must happen. And they must happen right now. We should not be asking the U.N.'s leaders to make these reforms. We need to tell them. The philosophy of flexibility and appeasement create loopholes that diplomats drive huge trucks through. And if they were serious about giving the administration flexibility, why did they not give it to the President instead of the Secretary of State? The President leads foreign policy in this country, not the Secretary of State. The American people are today underwriting rampant corruption, 22 percent of it to be precise, and it needs to stop. Today the Congress must take this stand and clearly voice not simply our frustration but our expectation of concrete reform. We must act, Mr. Chairman. And as he has so many times in his decades with us, the gentleman from Illinois has shown us the way. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has brought before this House a comprehensive, almost exhaustive, package of reform that, if enacted, will finally bring the United Nations under some semblance of control. If and when these reforms are enacted, Mr. Chairman, the world will be safer and stronger. The American people will be assured their money is being well spent, and the United Nations charter to prevent wars, protect human rights, and advance the cause of human freedom will be reaffirmed. And every man, woman, and child on this planet will owe a great debt of gratitude to Henry J. Hyde. I just ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Democratic substitute. Vote ``yes'' on the Hyde reform bill, and let us put the United Nations back on track to fulfill its promise to the human race.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that debate on the resolution noticed by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) be limited to 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of the Kline amendment and thank the gentleman from Minnesota for offering it today. No one in this body knows better than the gentleman from Minnesota the paramount and absolute need to protect, with every tool at our disposal, our men and women in uniform. The gentleman from Minnesota's amendment today does just that by expressly stating in this long overdue United Nations reform package that all of the reforms we will pass augment, and in no way change, the Federal law that exempts our troops from prosecution in the International Criminal Court. The ICC is a threat not only to the sovereignty of the United States and to the constitutional rights of American citizens; it is an overreaching distortion of the United Nations charter and its mission. The ICC would, in effect, disregard not only Federal and State law but also the Uniform Code of Military Conduct, thereby establishing a rogue court in which foreign judges can indict, try, and convict American troops for broadly defined and openly interpreted crimes, all without any of the fundamental legal rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. The ICC, then, represents a clear and present danger to the ultimate success of the civilized world's war on terror and an affront to both our troops and the Nation they serve. When we ask American men and women to risk their lives around the world to defend our freedom, the least we can do is promise them they will not be hauled before an unaccountable, politically motivated court just for doing their job. The United States is not a party to the ICC and has even taken the unprecedented step of ``unsigning'' the treaty to clarify that point. We do not cooperate in any of its proceedings or pretenses, and we do not recognize its authority over any action undertaken by a single citizen of this Nation. The ICC is a product of the worst excesses of the undemocratic mindset that has so permeated the United Nations and distorted its true purpose. The United Nations' mission is to protect and promote human rights around the globe, to exhort with clarity and courage the principles of justice and liberty to those who would seek to oppress them. The ICC, on the contrary, could be an instrument of undemocratic score-settling, a shadowy kangaroo court in which despots and their diplomats can humiliate and even imprison the men and women who have the courage to do the work the U.N. refuses to do. I urge our colleagues to vote for the Kline amendment and reiterate America's commitment to our troops, our national sovereignty, and the hard work of human freedom.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the resolution.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, for all the good intentions of its author and proponents of this amendment, it is just bad policy. It operates under the notion that in a postal system packages are delivered on time, they are unopened, and at no undue cost to the addressee. But the postal service in Fidel Castro's Cuba does not operate like the postal service in the hometown of the gentleman from Arizona. Instead, all the packages, most of which are from family members trying to help their relatives struggling to survive in Castro's command economy, are immediately seized by the state and held essentially as the personal property of the Maximum Leader in a central depository somewhere in Havana. This really happens. The packages are opened, they are rummaged through, and they are pilfered, after which, in the best-case scenario, the addressee is called and told how much of a service charge it will cost them to get their parcel. That is what happens in a Communist country with a dictator. Every dime of goods contained in those packages, what is left in them after they are rifled through, is a dime Castro's regime does not have to spend on services for his people and, therefore, a dime he can spend on another torture chamber, a few more secret police officers, or a deposit in his Swiss bank account. The only suffering or hardship that this amendment would erase is Fidel Castro's. He is a murderer, and he is a thief. His government is a thugocracy, and his postal service, if you can call it that, is a profit center for a massive criminal enterprise of oppression and terror. Resources that make their way into Cuba, whatever their origin, whatever the original intent of their transmission, have only one purpose, one purpose: To enrich, entrench, and empower a regime that has kidnapped, imprisoned, and murdered 100,000-plus Cuban citizens over the last 45 years. The Bush administration has rightly concluded that the only good Cuba policy is one that expedites the collapse of the Castro regime. To loosen the administration's rules would be to reward Castro for his recent brutal crackdown on democratic dissidents, dozens of whom remain in his prisons. To loosen the rules would send a signal, a signal, words have consequences when we speak them on this floor, and if this amendment passes loosening these rules, it would send a signal to those brave, peaceful dissidents and their families that the United States has tired of the struggle against totalitarianism. Mr. Chairman, we cannot send such a signal. We cannot reward this tyrant and his terrorist state. We cannot allow this amendment to become law. We must stand with the Cuban people, stand with the Cuban people in their struggle against Castro and deny him the opportunity to exploit American generosity. Vote for the Cuban people. Vote against Castro's regime. Vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, Thursday on the floor the House will take up the United Nations Reform Act of 2005. This is a comprehensive, indeed almost exhaustive, reform package aimed at the longstanding inefficiencies, inadequacies, and abuses at the U.N. For all the frustration many Americans feel about the United Nations, the U.N., for all its faults, it remains the most established and immediately available forum for resolving international disputes and developing international consensus on a wide range of issues. That said, most of the stated aims of the U.N.'s bureaucracy, to say