[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 70 (Tuesday, May 24, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H3809-H3852]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               STEM CELL RESEARCH ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2005

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House 
of Monday, May 23, 2005, I call up the bill (H.R. 810) to amend the 
Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell 
research, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of H.R. 810 is as follows:

                                H.R. 810

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Stem Cell Research 
     Enhancement Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH.

       Part H of title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 289 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 
     498C the following:

     ``SEC. 498D. HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH.

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law (including any regulation or guidance), the Secretary 
     shall conduct and support research that utilizes human 
     embryonic stem cells in accordance with this section 
     (regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived 
     from a human embryo) .
       ``(b) Ethical Requirements.--Human embryonic stem cells 
     shall be eligible for use in any research conducted or 
     supported by the Secretary if the cells meet each of the 
     following:
       ``(1) The stem cells were derived from human embryos that 
     have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were 
     created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were in 
     excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such 
     treatment.
       ``(2) Prior to the consideration of embryo donation and 
     through consultation with the individuals seeking fertility 
     treatment, it was determined that the embryos would never be 
     implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded.
       ``(3) The individuals seeking fertility treatment donated 
     the embryos with written informed consent and without 
     receiving any financial or other inducements to make the 
     donation.
       ``(c) Guidelines.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this section, the Secretary, in consultation 
     with the Director of NIH, shall issue final guidelines to 
     carry out this section.
       ``(d) Reporting Requirements.--The Secretary shall annually 
     prepare and submit to the appropriate committees of the 
     Congress a report describing the activities carried out under 
     this section during the preceding fiscal year, and including 
     a description of whether and to what extent research under 
     subsection (a) has been conducted in accordance with this 
     section.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Monday, May 23, 2005, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. DeGette) each will control 1 hour and 
30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) be given 45 minutes of the debate time 
on the pending bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay) will control that time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) be allowed to control 20 minutes 
of the remaining 45 minutes that I currently have control over.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle) will control that time.
  There was no objection.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and to insert extraneous material on the pending bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have a prepared statement I am 
going to put into the record on this bill, H.R. 810, but I am going to 
actually speak from the heart because I think that this is a very 
important issue.
  Most of the issues that come before this body, there is an automatic 
position on. It may be the Republican position, the Democrat position, 
the Texas position, or it could be the committee position. And we come 
to the floor and we, almost by rote, say what is the particular 
position, and that is the way we vote.
  But every now and then an issue comes up that is really an issue of 
conscience. It is an issue that deserves to be thoughtfully considered, 
debated, and decided on its own merit.
  Now, there are many Members today that believe this particular issue 
is an issue that they feel so strongly about, on either side, that this 
is an easy issue for them, it is an automatic issue. They are going to 
be for it or against it for very valid reasons. But there are some of 
us, and I am in that camp today, that believe it is not an easy issue.
  I come to the floor as a 100 percent lifetime voting member on 
prolife issues, minus one vote, in over 21 years. On all the votes that 
the prolife coalition at the State and Federal levels have scored as 
scorable votes, my record until this year was 100 percent, and I voted 
the wrong way on one issue so far this year from the prolife position. 
So that is not a bad record, 100 percent minus one. And after this vote 
today, I am going to be 100 percent minus two.

[[Page H3810]]

