Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute on our side and the proponents' side so the gentleman can conclude his thoughts and we can have our last speaker.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from southwest Georgia (Mr. Bishop), who also represents Muscogee County, Columbus and Fort Benning.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, my friend from Minnesota, not just Representative John Kline, but Colonel John Kline of the United States Marine Corps. Representative Kline, you mentioned a number of great leaders. I consider you among them. It is fitting that we do this during this hour tonight to pay a special tribute to General Peter Pace and General Petraeus, Admiral Fallon and General Odierno, all of those you have mentioned. This is our chain of command. These are the brave men and women that we talk about, as you just referenced, when we go to those service academy days and we look at those youngsters in the 10th or 11th grade and they are with their parents and thinking about a service academy. And I am saying to them, as I am sure my colleagues tonight in this colloquy have done, you say, ``You know, young man, young lady, you could be the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or you can be the Central Commander.'' It is just when you look and you say that, you want to feel that they know that they are going to be respected, and that Members of Congress are not going to denigrate them in a public way. I think that is a very, very disappointing thing that has been occurring, Mr. Speaker. In fact, a Member recently was quoted as saying that this Member felt that General Pace was guilty of dereliction of duty because of his support for the Bush's Iraq policy. Now, President Bush, like him or not, is the Commander in Chief, and if General Pace did not support the Commander in Chief, then that, I think, Colonel Kline, you can explain it better than I can, you talk about a dereliction of duty, but I am proud to be here tonight. I thank the gentleman for giving me a little bit of time. I know we have other Members who are colleagues on the Armed Services Committee. We have already heard from a couple of them who are veterans and who have sons that are serving. I wish I could say that I was a veteran. So I am very proud of my colleagues. I am proud of these leaders of our military. Especially I want to say to General Pace, Mr. Speaker, you know, one of my favorite country songs by Garth Brooks is ``Some of God's Greatest Gifts Are Unanswered Prayers.'' If the General was praying to get reconfirmed as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, maybe this will be God's answer to him: ``General, you have served 40 years. You are a four-star general. You have done a great job for this country, and we salute you.'' Tonight I want to salute General Peter Pace. I yield back to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the exemplary important work of the Cobb County Sheriff's Office. This Georgia agency has been screening County Jail inmates to identify and deport illegal immigrants. This is a hugely important effort. After these criminals serve their time, we need to deport them. Many jailed illegal immigrants are incarcerated for crimes like rape, armed robbery and drug trafficking. We want to do more than simply get these criminals off our streets. We want, Mr. Speaker, to get them out of our country. Six deputies with the Cobb County Sheriff's Office recently underwent specialized training with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to identify illegal immigrants in our jails. Cobb County is the first department in Georgia and indeed one of the first in the Nation to work with ICE on this initiative. They are setting a fine example for communities across America, and our cities will undoubtedly benefit from the widespread adoption of this program. After all, our State and local law enforcement officials are our first responders in the fight against illegal immigration. They play a critical role in stopping criminal aliens from harming our citizens. Here's how this new program works. Local law enforcement officials travel to Herndon, Virginia, to train with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. They get experience in immigration law, criminal law, document examination, alien processing, and cross-cultural communication. These trained deputies then return home to their communities where they work with ICE agents to identify illegal immigrants in local jails by comparing fingerprints with ICE and FBI databases and interviewing prisoners. The program may be new but it is already working. In the Cobb County jail alone, which holds nearly 2,200 inmates, law enforcement officials have identified 63 people of interest to Federal immigration authorities. That is 63 rapists, robbers, and drug lords that we can get off of our streets and out of our country. Mr. Speaker, we know local law enforcement officials are often our front line of defense when it comes to identifying and removing illegal immigrants from our communities. As we look for solutions to the current illegal immigration crisis, we must empower our State and local officials and help them coordinate with Federal agents. And that is why I proudly supported an amendment last week to the Homeland Security appropriations bill. We passed that on the floor to support this new and promising ICE program so that we don't just provide funding to communities located within 100 miles of the southern border; otherwise Cobb County, Georgia won't have qualified. Last summer I examined border security efforts along the United States-Mexican border, and during that trip I observed our Border Patrol agents loading up buses and planes with criminal illegal immigrants being deported back to their home countries. Now Cobb County is playing a vital role in this process, and I am incredibly proud of their efforts. The sheriff's office is helping rid our society of dangerous criminals who have no business being here in the United States. Especially, Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize Cobb County Sheriff Neil Warren, Cobb County Police Chief George Hatfield, and the six Cobb deputies who went through the specialized training: Paul Harrison, Claudia Cross, Marco Cabrera, Olanda Palmer, and Paul Diaz. Their effort to uphold the rule of law is commendable, and I urge more local agencies to consider participating in this critical program. