Fred Upton

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, my colleague Mr. Schwartz of Michigan and I rise today to honor the life of Thurl Arthur Ravenscroft, the voice of Tony the Tiger, the orange-and-black-striped spokesman for Kellogg's Frosted Flakes. We would like to express our heartfelt condolences as all of us in Southern Michigan lost a friend and neighbor on May 22, 2005. Thurl had a long, distinguished career, most notably as the voice of Tony the Tiger for over 53 years. However, his contributions to the entertainment industry didn't stop there. While a celebrity in his own right, he sang backup with other celebrities such as Bing Crosby, Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra and Rosemary Clooney. Thurl also provided voiceovers for the Grinch in Dr. Seuss' ``How the Grinch Stole Christmas,'' ``The Cat in the Hat,'' in ``Horton Hears a Who,'' and ``The Lorax.'' With his contributions to Kellogg and Dr. Seuss novels, the world of Walt Disney wouldn't be the same without Thurl's voice. His vocal works played important roles in the themes of ``The Mickey Mouse Club,'' ``Davy Crockett,'' and ``Zorro,'' while contributing to the making of ``Cinderella,'' ``Dumbo,'' and ``Lady and the Tramp.'' Thurl's voice was also used in both song and narration for two of Walt Disney's most popular theme rides, ``Pirates of the Caribbean'' and ``The Haunted Mansion.'' While most of his career was spent entertaining both the young and old, Thurl courageously served in the U.S. Military for 5 years. In 1942, he enlisted in the Air Transport Command, where he flew numerous special missions over the North Atlantic as an expert navigator. In addition to his work outside the entertainment business, Thurl devoted time to activities in the Christian field that included recording the Book of Psalms for the visually impaired. All of us in Southern Michigan are deeply saddened with the passing of Thurl Ravenscroft and appreciate all of his service as an entertainer, soldier and Christian. We will forever be able to enjoy his wonderful works whether we are watching great Kellogg commercials, a Disney movie, or attending an amusement park. Southern Michigan will not be the same without Thurl Ravenscroft. He was GRRRRREEEEAT!

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, prematurity is a serious and growing problem in the United States. It is the number one cause of infant death in the first month of life. In February 2004, the National Center for Health Statistics reported the first increase in the U.S. infant mortality rate since 1958. Prematurity has enormous human, societal, and economic costs. Sadly, premature infants are 14 times more likely to die in their first year of life, and premature births account for nearly 24 percent of deaths in the first month of life. The estimated charges for hospital stays for premature and low-birth weight infants were $15,000,000,000 in 2002, and the average lifetime medical costs for a premature baby are conservatively estimated at $500,000. About 25 percent of the youngest and smallest babies live with long-term health problems, including cerebral palsy, blindness, chronic respiratory problems, and other chronic conditions. A study published in 2002 by the Journal of the American Medical Association found that children born prematurely are at greater risk for lower cognitive test scores and behavioral problems when compared to full-term children. Although we've made vast improvements in treating premature infants, we've had little success in understanding and preventing premature birth, and the knowledge that we have gained has not been translated into improved perinatal outcomes. The three known risk factors for preterm labor most consistently identified by experts are multiple fetal pregnancies, a past history of preterm delivery, and some uterine and/or cervical abnormalities. Other possible risk factors are chronic health conditions such as high blood pressure, diabetes, and obesity in the mother, certain infections during pregnancy, and cigarette smoking, alcohol use, or illicit drug use during pregnancy. But as the science stands now, nearly 50 percent of all premature births have no known cause. That is why today, my colleague Rep. Anna Eshoo and I are introducing the bipartisan Prematurity Research Expansion and Education for Mothers who deliver Infants Early or PREEMIE Act. The Preemie Act calls on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to ``expand, intensify, and coordinate'' research related to prematurity. It formally authorizes the Maternal Fetal Medicine Unit Network--which includes university-based clinical centers and a data coordination center--through which perinatal studies to improve maternal and fetal outcomes are conducted. It also authorizes the Neonatal Research Network to improve the care and outcomes of newborns. The bill will ensure better coordination on prematurity research priorities across federal agencies and also includes provisions for disseminating information on prematurity to health professionals and the public and for establishing family support programs to respond to the needs of families with babies in neonatal intensive care units. I encourage my colleagues to join Rep. Eshoo and me in cosponsoring and strongly supporting the enactment of the PREEMIE Act.