  Why is that? Well, part of it is personal and part of it deals with 
tragedies in my family in the past. My father died of complications of 
diabetes at the age of 71. My brother, Jon Kevin Barton, died of liver 
cancer at the age of 44. My first granddaughter, Bryn Barton, died in 
the womb 2 days before delivery with complications of the umbilical 
cord, which had become crimped, and she was actually born dead.
  Maybe the research we are debating today could not have helped any of 
those diseases or could not have helped my granddaughter, but maybe it 
could.
  I am also going to vote for Castle-DeGette because of the future, not 
just the past. My wife Terri and I are expecting a baby in September, 
Jack Kevin Barton, named after her late father and my late brother, Jon 
Kevin Barton. He may come into this world with some disease. Hopefully 
not. I have three children that are already alive, Brad, Alison, and 
Kristin. I have two stepchildren, Lindsay and Cullen. I have three 
grandchildren that are living, Blake, Brent and Bailey Barton. Maybe 
they will live healthy, productive lives and they will never need some 
therapeutic breakthrough, but maybe they will. Maybe they will.
  Now, we just voted for an expansion of cord blood and bone marrow 
research, which is a very, very good deal, and it deals with adult stem 
cells. And maybe the breakthrough is going to come in adult stem cells. 
I hope it does. I would love it. But maybe, just maybe, it is going to 
come because of embryonic stem cells.
  Now, the President adopted a position in early 2001 that said the 
existing stem cell lines then in existence could be federally funded 
for research. They thought there were about 78 lines. It turned out 
that there were 22 they are using, there are 16 that are frozen, and 
there may be one or two more that might be used. But in any event, none 
of those lines that are currently allowed to be used for research 
purposes at the Federal level have been shown to have that breakthrough 
stem cell.
  There are 200 adult cells in the body. The hope of stem cell 
research, whether it is adult or embryonic, is that we will find that 
one perfect cell that can be replicated into any of the other cells.
  It is assumed, and it is an assumption, not a fact, that the 
plasticity of the embryonic cell is better and that there is a greater 
likelihood, although the research has only been done for the last 7 or 
8 years, that there is a likelihood there might be a greater potential. 
And I want to emphasize might be.
  So where I come down is, let us look at all the avenues.

                              {time}  1345

  We just voted for Smith-Barton-Young. Let us also vote for Castle-
DeGette and look at all of our resources. That is why I am going to 
vote ``yes.''
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to manage the time of debate on H.R. 810, 
legislation designed to expand the number of sources of embryonic stem 
cell lines that may be the subject of federally funded research. The 
bill is straightforward, yet the policy concerns surrounding this bill 
are anything but black and white. Before I yield time to my colleagues, 
I want to clarify a few of the following facts.
  What the sponsors of this bill are trying to do is create enough 
lines of embryonic stem cells to allow basic scientific research to 
move forward. Many scientists believe that once we can identify a 
perfect, undifferentiated stem call, it will lead to significant 
scientific breakthroughs and the discovery of cures for many diseases.
  Currently, there are approximately 22 lines of embryonic stem cells 
that are available for federally funded research. This number is far 
below the estimated number of stem cell lines that were thought to 
exist in August of 2001, when the President announced his stem cell 
policy. When President Bush announced that Federal research dollars 
could be used for the first time on then existing stem cells, it was 
believed that there were at least 60 viable lines of stem cells that 
could be used for this research. For a variety of reasons, not all of 
these potential lines are now available for research.
  We will also eventually need additional embryonic stem cell lines to 
make further scientific advances. In recent conversations with leading 
stem cell researchers, they indicated to me that all lines of embryonic 
stem cells eventually become exhausted. In order to produce clinical 
therapies, it is likely that researchers will also need more embryonic 
