Bart Stupak

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, let me thank the chairman and the ranking member for their hard work on this legislation. This amendment here is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve amendment. Basically, it says no funds made available by this act shall be used to accept deliveries of petroleum products to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. When we did the energy bill, and I sit on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, our amendment was made in order and was accepted by the committee. Our amendment then was a little more detailed. It said there would be no oil going into SPR until the cost of a barrel of oil dropped below $44 for 2 consecutive weeks under the New York Stock Exchange. If we put that triggering provision into this amendment, there would have been a point of order and this amendment would have been accepted under the rules of the House. Therefore, we have changed it and said no more delivery of petroleum products to the SPR fund. So I am joined by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) to support this amendment. When I go back to my district, many of my constituents express their concern with rising gasoline prices. I suspect most Members are hearing the same thing when they go home to their own districts. In an already fiscally constrained economy, these high gasoline prices yield yet another burden to America's families' already-tight purse strings. The high cost of gasoline and oil has long been a problem and one that Congress has long grappled with. Today, oil is hovering around $49 a barrel which some experts predict could spike as high as $60 a barrel this summer. With Memorial Day just around the corner, we are seeing prices at the pump reaching over $2 a gallon, with some parts of the country seeing prices as high as $2.44 a gallon. How high does the price have to go and for how long before we take action? It is no secret, there are no quick fixes or easy fixes when it comes to the problem of high gasoline and oil prices; but there is no reason to continue filling the SPR with petroleum products when our economy is suffering due to sky-high oil and gas prices. The suspension of oil delivery to the SPR would put additional barrels of oil out into the world market to stabilize the world's oil supply and provide some relief at the pump to our consumers. To continue filling the SPR sends the wrong message to the American public who continues to struggle because of these record-breaking gas prices, and it does nothing to help reduce the skyrocketing prices at the pump. It just does not make economic sense to add more pressure to what we all know is a very tight oil market when the effect is creating even higher gas prices for consumers here at home. Finally, suspending the filling of the SPR does not hurt our energy security. The reserve is already filled to 95 percent capacity. It has approximately 695 million barrels that are now in storage. That is the highest it has ever been in our Nation's history. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that will take pressure off the price of a barrel of oil and hopefully at the gas pump at home. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to Members' attention a newly created OMB and Army Corps of Engineers' criterion for recommending operation and maintenance dredging of all small commercial harbors. Unfortunately, this criterion, which is highly inadequate and unfairly biased, will have a detrimental effect on communities in my northern Michigan district and on a number of communities across the country. For fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007, the Corps, with the help of OMB, has implemented new guidelines for determining whether a harbor is considered high use and, therefore, eligible to be considered to be funded for dredging in the President's budget. According to the Corps, in order for a commercial harbor to be considered high use, it must now move at least 1 million tons of cargo annually. As a result of this tonnage requirement, a number of routine Army Corps operations and maintenance harbor dredging projects will not be carried out this year as they were in past years. As a result, small-town, rural America will suffer more job losses, businesses will struggle and infrastructure could be damaged. You only need to look at the community of Ontonagon in my district for an example of the devastating effects this policy will have. Ontonagon was taken by surprise when they were not included in the President's budget for the first time in many years. If this harbor is not dredged, the future of our paper company, Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation, which relies on the harbor for coal and limestone deliveries, and White Pine Power, a revitalized coal plant that depends on the harbor for coal deliveries by ship for its power generation, will be in jeopardy. To give you an idea of how bad the silting is in this area, last year it was dredged and it was dredged down to 19 feet. Less than a year later, this weekend when I was at Ontonagon, it was back down to 6 feet. We lost 13 feet in less than a year because of the silt coming down from the Mineral River. Imagine the consequences for small towns like Ontonagon if their largest businesses are unable to receive the goods they need to remain competitive. Rural communities already have limited resources available to them without this added hardship. The Army Corps must develop more appropriate requirements to determine whether a harbor is to be included in the President's budget for a yearly dredge. If they continue to determine whether harbors like Ontonagon receive funding in the President's budget based primarily on tonnage, our small commercial harbors will continue to be shortchanged, affecting the economic livelihoods of our communities. We need to ensure that the Corps is putting forth guidelines and policies that are as fair as possible and also reflect an appropriate amount of transparency to the public. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to ask for a recorded vote. In fact, I will withdraw the amendment if I may enter into a brief colloquy with the chairman. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion today about the quality of adult stem cells and they are not as versatile as embryonic stem cells. There are a number of things that show adult stem cells are highly versatile and just as effective if not more effective than the predicted embryonic stems. The list of these studies is as follows: Myth: Adult Stem Cells are Not as Versatile as Embryonic stem cells. Fact: A number of studies show adult stem cells are highly Versatile. 1. Professor Alan Mackay-Sim of Griffith University in Australia published a study showing that olfactory stem cells could develop into heart cells, liver cells, kidney cells, muscle cells, brain cells and nerve cells. (Murrell W et al., ``Multipotent stem cells from adult olfactory mucosa'', Developmental Dynamics published online 21 March 2005.) 2. Dr. Douglas Losordo at Tufts University showed that a type of bone marrow stem cell can turn into most tissue types, and can regenerate damaged heart. ``This discovery represents a major breakthrough in stem-cell therapy,'' said Dr. Douglas Losordo. ``Based on our findings we believe these newly discovered stem-cells may have the capacity to generate into most tissue types in the human body. This is a very unique property that until this time has only been found in embryonic stem cells.'' (Yoon Y-s et al., ``Clonally expanded novel multipotent stem cells from human bone marrow regenerate myocardium after myocardial infarction'', Journal of Clinical Investigation 115, 326-338, Febru9ary 2005.) 