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Civil War Veteran Elisha Johns, who received the Congressional Medal of Honor for his courage and valor as a Corporal during the Battle of Vicksburg, Mississippi. This Saturday, May 28th, the Porter Township Board and the folks of Union, Michigan will honor Mr. Johns during a ceremony at his gravesite in Plum Grove Cemetery. Elisha enlisted with the Union Army on August 9th, 1862, with whom he served until his discharge on June 6, 1865. After his enlistment, his leadership and courage was recognized by his superiors as he was made Corporal and promoted to Sergeant soon thereafter. His true valor was demonstrated on May 22, 1863, the date he earned the Congressional Medal of Honor. It was the beginning of the Battle of Vicksburg, Mississippi and there was a call for volunteers to bridge a dike that was essential for a Union victory. Corporal Johns was one of 150 men that felt called to duty and valiantly set out to construct the bridge. Before they succeeded in bridging the dike, two-thirds of Elisha's fellow soldiers were shot and unable to go on. However, Corporal Johns and his peers boldly continued, while under intense Confederate fire, only to find his supporting soldiers had retreated. As it was early in the day, and military support lacking, Elisha was forced to hide along the base of the dike until darkness fell, when he was able to successfully get back to the Union lines. Forty years after his brave act, Corporal Johns was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. As we come together as a Nation this Memorial Day, we honor the heroes of yesterday like Elisha Johns, who gave so much to our great Nation, and to honor those brave men and women of our armed forces who are on the front lines today, sacrificing so much in the name of freedom. I commend all the folks of Union, Michigan, who are committed to preserving the history of our veterans, such as Corporal Johns, so generations to come will remember the sacrifices of their forefathers that played such a vital role in making our great Nation.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bipartisan bill, and I will submit today's column in The Wall Street Journal written by Dr. David A. Shaywitz, an endocrinologist in stem cell research at Harvard, for the Record. I would call to the attention of my colleagues this column and particularly a couple of lines that he wrote today. I must say that I am one that will be voting for both bills today, the cord bill as well as the Castle/DeGette bill; but as you compare these two bills, let me note a couple of things that this noted researcher says. He says: ``Presently, only the few lines established prior to the date,'' this is in reference to the President's initial plan back in 2001, ``are eligible for government support, a prohibition that has had a crippling effect on researchers in this emerging field.'' It further says, it relates to the cord bill, in essence: ``It seems extremely unlikely that adult blood cells or blood cells from the umbilical cord will be therapeutically useful as a source of anything else but blood.'' Mr. Speaker, there are few families that I know that have not been impacted by a myriad of these diseases. We need help. We need to find a cure, and that is why we need to support both pieces of legislation this afternoon. The Stem Cell Debate (By David A. Shaywitz) Perhaps themost underrated achievement of the modern conservative movement has been a renewed appreciation for the danger of ``junk science''--unsubstantiated scientific research that is exploited for political gain. How sad, then, that in the ongoing debate over stem cell research, many conservatives have chosen to abandon their well-founded skepticism and to embrace dubious but convenient data for the sake of advancing their cause. The latest tempest has emerged from remarkably modest congressional legislation, proposed by Republican Michael Castle and Democrat Diana DeGette and scheduled for a vote today, which would permit federal funds to be used on human embryonic stem cell lines derived after Aug. 9, 2001. Presently, only the few lines established prior to this date are eligible for government support, a prohibition that has had a crippling effect on research in this emerging field. Human embryonic stem cells have the potential to develop into any adult cell type. If this process of specialization could be achieved in the lab, scientists might be able to create replacement pancreas cells for diabetics, or neurons for patient with Parkinson's Disease; these treatments are likely many years away. For some opponents of embryonic stem cell science, the argument is fundamentally one of faith: The human embryo should be held as sacrosanct, and not used for the pursuit of any ends, regardless of how nobly intended. The trouble for such dogmatic critics of embryonic stem cell research is that most Americans hold a less extreme position; given a choice between discarding frozen, excess embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics or allowing the cells to be used for medical research--specifically, the generation of new embryonic stem cell lines--most of us would choose the second. Consequently, conservative stem cell opponents have now begun to argue in earnest that embryonic stem cell research is not just morally wrong, but also unnecessary, an argument that relies on suspect science and appears motivated by even more questionable principles. First, the science: Opponents of the Castle-DeGette legislation assert that embryonic stem cells are unnecessary because adult stem cells, as well as umbilical cord blood stem cells, will perform at least as well as embryonic stem cells, and have already demonstrated their therapeutic value. This argument appears very popular, and has been articulated by