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking the Cobb County sheriff's office for its commitment to getting dangerous, criminal, illegal immigrants out of our community.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Then when we come back from the August recess, he can bundle those all up as a bill or a resolution coming through the Appropriations Committee, having a special rule, hopefully an open rule, bring it to the floor of this House, and then let each and every Member vote those earmarks up or down. And you can have them sectioned off for each of the 11 or 12 appropriation bills. That's the opportunity that we want to give to the new majority, and I hope the leadership will, in consultation with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, a member of almost 40 years of this body, will come to that conclusion, because as one of my colleagues said last night, we don't want to trade in our voting card for a piece of paper and a pen so that we can write a letter. That's taking away the rights of the minority, but even more importantly, Mr. Chairman, it's taking away the rights of the American people. It's unfair. It's not the right thing to do. And I pledge and plead and beg my colleagues in the majority to do the right thing.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Georgia, Representative Johnson from DeKalb County, spoke just a few minutes ago. I have great respect for the gentleman from Georgia, a freshman Member doing a great job in this body. Of course he talked about the underlying bill and what is wrong with the bill. Well, I move to strike the last word in support of the amendment. The gentlelady from Oklahoma, the former lieutenant governor, a long-term lieutenant governor, I think the first ever in the history of the State of Oklahoma, female lieutenant governor, I support her amendment. And I say to the gentleman from Georgia, my good friend, there is nothing wrong with the underlying bill, and possibly he is correct. As the subcommittee chairman has said, there are no earmarks in this Homeland Security bill or traditionally in a Homeland Security bill. But the problem with the bill is it is an increase up to 14 percent in spending on that particular appropriations bill, 7 percent more than what is in the President's budget, what the President called for. So as the gentlewoman from Oklahoma knows with her amendment, it is just one more opportunity to try to bring, as she is doing, to bring fiscal responsibility into the process and say some of these programs, you can pick them apart and name certain ones. We have to have that, but pretty soon, we're talking about $60, $70, $80 billion worth of additional spending that the Democrats are going to bring on the backs of the American taxpayer at the end of this fiscal year, and that's what we're railing against. And I would say that to my good friend from Georgia, the gentleman from DeKalb. But more than that, Mr. Chairman, much more than that, of course, is this issue of earmarks. I talked to a good supporter from my district just recently, in fact this afternoon, and he reminded me of the outrage at our own party, at our Republican Party, and reminded me that we are in the minority because of not being fiscally responsible, fiscally prudent, losing our brand, if you will, not fulfilling the pledges upon which we took office, indeed upon which the President took office 6\1/2\ years ago. Yes, certainly our party is outraged and we get the message, and that's why we are determined to bring fiscal responsibility to the people's House and this issue of earmarks and all of this pork, the Democrats, the Democratic majority got that majority by railing against maybe the sins of my colleagues in regard to earmarks. So this is what really it's all about, not particularly that we're opposed to this specific appropriations bill on homeland security. And I think the subcommittee chairman has done a good job, just as the ranking member has. But Mr. Chairman, let me just say this. Here is what the Democratic majority has an opportunity to do. They can take all of these bills, all of these appropriations bills back to the Rules Committee and bring them to the floor with a closed rule, something that's unprecedented, and I don't think that the majority will do that. I hope they won't do that, but they could. This is the option I would recommend. I recommended it yesterday when I spoke on another amendment. Mr. Obey, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Chairman, has said that he's going to take all of the earmarks that he plans to airdrop in a conference report, where none of the Members will have an opportunity to vote up or down, but he's going to airdrop them, but he is going to shine some sunshine, some daylight, on that by publishing them before the August recess in the Congressional Record; and any Member, they will have an opportunity, maybe over that month, to look at all of those earmarks. And if they don't like them, they can write a letter to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and say, I'm opposed to that particular Member's earmark. And then who makes a decision? One person. He's not God. He's just chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and he makes a decision, well, am I going to airdrop those amendments, yes or no? Well, I want to suggest once again, Mr. Chairman, to Chairman Obey, here is what you can do. All of those earmarks that you publish in that Congressional Record before the August recess, you can bring those back.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I have a privileged motion at the desk.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I have a privileged motion at the desk.