nothing of the lofty ideal of its charter, have been undermined and in many cases brazenly contradicted by decades of waste, fraud, and abuse. In the wake of the massive Oil-for-Food scandal still ripping through the U.N.'s headquarters, the American people, who currently provide 22 percent of the U.N.'s budget, can no longer trust that their dues payments are being responsibly spent. The U.N., for all its strengths, should not be blindly trusted. The clarity and transparency that defines democratic governments and institutions is nowhere to be seen in the U.N.'s financial management, or for that matter its human rights commission, its peculiar dislike for the State of Israel, its docile attitude towards the oppressive regimes, its hand-wringing and indecisiveness in times of crisis, and its anti-American policymaking apparatus. The reform bill we will take up this week, the product of intense work by International Relations Chairman Henry Hyde will start to address these and other institutional shortcomings at the United Nations. It would, most importantly, call for weighted voting on budgetary matters, so that in the future the United States has more say in the U.N.'s budget than the representatives of Syria. It would make the funding of certain inefficient programs voluntary, so that contributing nations will get more verifiable value for their contributions. It would also finally cut back on the U.N.'s lavish international conference budget, which, hard as it is to believe, comprises the single largest section of the U.N.'s budget. In addition, the Hyde bill will put in place human rights requirements that nations must meet before they may have a say in the U.N.'s human rights organizations. On and on the list of reforms goes, all of which will be enforced by the promise in the Hyde bill that the U.N.'s failure to reform will trigger a withholding of 50 percent of the United States dues. These necessary reforms and the necessary stick behind them are long overdue, Mr. Speaker, and may finally help create the United Nations the world has needed all along.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman and ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for bringing this bill to the floor, and I also want to commend the full Committee on Appropriations for doing outstanding work in bringing all of these bills to the floor in a timely manner. Mr. Chairman, I am here to talk about a potential amendment that may come to this bill, and I ask the question: How much is life worth? This may seem to be a more philosophical question than one normally hears in a debate about an amendment to an appropriations bill, but I do not mean it philosophically; I mean it literally. Later today the gentleman from Wisconsin will offer an amendment that would take $200 million away from NASA and spend it instead on the undeniable, useful purpose of local law enforcement. Yet, Mr. Chairman, the amendment in no way alters the fundamental mission or programmatic activities at NASA. That is, under the Obey amendment, the United States would still order our best scientists and engineers to send our bravest astronauts back into space; we just demand that they cut a few corners along the way. This is scientifically and morally unacceptable, Mr. Chairman. If the gentleman from Wisconsin or anyone else wants to have a debate about the wisdom of the American people's investment in space exploration, we can have that debate. You can bring out a bunch of flow charts about the deficit and all the noble government aspirations that are currently underfunded. And I could read a list of people around the world whose lives have been saved and whose livelihoods depend on technologies developed over the last 4 decades by America's space program: the MRI machine, the portable x-ray, the automatic insulin pump, rocketry, satellite technology, touch tone phones, cellular telephony. Which of these innovations, all directly attributable to our decades- long commitment to space exploration, might our society have missed out on over the last 40 years if along the way we asked NASA to cut a few corners here and there? What future technological breakthroughs will we miss out on in the next 40 years if we start cutting back on NASA now? That is an important debate, Mr. Chairman, and one that I relish the opportunity to have. But that is not what this amendment is about. This is not about scaling back our space program, but scaling back our commitment to the men and women who risk their lives for it. If the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) wants us to turn our backs on space and surrender mankind's ancient struggle against ignorance, so be it. But as long as we are sending American citizens into space, we have a moral obligation to provide NASA's engineers every resource they require to bring our astronauts home safe. If Members do not want our astronauts to return to flight, return to the Moon, complete the international space station or go to Mars, let them say so. But if we do support our space program, if we do support our NASA community, and if we do support our astronauts and we risk their lives by sending them into the unknown on the cheap, Mr. Chairman, we will never be forgiven. I would ask Members to pay attention to the amendments that are offered to this bill and most importantly, vote ``no'' on the Obey amendment.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Madam Speaker, this week the House will begin its summer session by hitting the ground running. Between now and the August recess, the House will take up several major pieces of legislation that will touch every piece of our national agenda. We will consider bills that will help us continue to fight and win the war on terror. Among these security proposals will be a bill to reform the institution and the programs of the United Nations, to help begin to make it possible for this vital international organization to meet its global responsibilities. We will also reauthorize the PATRIOT Act, the anti-terrorism legislation passed after 9/11 that has provided our law enforcement community with the tools they need to combat the unique threats presented by international terror. We also hope to take up the final conference report on the long- overdue national energy policy that President Bush and the American people have been calling and waiting for since 2000. By reducing our dependence on foreign oil, the energy bill will provide the United States greater flexibility in dealing with the tumultuous Middle East region, and it is a huge jobs-creation bill. The energy bill will also empower our national economy, creating jobs and, over the long run, lowering gas prices for American consumers. The long-awaited conference report on the highway funding bill, which we also hope to take up before the August recess, will improve our national infrastructure, provide greater mobility for the American people, and create millions of new jobs across our country. Just as important to our economy as our infrastructure is international trade, which will be greatly enhanced in every region of our Nation and every sector of our economy by passage of the Central American Free Trade Agreement, another item we hope to have on our summer agenda. CAFTA will lower prices for American consumers while opening vast new markets for American businesses, which in turn will create jobs, good high-paying jobs, here at home. Finally, while we improve our security and bolster our economy, we will serve the pressing interests of individual families by moving a broad agenda to reform our health care system. And all the while, we will continue our work on the President's call to strengthen and improve retirement security for all Americans and complete our work before the Fourth of July on funding the Federal Government within the limits of our budget. All in all, a busy summer of heavy lifting awaits, Madam Speaker, but the American people demand and deserve nothing less.