almost every member of Congress who has spoken out against the new stem cell bill. To be sure, one of the great successes of modern medicine has been the use of adult blood stem cells to treat patients with leukemia. The trouble is generalizing from this: There are very strong data suggesting that while blood stem cells are good at making new blood cells, they are not able to turn into other types of cells, such as pancreas or brain. The limited data purported to demonstrate the contrary are preliminary, inconclusive, unsubstantiated, or all three. Thus, it seems extremely unlikely that adult bloodcells--or blood cells from the umbilical cord--will be therapeutically useful as a source of anything else by blood. Moreover, while stem cells seem to exist for some cell types in the body--the blood and the intestines, for example--many adult tissues such as the pancreas, may not have stem cells at all. Thus, relying on adult stem cells to generate replacement insulin-producing cells for patients with diabetes is probably an exercise in futility. For true believers, of course, these scientific facts should be beside the point; if human embryonic stem cell research is morally, fundamentally, wrong, then it should be wrong, period, regardless of the consequences to medical research. If conservatives believe their own rhetoric, they should vigorously critique embryonic stem cell research on its own grounds, and not rely upon an appeal to utilitarian principles. Instead, there has been a concerted effort to establish adult stem cells as a palatable alternative to embryonic stem cells. In the process, conservatives seem to have left their usual concern for junk science at the laboratory door, citing in their defense preliminary studies and questionable data that they would surely--and appropriately--have ridiculed were it not supporting their current point of view. In fact, there is little credible evidence to suggest adult stem cells have the same therapeutic potential as embryonic stem cells. Conservatives often speak of the need to abide by difficult principle; acknowledging the limitations of adult stem cell research would seem like a good place to start. Human embryonic stem cell research represents one of the most important scientific frontiers, and also one of the most controversial: Our national debate on it deserves to be informed by our loftiest ethical aspirations--but also grounded in our most rigorous scientific standards.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Jay Van Den Berg, a distinguished community leader in Southwest Michigan for the past 30 years. Today, leaders from throughout the community are gathering at Michigan Works, to honor Jay's accomplishments and pay homage to a job well done as he is retiring from his numerous leadership posts. Jay started his career as a teacher, selflessly giving all he had to each of his students, before moving on to a long, industrious career as an executive with the Whirlpool Corporation. Although he was working in the private sector, Jay utilized his leadership to promote academic achievement and excellence in our schools across the region, netting him more than a dozen state and national education awards. Jay was a tireless advocate for bringing business and education together to create a stronger community. He could always be seen serving in leadership positions throughout Southwest Michigan whether it was with the Business Roundtable, Michigan Business Leaders for Education Excellence, The Michigan Works Workforce Development Board and many many others. Through Jay's valiant leadership, the HOSTS mentoring program was established in Benton Harbor, and since then hundreds of students improved their reading scores and have been given the opportunity to succeed in school, as well as in life. His tireless work with the career preparation systems in Berrien, Van Buren and Cass Counties have become a national model and have enabled our young students to raise their test scores, allowing them to seek post-secondary education. These are just 2 of the examples of Jay's great work with the young people of our community. Education plays such an important role in the lives of our young people, and it is because of people like Jay Van Den Berg, that many have had the opportunity to succeed. I stand today, with the folks of the great sixth district of Michigan, to give a heartfelt ``thank you'' to Jay, and wish him a long and enjoyable retirement.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Dingell and I rise today as the Senior Members of the Michigan Delegation to congratulate and pay tribute to S. Martin Taylor on the occasion of his retirement after 16 years of service as Executive Vice President of DTE Energy in Detroit, Michigan. We have both known this special man through not only his sixteen years at DTE Energy, but also throughout the many years he spent in public service working across and from both sides of the aisle to improve the lives of Michigan's citizens. Mr. Taylor has shown an exceptional commitment to the people of the state of Michigan. After graduating from Western Michigan University in 1964, he went on to receive his Juris Doctor from the Detroit College of Law in 1967. A lifelong student of both academics and personal interaction, Mr. Taylor received an honorary Doctor of Laws Degree in 2002, from Marygrove College in Detroit, Michigan. After two years of service in Chicago, Illinois as an attorney at the Container Corporation of America, Mr. Taylor was appointed by then- Governor of Michigan William G. Milliken, a Republican, to