stem cell lines, of different genetic variations, than are presently 
eligible to receive Federal support.
  In addition, the majority of the existing embryonic stem cell lines 
eligible for Federal support use mouse feeder cells, which will make it 
nearly impossible for these embryonic stem cell lines to be adopted in 
clinical use. For all of these reasons, researchers believe that the 
current number of embryonic stem cell lines will have to be increased.
  It is difficult to take an ideologically pure position on this issue. 
President Bush recognized this on August 9, 2001. On recognizing the 
profound potential benefits of embryonic stem cell research, President 
Bush permitted for the first time Federal taxpayer dollars to be spent 
on embryonic stem cell research.
  For my entire career in Congress, I have been a staunch defender of 
the culture of life and opposed all forms of abortion. At the same 
time, I believe we have an obligation to improve existing lives and do 
what we can to make them better in the future.
  Today, on this difficult issue, Members will need to vote their 
consciences. My decision to support this bill was a difficult one, 
which I came to only after much personal struggle and reflection. My 
decision was shaped, in part, by the painful experiences of my own 
family. We lost my brother Jon in 2000, at the age of 44, after a long 
struggle with liver cancer. My father died after suffering from 
complications resulting from diabetes.
  Let me tell you for a moment about my brother, Jon. He was younger 
than me. He and his wife, Jennifer, had two children, Jake and Jace. He 
was a State district judge in Texas. They told Jon he had liver cancer 
when he was just 41 years old. We tried everything and, in fact, his 
cancer went into remission. The next year, it came back. Jon died in 
just three months short of his 44th birthday. I offered to give him 
part of my liver, but the doctors said he was too far-gone and it 
wouldn't work. That was five years ago. Jake is now 15, and Jace is 12. 
Every time I see them and their Mom, I think of Jon and wonder what 
stem cell research could have done for our family.
  I cannot know the truth with absolute certainty, but my heart says 
that my brother and my father might be with me today if their doctors 
had access to treatments from stem cell research. Their lives were 
precious to me and to our family. I come to my decision on this vote 
because I believe in life, and in the future. If a vote today can save 
other families from losing brothers and fathers, my conscience will not 
permit any other decision.
  I fully understand that some will say I am just wrong, or blinded by 
personal emotion. Many who disagree with me are my friends, and I 
completely respect their views and their advice. They are good people, 
and good people with the same facts sometimes come to different 
conclusions. Now, a few others will say that death is simply a part of 
life. No, it is not. I do not believe that we can ever accept that 
proposition without setting out on an extraordinary and dangerous path. 
Life is to be cherished and extended, and death is to be fought and 
never accepted.
  My father and my brother died because illnesses took them. If I can 
do something to cure illness and thwart death for other families, I 
will because I must. Scientists believe that expanded embryonic stem 
cell research holds the potential to find cures for diseases like 
cancer or diabetes. It is my hope that supporting this bill will mean 
that many other American families will never have to endure the 
suffering and loss that my family went through. I believe that my 
obligation is to help advance science to make human life better now and 
in the future, in a manner that is consistent with Judeo-Christian 
ethics.
  As we move forward with debate on this bill, my only request is that 
my colleagues try to respect one another and the deeply held beliefs on 
both sides of this very complex issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 35 minutes 
to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), and that he be allowed to 
yield that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Forbes). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished and 
courageous gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 810, and 
I want to acknowledge the bipartisan effort that has gone into this 
legislation and the incredible grass roots movement that has built 
support for this groundbreaking medical research. It