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the Chairman. Mr. Chairman, what I would suggest is that very easily a package of these earmarks, I don't know how many are going to be put in the final conference report; if there are 30,000 earmarks, maybe 15,000 of them in the aggregate in these 11 bills will be published in the Congressional Record and then eventually airdropped in the conference report. Well, it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that a bill or resolution through the Appropriations Committee could come to the floor of this House under an open rule, and let us at that point take each one of those earmarks, maybe specified for each of the 11 appropriations bills, and then have our opportunity to vote up or down. I have been listening to the debate, again, like I said, for a couple or 3 or 4 hours, and nobody has made that suggestion. So I want to try to improve the process, Mr. Chairman, and I want to make that suggestion to the Democratic leadership and to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. It is not too late to do the right thing. We feel like you have done the wrong thing and shut the process down. It is not what the people want, but it is not too late to see the error.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, again, the comments that these are dilatory amendments, the subcommittee chairman from North Carolina saying, well, you want to strike a little bit of change here and there, and you are just trying to slow the process down. In some cases, yes. In some cases, like the amendment that we are discussing right now, the gentlewoman from North Carolina, the gentleman from Washington Mr. Reichert, who is a ranking member on the subcommittee, these are not dilatory amendments. These are important policy amendments. But we are outraged by the policy. And to take my time and make the suggestion of what you can do to correct this, I hope you will take that to heart. I hope the chairman, Mr. Chairman, will take that to heart and give us an opportunity, if not now, at least in August, to vote on these earmarks. That is exactly what you promised the American people, and you need to deliver on that promise.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, point of order.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the second-degree amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) in regard to cutting something like $7.5 million out of this section of the bill. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the subcommittee, spoke a little earlier in the evening and questioned the logic, you know, why that amount. Well, if you do the math and you look at that section, Mr. Chairman, that cut is about 7 percent. That amount reflects the same amount of overspending in this bill. The $2 billion is about 7 percent more than the President requested, and actually a 14.5 to 15 percent overall increase. So I think that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) is absolutely appropriate in asking for a reasonable, fiscally responsible cut in a $120 million spending category. Mr. Chairman, another North Carolinian was heard by me to say this morning, after the chairman of the Appropriations Committee had spoken and said what we are trying to do, what the Republican minority is trying to do is shut down the process. Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Robin Hayes, said was, we're not trying to shut down the process, we are trying to clean up the process. Just a few minutes ago, before the last motion, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee said, and I paraphrase, it is not our fault that the former majority couldn't get their work done in the previous Congress. Well, I would say to him, Mr. Chairman, it is not our fault that the new majority and the Appropriations Committee spent 3\1/2\ months debating an emergency supplemental for funding of our troops with benchmarks and timelines, Mr. Chairman, that would call for the withdrawal of our troops at a date certain, no matter what the situation was. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, there were a number of amendments in that process to bring the troops home immediately and not to give victory a chance. And, Mr. Chairman, it is not our fault that they refused to listen, this new majority, and insisted on milking this process for every ounce of political fodder that they could get out of it, knowing full well that in the final analysis they had a losing proposition. And they did lose that debate before we went home for the Memorial Day recess. So, that is not our fault. So, Mr. Chairman, if the chairman of the Appropriations Committee says, you know, we weren't able to put these earmarks in the appropriations bill under the sunshine and the light of day, as always has been done, because we ran out of time. And, Mr. Chairman, I have heard it said that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee feels very strongly that he wants to get all these bills done before the 4th of July recess to do just as good a job as our distinguished former chairman of the Appropriations Committee Mr. Lewis did last year and the year before that in the 109th Congress. Mr. Chairman, it is not our fault that the new majority wasted 3\1/2\ months and were not able to get these earmarks together in time to put in these bills like they should have done. That's not our fault.