serve as the Deputy Director of the Michigan Department of Commerce. Two years later in 1971, Mr. Taylor was appointed by a bipartisan commission representing both labor and management, to serve as the Director of the Michigan Employment Security Commission (MESC), the State's third largest agency. His 13 years of remarkable service at that position led to his appointment by Democratic Governor James Blanchard as Director of the Michigan Department of Labor in 1983. In a remarkable feat of commitment, Mr. Taylor served concurrently as both the Director of the MESC and Michigan's Labor Department for nearly two years. In 1984, after 15 years of service to the state of Michigan, Martin left his position as Director of Labor in order to serve the people of Detroit as the President of New Detroit Inc., the Nation's first urban coalition developed in response to the civil unrest of 1967. As President, Mr. Taylor acted to facilitate an active and productive dialogue between all social, religious and economic organizations in the Metropolitan Detroit area. Mr. Taylor served with distinction for 5 years at that position. Finally in 1989, Mr. Taylor was asked to serve as an Executive Vice President of DTE Energy. At this post, Martin was responsible for developing and implementing the company's strategies for human resources, corporate communications, and corporate and government affairs. He worked to enhance the public reputation of DTE Energy and to ensure that its workforce was fully capable of meeting the changing demands and challenges of the energy industry. As a member of the executive committee, Mr. Taylor worked with other senior officers to handle all corporate-wide responsibilities. Aside from his remarkable service throughout his career, Mr. Taylor also serves on nearly twenty business, civic and community affiliations and boards, and in the past, Martin has been part of over thirty such organizations. In 1996, he was elected to the University of Michigan Board of Regents, where he continues to serve with distinction. He is also the recipient of two commendations of public service by the Michigan Legislature. His civic service provides a great testament to the spirit of commitment and community Mr. Taylor possesses. Martin is truly a model member of the Michigan community and an example for us all. In addition to his great success in both public and private service, Martin is also fortunate enough to share his life with his wife Ann Diggs Taylor, U.S. District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan. Mr. Taylor also has two step-children, his son, Douglass, and daughter, Carla. As Martin begins what is surely a deserved retirement, we offer him the best of luck on this long and well-earned journey. Mr. Speaker, we hope you will join with us and our colleagues in the Michigan Delegation to wish Mr. Taylor many years filled with family, friends, and good health and thank him for what he has done for our state.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, let me say at the beginning, I am no fan of MTBE, and my State has banned it. But let me point out a couple of facts. In this bill, the LUST fund, Leaking Underground Storage Tanks fund, has $2.1 billion to clean up these tanks. We have an additional $1 billion for oxygenate as well. And a precedent exists. The Federal Government mandated that we had to have oxygenate in this bill in the past and we have done that before, we have done that with flu vaccine, we have done that for Biomaterials Access Insurance fund. The government mandated it. We have to protect people that carried through on those provisions. I accept the agreement that is going to be made between the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) and the chairman to work this out. Please vote ``no'' on the Capps amendment.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished chairman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of the Rogers amendment to the Johnson underlying amendment. Currently, there is one test conducted on vehicles to determine the fuel economy rating. The Johnson amendment would require EPA to change that fuel economy testing for label purposes. What this will result in is having automakers being forced to do two or three or four, or maybe even more, separate tests. That costs money, more money, and is unnecessary and more burdensome. Additionally, as written, the Johnson amendment could also affect how CAFE is calculated. The Johnson amendment could lower the fleet fuel economy averages of manufacturers that make compliance with the CAFE standards much more difficult. Instead of running the substantial risk under the Johnson amendment, the Rogers/ Kilpatrick bipartisan perfecting amendment makes a technical change to clarify that automakers do not have to run multiple duplicative tests to update fuel economy labeling and ensures that the CAFE program is not manipulated. Let us take this into a normal example. This morning, many of us, we live in different States, but we come and commute here to Washington. I live in Virginia; it is 7 miles from the Capitol here to my house. It took me more than 30 minutes to get in today. If I had to drive 7 miles in my town of St. Joseph, Michigan, it would take me about 12 minutes. We know that when we buy a car. I had a staff member that bought a great new Ford hybrid vehicle the other day. He gets accelerated CAFE, or he gets much better gas mileage with that car when he is in the big city driving. When he goes to Chicago, to see the Cubs or the White Sox, or whoever, he gets a lot better