[[Page H3811]]

has been inspirational to see so many Members putting aside politics 
and partisanship to address this issue which affects the lives of 
millions of Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I am one of those Americans. At age 16, I was an 
Explorer Scout in my hometown police station. One afternoon, in the 
police locker room, a gun accidentally discharged. The bullet severed 
my spinal cord, and I have been paralyzed ever since.
  This experience shapes my perspective in so many ways. Above all, it 
has given me tremendous appreciation and respect for life. My life as a 
quadriplegic is filled with challenges and obstacles, yet I am grateful 
for every minute. This gratitude has become a passion, and it has 
motivated me to help create a culture that values and protects life 
from its beginning to its end.
  To me, being pro-life also means fighting for policies that will 
eliminate pain and suffering and help people enjoy longer, healthier 
lives. And to me, support for embryonic stem cell research is entirely 
consistent with that position. What could be more life-affirming than 
using what otherwise would be discarded to save, extend, and improve 
countless lives?
  This research offers the opportunity to discover cures and treatments 
for diseases like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, ALS, diabetes, spinal cord 
injury, and many others. But it will take not only the talent of our 
scientists, but also the support of our government to realize its full 
potential. We have a responsibility to ensure that this research 
proceeds, and it does so with ethical safeguards and strict guidelines. 
By permitting research only on excess embryos created in the in-vitro 
fertilization process, and by establishing a clear, voluntary consent 
process for donors, H.R. 810 meets this responsibility.
  Stem cell research gives us hope and a reason to believe. I believe 
one day a child with diabetes will no longer face a lifetime of painful 
shots and tests. I believe one day families will no longer watch in 
agony as a loved one with Parkinson's or Alzheimer's gradually 
declines. And I believe one day I will walk again.
  There are few moments in medical history when we can clearly identify 
a giant step forward in improving countless lives. We saw it with the 
discovery of antibiotics and the advent of organ transplants.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that adult and embryonic stem cell research is 
another of these great moments. Today we have a historic opportunity to 
make a difference in the lives of millions of Americans and for people 
around the world. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 810.
  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. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in respectful opposition to this sincerely 
conceived, but ill-founded, legislation known as Castle-DeGette, a bill 
that authorizes the use of Federal tax dollars to fund the destruction 
of human embryos for scientific research.
  As we begin this debate, I am confident we will hear the supporters 
of this bill argue in the name of President Ronald Reagan, that somehow 
this research is consistent with his long-held views on the sanctity of 
life. But it was Ronald Reagan who wrote: ``We cannot diminish the 
value of one category of human, the unborn, without diminishing the 
value of all human life.''
  The supporters will also argue that this is a debate between science 
and ideology, that destroying human embryos for research is necessary 
to cure a whole host of maladies, from spinal cord injuries to 
Parkinson's. But the facts suggest otherwise.
  As Members will hear to date, embryonic stem cell research has not 
produced a single medical treatment, where ethical adult cell research 
has produced some 67 medical miracles. Physicians on our side of the 
aisle will make the case for the ethical alternative of adult stem cell 
research, and Congress today has already voted to greatly expand 
funding in this area.
  But the debate over the legitimacy or the potential of embryonic stem 
cell research is actually not the point of this debate. We are here 
simply to decide whether Congress should take the taxpayer dollars of 
millions of pro-life Americans and use them to fund the destruction of 
human embryos for research. This debate is really not about whether 
embryonic stem cell research should be legal. Sadly, embryonic stem 
cell research is completely legal in this country and has been going on 
at universities and research facilities for years.
  The proponents of this legislation do not just want to be able to do 
embryonic stem cell research. They want me to pay for it. And like 43 
percent of the American people in a survey just out today, I have a 
problem with that.
  You see, I believe that life begins at conception and that a human 
embryo is human life. I believe it is morally wrong to create human 
life to destroy it for research, and I further believe it is morally 
wrong to take the tax dollars of millions of pro-life Americans who 
believe, as I do, that human life is sacred, and use it to fund the 
destruction of human embryos for research.
  This debate then is not really about what an embryo is. This debate 
is about who we are as a Nation, not will we respect the sanctity of 
life, but will we respect the deeply held moral beliefs of nearly half 
of the people of this Nation who find the destruction of human embryos 
for scientific research to be morally wrong.
  Despite what is uttered in this debate today, I say again, this 
debate is not about whether we should allow research. This debate is 
not about whether we should allow research that involves the 
destruction of human embryos. This debate is about who pays for it, and 
it is my fervent hope and prayer as we stand at this crossroads between 
science and the sanctity of life that we will choose life.
  This morning on Capitol Hill I was surrounded by dozens of 
``snowflake babies,'' some 81 children who were born from frozen 
embryos, the throw-away material we will hear about today. As I spoke 
over the cries and cooing of those little fragile lives, I could not 
help but think of the ancient text: ``I have set before you life and 
Earth, blessings and curses, now choose life so that you and your 
children may live.''
  Let this Congress choose life and reject Federal funding for the 
destruction of human embryos for research.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this debate we are having surrounding H.R. 810, the Stem 
Cell Research Enhancement Act, is really one of the most fundamentally 
important debates that this body can undertake. Regrettably, this 
discussion will only last a few hours on the floor of the House of 
Representatives today.
  There have been no hearings on this bill or on the previous stem cell 
bill. H.R. 810 addresses the most fundamental, basic, ethical issue: 
life, and when does it begin; when should life, including human 
embryos, be open to experimentation and scientific research.
  Those of us who believe in the sanctity of life from conception to 
our last breath, find the logic of the proponents of embryonic stem 
cell research flawed. H.R. 810 allows research and science to triumph 
philosophy and values.
  This country seeks to be a world leader militarily, economically and 
scientifically, and culturally. But what about morally and ethically? 
What about leading the world in ethics and morals by declaring human 
life off limits to research and to manipulation through stem cell 
research? What about leading the world in ethics and morals by 
declaring human life from embryonic stage to old age as valued? We, as 
a Nation, believe that all life is precious and there is an ethical 
line that we as a people, as a Nation, will not cross.
  We should lead by declaring that human life, even at the embryonic 
stage, is not open to manipulation, experimentation, or research. We 
cannot mask the efforts to manipulate human life under the guise of 
science or medical research.
  You and I, each of us, we all share one thing in common: we were all 
embryos at one time. The embryos that were you and me were allowed to 
grow to become Congressmen, Congresswomen, police officers, factory 
workers, soldiers, government employees, lawyers, doctors, scientists. 
We were all embryos at one time. We were all