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, many of our colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle, and I have been listening to this debate for the last 5 hours, have lamented our efforts to highlight objections to not only this bill, but also the underlying process by which all of the appropriations bills, 11, and then 12 later on, will be brought to the House floor this year. I believe it is crucial that we take this opportunity to register our strong opposition to the process, while I rise in support of the gentlewoman from North Carolina's amendment to cut $1.2 billion out of this homeland security appropriations bill, and that is not a small chunk of change. But it is a process which we believe is neither fair nor open nor in the best interests of the American taxpayer. Late last year the new majority in this House assured the American public that it would bring transparency and openness to the appropriations process and specifically to this practice which we and the general public very well know now, as they campaigned on this issue last fall, the practice of earmarking. At a minimum we believe that this commitment, and I think the American people believe as well, or they wouldn't have gained the majority, that it would equal that of the Republican majority in the last Congress, that the sponsors of earmarks would be identified in the bills themselves, whether they were authorizing bills, appropriations bills, indeed even in narrowly drawn tax bills, so that Members could debate and challenge those earmarks if they were found to be egregious on the House floor. Apparently the Democratic majority has very different definitions of ``transparency'' and ``openness'' than we do and than the American people do that elected them to this new majority. The respected chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin, how long has he been in this body, 39 years? I think he is going on his 20th term. He has been a former member of and chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He is one of the most respected Members, one of the most knowledgeable Members. He clearly knows what he is doing in regard to not putting these earmarks in the appropriations bill, which he knew would be coming to this floor under an open rule so that we could have a free, a fair, an open debate. We would accept some earmarks. They are not all bad. Certainly they are not all bad. But the ones that are egregious, that we should have an opportunity to debate on both sides of the aisle and strike. Now, the chairman has said, well, you know, we are going to go ahead after we finish all these bills, these 11 bills, we are going to publish all of the earmarks that we are considering airdropping in the conference report. They are going to have transparency. They are going to see the light of day, because we are going to put them in the Congressional Record 2 months from now, in August. But that does not give the Members of this body on either side of the aisle an opportunity. Yes, you can see them, and maybe it will remove the opportunity for the Senate to use a point of order to strike some of these amendments that have been airdropped because all of a sudden they have been published in the Congressional Record. That is not the same as having the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, on the floor to debate and to vote up or down some of these egregious earmarks. Now, what I want to suggest in my time remaining, I want to suggest to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, why don't you simply then in August bring a bill?

Mr. GINGREY. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Harlon Crimm, who last week announced his retirement as president of Chattahoochee Technical College. In the past 24 years, Dr. Crimm's contributions to Chattahoochee Tech have been profound. He quadrupled enrollment, making Chattahoochee the largest technical institution in the State of Georgia. He oversaw the college's accreditation by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. He instilled a sense of mission and pride in the institution, helping it gain national prestige. But Harlon has been molding Georgia's young minds for nearly half a century. He began his career as a high school teacher in Mississippi, later becoming the principal of Lockheed Elementary School in Marietta and director of personnel for Marietta City Schools. My four children attended Marietta, and they benefited greatly from their exposure to Dr. Crimm. Now in retirement, Dr. Crimm will be able to spend more time with his wife, Jo Ann, a retired Ph.D. educator, and his children and grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me in thanking Dr. Harlon Crimm for his years of service educating Georgia's young minds. In fact, Dr. Crimm eloquently summed up his own work when he referred to his past 44 years in education not as a job or a career, but as a calling.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. I am in its present form.