mileage because he is stopping and starting all the time. In Kalamazoo, which is a city of 100,000, where he lives, he does not get quite the same mileage because it is a different scenario. You cannot have 20 or 30, who knows how many tests. Maybe it is like boutique fuels. You have all these different areas, people with different driving habits, and you cannot expect that the EPA is going to put a laundry list of these different tests on the window. We know that when we buy our vehicles. We know about what it is going to be based on, our history of purchasing cars. And, frankly, a duplicative test with these multiple numbers will only be more confusing rather than less confusing to the consumer. That is why I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as we have with this bipartisan amendment, to support the Rogers amendment to the Johnson amendment so we can make more sense for every consumer as they purchase a new American car.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I have a trivia question for you. What automaker has the most vehicles that get a highway fuel economy of 30 miles per gallon or greater? I will give you a hint. They make 19 of the vehicles, and that is more than any other automaker. Do you know who it is? General Motors. What frustrates me about this debate is the misconception that CAFE standards are some Holy Grail that foreign manufacturers can get to, but domestic ones cannot. We do not need to micromanage our auto manufacturers. They are doing just fine. CAFE standards are being met and they are being exceeded virtually every single day. But the more important work is finding real alternatives to gasoline- powered cars and developing them, for every dollar we force the auto companies to spend on the CAFE standards is a dollar they will not spend on hybrids, hydrogen fuel cell and other alternative fuel cell vehicles. I am sick of hearing the same old debate. I want to get us to the point where we talk about which one of the new alternatives we are most excited about. I urge you to defeat this used amendment and vote for a new car. Please defeat this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, yes, we have an energy crisis, and the sad thing is that it did not start this year, but neither did this bill which started more than 4 years ago. Maybe with gas prices hovering near $2.50 a gallon, we can finally get this bill to the President's desk. I was glad to see that my bipartisan amendment extending daylight saving time for 2 months was included in this bill. Estimates show that it will save more than 100,000 barrels of oil for every day that we extend daylight saving time. I want to remind my colleagues that 2 years ago, we had a blackout, an electric blackout through much of the Midwest. In this bill we finally impose reliability standards on the electric industry so that, hopefully, that will not happen again. I want to say, too, as the cochair of the Auto Caucus, it was important for the chairman to agree to add $200 million for hybrid and alternative fuel cell vehicles. We hope that the Senate legislation will even go more in terms of incentives so that private consumers going to the showroom are going to be able to take advantage of those incentives to purchase those vehicles so that we can get those on the road.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the great State of Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with Representatives Anna Eshoo, Lee Terry, David Wu, Xavier Becerra, and Jo Bonner in introducing the bipartisan Medicare Medical Nutrition Therapy Act of 2005. Under current law, Medicare provides coverage for medical nutrition therapy services provided by registered dietitians and nutrition professionals to Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes and renal diseases. Recognizing that many other beneficiaries with diseases and conditions such as cardiovascular disease and obesity could benefit from medical nutrition therapy services, the legislation we are introducing today gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the authority to use the National Coverage Determination Process to expand coverage for other disease and conditions for which these services would be both beneficial and cost-effective. Providing Medicare coverage for medical nutrition therapy services is sound health care policy. It can prevent unnecessary pain and suffering and save millions of dollars in health care costs by lessening the risk of chronic disease, slowing disease progression, and reducing symptoms. In response to a request in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences studied the value of adding medical nutrition therapy coverage to the Medicare program and concluded that this coverage would ``improve the quality of care and is likely to be a valuable and efficient use of Medicare resources, because of the comparatively low treatment costs and ancillary benefits associated with nutrition therapy.'' I urge my colleagues who have not yet cosponsored this legislation to join us in this effort.