Mr. DeLAY

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

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I would yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

Mr. DeLAY. 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. I am very honored to yield to him. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), a physician for 25 years in Georgia and a member of the faculty at Emory University. (Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 2 minutes.

Mr. DeLAY. 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, today on the floor of the House, we will momentarily suspend the annual spring appropriations debates to provide a vital and noble service to the American people. We will consider two bills that transcend both party and politics and oblige us to engage in a moral and metaphysical inquiry into the very nature of man. If it sounds a little more sobering and important than the regular goings on around here, well, we can only hope, Mr. Speaker. The first bill to be considered under suspension of the rules, and sponsored by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), would, for the first time, direct Federal funding for research on the stem cells found in umbilical cords of newborn children. Well-developed cord-blood stem cells, unlike stem cells obtained via the destruction of human embryos, have proven valuable in the treatment of disease, 67 of them to be precise, including leukemia and sickle cell anemia. The Smith bill will direct funds for improved research and therapies using these proven cord-blood cells while expanding the existing Federal bone marrow stem cell research program as well. It will pass with bipartisan support because none of its provisions predicate its available funding upon the destruction of human life. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, of the second bill on the calendar today, sponsored by the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the same cannot be said. The Castle bill is both divisive and, to put it bluntly, dismissive of the dignity of human life at its embryonic stage. It has, therefore, incited loud, and in too many cases, harsh, advocacy on both sides of the debate. But even in the midst of vocal unrelenting support for and opposition to the Castle bill, we must recognize that this is one of those issues that has no easy answers. Proponents of the Castle bill, try as they might to find wiggle room, will vote to fund with taxpayer dollars the dismemberment of living distinct human beings for the purposes of medical experimentation. And those who oppose the bill, as I do, will do nothing less than to block Federal funding for what could, in theory at least, represent a potential advance in scientific inquiry. Given the lack of nuance of our political and media culture, Congress is unfortunately facing a perceived choice between supporting on the one hand children unlucky enough to be born with debilitating diseases, and on the other, children unlucky enough to be unwanted by the clinic customers who had them created in the first place. Talk show rhetoric notwithstanding, Mr. Speaker, there are no easy choices. This is not a debate between science and ideology, as some would have us believe, nor is it a debate between those who care about human life and those who do not. No one in this body is unmoved by the plight of diseased victims. We have friends and family members among them. Nor is anyone insensitive to the ethical ramifications of a medical practice that purports to save some lives by destroying others. But, after all, that is why we were elected: not to make the easy choices, but to make the hard ones. We will argue one of those choices today, and I urge everyone on both sides of the issues to do so with vigor and with respect. Our decision today, quite literally a matter of life and death, is a necessary and important step in our national conversation about the kind of people we will be in a world of ever more promising and ever more unnerving medical technologies. Lives will be changed, and perhaps ended, because of the path that we choose today. Today's debate will be our privilege to conduct and witness, Mr. Speaker, and I have every confidence all sides will do so with the respect and compassion this issue deserves.