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

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, over the past 3 years, we have repeatedly stood on the floor of this House debating whether or not to expand the Federal Government's role in funding embryonic stem cell research. Today I implore my colleagues that, for once in this debate, let the facts speak louder than fiction. Let us all put aside political posturing and debate the impact of this legislation. Let us ensure that the American people hear the truth. We do not have to sacrifice human life to further stem cell research. Once again, we find ourselves debating the same stem cell legislation without any input from the Members of this House. Essentially the Democratic majority and their leadership is saying to the American people: This issue has not changed since we debated it in January, since we debated it last summer; in fact, since we debated it back in August of 2001. But that assumption is fundamentally wrong. The reality is that this issue has changed. Science has moved past bureaucracy and, in fact, past politics, to which it owes no allegiance. There have been multiple scientific breakthroughs which show that there are other ways to achieve medical miracles without the collateral damage mandated by S. 5. The American people deserve a full and a comprehensive debate on these very, very successful alternatives. That is the reason that I am offering this motion to commit, which would replace S. 5 with a bill that was originally introduced by the other gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Roscoe Bartlett, and myself, called the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Research Therapies Enhancement Act. This act would authorize the use of Federal funds to research alternative and ethical ways to extract embryonic-like, or pluripotent, stem cells. That is what we should be debating on the floor of this esteemed body today, legislation that mitigates the gut-wrenching ethical questions of embryonic stem cell research that damages or, more likely, destroys human life. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is the hope of embryonic stem cell research is not grounded solely in the fact that these cells are embryonic; rather, researchers are interested in embryonic stem cells because they are flexible, and they can specialize into any type of human tissue. Indeed, I doubt that the scientists care where these cells come from. Pluripotent stem cells can be obtained in a variety of ethical and scientifically promising ways. They do ``not'' have to come from a living embryo which some call medical waste but others embrace as ``snowflake'' babies with priceless lives. Mr. Speaker, this point cannot be illustrated any more clearly than in the ground-breaking research published in several scientific journals since the beginning of this year. In fact, just yesterday, Nature Journal published a study that shows research's ability to literally reprogram an adult cell taken from skin to achieve one of these pluripotent, or embryonic-like, stem cell states. This research offers the promise of generating embryonic stem cells without the collateral damage of harming human embryos. Let me read to you a fascinating quote from this article: ``The race is now on to apply the surprisingly straightforward procedure to human cells. If researchers succeed, it will make it relatively easy to produce cells that seem indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells and that are genetically matched to individual patients.'' Mr. Speaker, that equates, my colleagues, to no rejection and no tumors. Hallelujah. Science has found a way to support human life in terms of medical cures. The way we derive those cures is so important. Earlier this year, researchers at Wake Forest University and Harvard published a study that showed the capability to obtain pluripotent stem cells again from amniotic fluid, which have the necessary characteristics of being fast-growing and flexible, and can be harvested, get this, Mr. Speaker, as early as 9 weeks into a pregnancy with no damage. These are just two examples of new cutting-edge research which has fundamentally changed this stem cell debate. We no longer need to engage in an issue that divides this Congress, and indeed our country, in half. We no longer need to contemplate a unilateral decision to spend taxpayer dollars on research methods that half of the public morally opposes. I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to commit.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to commit.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. And I do so, not because I oppose embryonic stem cell research, but because, as an OB/GYN physician, I oppose federally funded embryonic stem cell research that destroys human life. And the truth of the matter is, I am not alone in this belief, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I'm joined by nearly half the American public. Let me say that again: Nearly half of the American public opposes using taxpayers' dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research when a human embryo is destroyed in the process. Now, I know that the supporters of this bill claim an overwhelming majority of Americans wholeheartedly endorse their bill. However, when these same Americans are asked specifically whether or not they would like the Federal Government to fund research that destroys a human embryo, the survey results refute that claim. In fact, over 60 percent, Mr. Speaker, of Americans do not support their money going towards destructive embryonic stem cell research. Mr. Speaker, it's not the job of Congress to force the American taxpayers to fund research that they morally oppose. Rather, this body is charged with the awesome responsibility of being good stewards of the taxpayer dollar by supporting research that upholds the values of our society. And I want to remind my colleagues and the American people, today that is the question we're debating. We are debating whether or not American taxpayers should be forced to pay for research that destroys human life. Contrary to what we're hearing today, we are not debating whether or not embryonic stem cell research is legal in this country; because not only is it completely legal, but it is also well funded in both the private and public sectors. In fact, Mr. Speaker, between State governments and private sector, nearly $4 billion has been committed to embryonic stem cell research over the next 10 years. So, Mr. Speaker, as a society that has always valued and protected the fragility of human life, we must reject this misguided attempt to force the American people into paying for something with which they fundamentally disagree. And I encourage my colleagues, oppose this bill.