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues and to all of our constituents across the Nation that March, 2005, is National Eye Donor Month. As a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Health Subcommittee, I have long been a champion of the cause of donation and particularly the needs of our nation's eye banks. But it was a special honor to be asked this year to participate in this proclamation, for 2005 marks the centennial of the first corneal transplant performed in 1905 by Dr. Eduard Zirm. Since Dr. Zirm performed that first corneal transplant one hundred years ago, and in partnership since 1944 with our nation's eye banks, we have made tremendous progress. Each year in the United States, more than 46,000 people, ranging in age from nine days to 107 years old, have had their sight restored through corneal transplants, and hundreds of thousands are helped through important research to find cures for other blinding diseases. But we cannot rest on our laurels. The purpose of Eye Donor Month is to educate each and every American individual and family about giving the gift of sight and to make a terrific difference in someone's life. This month marks an opportunity to raise public awareness and to honor past donors and their families. The process to become a donor takes just a few minutes. All donors need to do is to sign a card, and, most importantly, discuss their donation wishes with their families. Our eye banks across the nation, in partnership with the Eye Bank Association of America., will continue to work to ensure that all Americans will receive the tissue they need and that this tissue will be safe and effective. As National Eye Donor Month proceeds, I encourage my colleagues to work with their local eye banks to increase awareness of corneal transplantation and the continuous need for donors, and I encourage all Americans to sign a donor card and speak with their families about their desire to give the gift of sight.

Mr. UPTON

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

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment with the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) in a bipartisan amendment for two main reasons: The first is cost. What this amendment does, it says that none of the funds made available in this act may be used for embassy security, construction and maintenance. In essence it is about a $592 million savings amendment. I would note in a CRS document printed a couple of weeks ago, it states that the State Department has identified $990 million thus far for the new embassy in Baghdad. Fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 supplementals provided $35 million from the State's Diplomatic and Consular Program account, another $105 million came from the fourth quarter fiscal year 2004 Coalition Provisional Authority appropriations, and another $184 million of the Iraqi relief and reconstruction funds was designated for the embassy. This bill provides yet another some $590 million for this building. The second reason that I support the amendment and oppose this provision in the bill is that we knew years ago that we were going to need a new embassy, and yet last summer when plans were laid for construction of this particular site it was not included in the omnibus appropriation bill taken up in November. The 2006 budget request which came up in February, no moneys were included in the President's budget request for that as well. I would note that the National Taxpayers Union supports this amendment. I would also note that time and time again I supported more support for our troops, body armor, supported the President's request, but this embassy stuck into this bill with this process is not right. We need regular order and that is why the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and I are offering this amendment on a bipartisan basis. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I thank my coauthors, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick). I want to say it is not an easy task taking on the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis). I too would like to say I am voting for final passage of the supplemental. It is important that we have adequate resources for all of our troops. I have been to Iraq twice. I have been to the current embassy in Baghdad twice as well. I have seen the improvements. We have spent something like $100 million already trying to make that facility safe. It is within the Green Zone. This new embassy where they want to build is just down the river. Frankly, I would have preferred to see it go where Camp Victory is. I asked that question, in fact, yesterday. I was not very pleased with the answer that I got, but maybe in a few more months we will get it right and put it someplace that would be truly safe for all of our folks that are there. At the end of the day, those are the questions that all of us should be asking. Whether it be in an authorization bill that came through this Congress the last year or in the omnibus bill or in the President's budget for fiscal year 2006, this bill no matter what train track it is on will not get to the President until May. We ought to take the time to do this right, to ask the right questions and to make sure that all of our people, whether they work for the State Department or whether they work for the armed services, have the right resources; but it ought to go the regular order. That is the way this House ought to operate. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), a coauthor of the amendment.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), a member of the subcommittee, who is very active on this issue, a co-sponsor.

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

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the staff, Kelly Cole, Will Nordwind and Howard Waltzman. They have been terrific working with staffs on both sides. I remind my colleagues this passed overwhelmingly in not only the committee, but last year as well, and also in the Senate. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).