[[Page H3812]]

allowed to grow. Whether an embryo, a human life, is or is not allowed 
to grow, to become a unique individual, is a discussion this country 
really should have, a meaningful discussion, not just a few hours of 
debate in this Chamber.
  It is my hope that families, individuals, couples and our children 
will have a discussion on human life and when it begins. Is an embryo 
life? At what point does an embryo become life? At what point does our 
Nation shelter life with the constitutional, legal, and governmental 
safeguards? Are there other ways to do promising medical and scientific 
research without destroying human embryos?
  This is an ethical discussion I hoped would take place in the Halls 
of Congress, in the congressional committee rooms, in homes and 
workplaces all across America. Whether it is at the watercooler or in 
the cloakroom, these ethical and moral issues should and must be 
discussed as a Nation, as a people, as a culture, and as a world 
leader. Instead, this will only be discussed for a few hours on the 
House floor.
  The other body has just gone through public, political, and 
senatorial debate on the use of a filibuster in our democracy. Because 
of this debate, a healthy discussion occurred in America. I, for one, 
do not wish to avoid the moral and ethical issues of stem cell research 
debate.
  Yesterday in a news show, the commentator asked me why not allow stem 
cell research on discarded medical waste. Is that what we have come to, 
to viewing embryos, which if allowed to grow and divide would become 
human beings, being treated as medical waste? Why are proponents of 
H.R. 810 so adamant that we do research specifically using embryonic 
stem cells? According to the proponents of this legislation, these stem 
cells are our best hope of finding cures. They can develop into all 
cells of the body. They say medical science can unlock the keys to 
life. We can cure any disease or injury. They argue we must create life 
and then kill it to unlock the mysteries of life for scientific medical 
research.
  Create and clone the building blocks of life so we can manipulate and 
experiment? Is that the line we wish to cross today? We will hear today 
about other research with adult stem cells, cord and placenta cells, 
bone marrow, fetal tissue, and unraveling our DNA through mapping of 
genome, all in the pursuit of finding medical cures for the dreaded 
diseases, illnesses, and injuries we all wish to cure. But where do we 
draw the line on medical research and say we as a Nation, we as a 
people will not cross that line? This question has not been adequately 
addressed in this legislation.
  When do embryos become life? If you read the materials, after 40 
hours, less than 2 days, the fertilized egg begins to divide and the 
embryos are checked after 40 hours. Or is it 5 days when embryos are 
called blastocysts? At this stage there are approximately 250 cells. Or 
do we allow the blastocysts to survive in a laboratory culture for up 
to 14 days and still not call them human life but blastocysts so they 
are still open to research and experimentation?