Mr. GINGREY. I thank my former colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions, for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in very strong opposition to the rule and the underlying legislations, S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. Once again, the Democratic majority brings to the floor a closed rule on a bill that Members of this body would love to have the opportunity to make better through the amendment process. This legislation has not been given a committee hearing or even vetted in a markup. Instead, the Democrats in the House have said that they know best, period, in the 110th Congress. Over 45 percent of the bills have come up under our closed rule, and less than 2 percent have enjoyed what we call an open rule that allows for full and honest debate, whether it's debate from a Democrat or a Republican. Now their legislation was sent over to the other body in January, where they changed it, they amended it. So why, I don't understand, why do the House Democrats insist on shutting their colleagues in the people's House out of the process? It's okay in the other body, but it's not okay here. Well, this new majority has sent a clear message when it comes to valuing the input of their colleagues. They don't. On bills that clear committees unanimously, bills where both parties rush to the floor to applaud the final legislative process, the Democrats allow amendments on those. Let them offer them and be debated. But on an issue where the American people hold deeply differing views, the Democrats shut out ideas and debate. By once again debating this stem cell legislation under the same closed rule, the Democratic leadership is saying to the American people this issue is the same today as it was in January, as it was last summer in the 109th Congress, as it was, indeed, back in August of 2001. However, the reality is that this issue has fundamentally changed. Science is moving faster than bureaucracy and, yes, even faster than politics. Scientific breakthrough after scientific breakthrough shows that there are other ways to achieve the hope, the hope of medical cures, the new therapeutic treatments without any collateral damage mandated by the legislation that we are debating today. Science has, indeed, outrun politics, and the American people, they deserve a full and comprehensive debate on a morally contentious issue such as this. That's the reason that I offered an amendment, my colleague referred to it earlier, to the Rules Committee yesterday that would have replaced this ethically divisive legislation with a bill introduced by Representative Roscoe Bartlett, the gentleman from Maryland, and myself. We call it the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapy Enhancement Act. This amendment would authorize the use of Federal funds to research alternative and ethical ways to extract embryonic life or pluripotent stem cells. My amendment would authorize the use of Federal funds to research alternative and, yes, ethical ways to extract these embryonic- like, or we call them pluripotent, stem cells; and that's what we should be debating on the floor of this esteemed body today, legislation that sidesteps the ethical questions of embryonic stem cell research altogether. We don't have to go down this road that totally divides us. Some on the Republican side, some on the Democratic side, pro-life, pro-choice, if we can avoid that division, I think we ought to embrace the opportunity to do so. That's why, reluctantly, I have to come and stand and oppose a rule. I have great respect for my colleagues on the majority side of the Rules Committee that I worked with for the last 2 years, but I think it's wrong to close a rule or a question of this importance. So I do, I ask my colleagues, oppose the rule and oppose the underlying legislation. That's exactly what we need to do, because we can do this better, and we don't have to divide one another.