3. In July 2004, research conducted in Germany, led by Dr. Peter Wernet found a type of umbilical cord blood stem cell, they call USSC's (unrestricted somatic stem cells), that they showed can turn into several different cell types, including brain, bone, cartilage, liver, heart, and blood cells. It showed that the cells can turn into all three germ layers, showing they are pluripotent. (Kogler G et al., ``A new human somatic stem cell from placental cord blood with intrinsic pluripotent differentiation potential'', J. Experimental Medicine 200, 123-135, 19 July 2004.) 4. In June 2004, researchers showed that human bone marrow stem cells have pluripotent potential. (D'Ippolito G et al., ``Marrow-isolated adult multilineage inducible (MIAMI) cells, a unique population of postnatal young and old human cells with extensive expansion and differentiation potential'', J. Cell Science 117, 2971-2981, 15 July 2004 (published online 1 June 2004) 5. This study shows that blood stem cells can form cells from all 3 primary germ layers, including endothelial cells, neuronal cells, and liver cells. (Zhao Y et al.; ``A human peripheral blood monocyte-derived subset acts as pluripotent stem cells''; Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 100, 2426-2431; 4 March 2003) 6. Researchers found bone marrow stem cells in females that received transplants from male donors. Researchers found the Y chromosome in the brain, showing that bone marrow stem cells generated neurons. (Mezey E et al.; ``Transplanted bone marrow generates new neurons in human brains''; Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 100, 1364-1369; 4 Feb 2003) 7. Another group of researchers showed that bone marrow stem cells can form all body tissues. (Jiang Y et al.; ``Pluripotency of mesenchymal stem cells derived from adult marrow''; Nature 418, 41-49; 4 July 2002) 8. In 2002, Catherine Verfaille has turned these bone marrow stem cells into skin, brain, lungs, heart, retina, muscle, intestines, kidney and spleen. University of Minnesota researchers found a certain type of bone marrow stem cell (called a multipotent adult progenitor cells (MAPCs)) that could be turned into the three primary germ layers (endoderm, ectoderm, ectoderm and mesoderm). (Nature advance online publication, 23 June 2002 (doi: 10.1038/nature 00870) 9. A single adult mouse bone marrow stem cell can form functional marrow, blood cells, liver, lung, gastrointestinal tract, skin, heart and skeletal muscle according to researchers Dr. Neil Theise of NY Univ. School of Medicine and Dr. Diane Krause of Yale Univ. School of Medicine (Krause DS et al.; ``Multi-Organ, Multi-Lineage Engraftment by a Single Bone Marrow-Derived Stem Cell''; Cell 105, 369-377; 4 May 2001) Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of arguments. In fact, we just heard again that in fact we throw these cells away when we are done. We do not want them. There is nothing we can do with them so we should use them for medical research or else it will just be medical waste. I must ask again, is that what we have come to as a Nation that in viewing embryos, that if allowed to grow and divide could become human beings but we will just treat them as human waste? The proponents of H.R. 810 are so adamant that we do research specifically using embryonic stem cells. And why embryonic stem cells? Because they are the best hope according to proponents of finding cures. They say medical science can unlock these keys to life. We can cure any illness, any disease, or any injury. The proponents argue we must create life, the embryo, and then destroy the embryo through research to unlock the mysteries of life; create and clone the building blocks of life so we can manipulate and experiment. I believe as a country and as a culture that is a line we should not cross. We heard today about other research with adult stem cells, cord, placenta, bone marrow, fetal tissue, and how about unraveling our DNA through the mapping of the genome, all in the pursuit of finding medical cures. But where do we draw a line on medical research and say we as a Nation, as a people, will not cross that line? This question has not been adequately addressed in this legislation. When do embryos become life? We have heard all kinds of figures today. After 40 hours? That is less than 2 days after fertilization when we are able to check embryos for division and fertilization. Or is it 5 days when the embryos may be called blastocysts? At this stage, they are approximately 250 cells. Or do we allow the blastocysts to survive in the laboratory culture for up to 14 days and still then not call them human life, but blastocysts so they are open to experiment and research? When does life become scientifically non-existent? That is the question as elected representatives we have not yet answered. H.R. 810 does not answer that. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 810.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu). (Mr. WU asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as this debate has gone on, and it has been a good discussion here today, I think it is worthwhile to come back to where we are on this whole issue here. The embryonic stem cell research we are debating here today is controversial because of the means of obtaining these cells. Research involving most types of stem cells, those derived from adult tissues or the umbilical cord, is uncontroversial except, as we saw, the second issue here today is, how effective is it? Is embryonic more effective than cord? Are embryonic stem cells more effective in treating injuries and illnesses than the adult tissue stem cells? So we sort of have a two-pronged argument here yet: How do you obtain the stem cells and, secondly, the effectiveness of adult versus embryonic stem cells. But I think in this whole issue here, we sort of lose questions. Before we even get to those questions, I think we should look at it and say, what is the ethical consideration of the human nature, and that should be the first question we should ask, not what are the means we obtain it by, what is left over when we obtain the embryonic stem cells, or what is its effectiveness. I think we have to look at the ethical considerations. Because cloning is one method to produce embryos for research, the ethical issues surrounding cloning are also relevant. In fact, I believe those ethical issues should really be the first question we should ask before we debate the means of obtaining, or even the effectiveness of the proposed treatment. I would hope that life would triumph hope and the question is really before we even get into effectiveness or means, but what is the human nature consideration? That should be the first question we should answer. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

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

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).

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

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

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his question, but our amendment does not intend to have any impact on any of the existing policies of EPA regions and States that allow blending or on any Clean Water Act permit that allows blending. We are saying maintain the status quo.