                              {time}  1400

  When does life become scientifically nonexistent?
  I ask these questions because H.R. 810 is silent on these issues. It 
does not specify how long these embryos are allowed to grow before they 
are killed--2 days, 5 days, 14 days or more. Proponents of H.R. 810 
will claim that their legislation will address the ethical manner in 
which this research will be conducted. Yet their legislation is silent 
on the ethics, other than subsection C that directs the Secretary of 
HHS to create guidelines within 60 days.
  Two presidential bioethics advisory panels have given us differing 
guidance on when and how research should be conducted. If this Nation, 
through its elected leaders, allows embryonic stem cell research, then 
we as representatives of the American people should have the courage to 
state unequivocally where we stand and answer the ethical questions 
presented before us here today. As elected leaders, we should set some 
basic guidelines, not leave the guidelines to unelected and unnamed 
administrative officials.
  I know many Members on both sides of the aisle, of all political 
philosophies, have struggled with questions of morality, questions of 
life and questions of faith this past week. Many of us have asked 
ourselves that same question, and I have concluded that this 
legislation is unethical and unnecessary.
  H.R. 810 mandates Federal tax dollars to be used to destroy human 
embryos. These embryos, if allowed to live, would grow into beautiful 
children like the snowflake children visiting the Capitol today. They 
are human life. You, I and they were embryonic stem cells that were 
allowed to grow.
  Congress should not take lightly the destruction and manipulation of 
human life. It is clear that the American public does not. Forty-three 
percent of the American public clearly opposes more Federal funding for 
human embryonic research. Fifty-three percent clearly support more 
Federal funding, according to CNN.
  As I said before, this legislation has no limits as to how long the 
embryo can grow. The National Academy of Sciences' guidelines 
recommends allowing them to grow for no more than 14 days.
  Again, this legislation is not necessary. Human embryonic stem cell 
research is completely legal today in the private sector. Embryonic 
stem cell research is eligible for State funding in several States, 
California and New Jersey, and is funded through millions of dollars in 
private research money, $100 million alone at Harvard University.
  Since August 2001, 128 stem cell lines have been created. And still 
human embryonic stem cell research is funded by the Federal Government 
today. The National Institute of Health spent $24 million on embryonic 
stem cell research in fiscal year 2004, the last year that data was 
available. Twenty-two human embryonic stem cell lines are currently 
receiving Federal funding. These lines are sufficient for basic 
research according to the NIH director. Former Secretary of Health and 
Human Services Tommy Thompson has said that these lines should be 
exhausted first before we move any further.
  Finally, embryonic stem cell research remains unproven. Not a single 
therapy has been developed from embryonic stem cell research. Instead 
of cures, embryonic stem cell research has led to tumors and deaths in 
animal studies. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) has had his 
staff scour the medical journals for real proof of therapeutic benefit 
of embryonic stem cell research, but has come up empty handed. There 
have been zero published treatments in human patients using embryonic 
stem cells.
  While the promise of embryonic stem cells is questionable, the 
promise of adult stem cell research is being realized today. Adult stem 
cells are being used today to save lives. Recognizing this, the 
National Institutes of Health spent $568 million in fiscal year 2006 on 
adult stem cell research. Adult stem cells are being used today in 
clinical trials and in clinical practice to treat 58 diseases, 
including Parkinson's, spinal cord injury, juvenile diabetes, brain 
cancer, breast cancer, lymphoma, heart damage, rheumatoid arthritis, 
juvenile arthritis, stroke, and sickle cell anemia.
  I am pleased the House is passing legislation today, the Stem Cell 
Therapeutic and Research Act, to promote adult stem cell research. But 
we are faced now with a bill that is unethical and incomplete. H.R. 810 
says nothing about human cloning, which is still perfectly legal today. 
I introduced legislation with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) 
and Senators Brownback and Landrieu to ban all human cloning. The 
inevitable truth is that if we pass this bill today, the cloning of a 
human baby will only come sooner. There is no room for shades of gray 
on this issue. The, quote, therapeutic cloning that will result from 
this legislation will make reproductive cloning even more likely.
  We should not allow the creation of life for the purpose of 
destroying it. That is what happens with this bill.
  Let me be clear. I am committed to funding scientific research that 
will unlock the origins of disease and develop cures that can help my 
constituents. Again, 58 conditions are being treated using placental 
and adult stem cells, and we cannot begin to imagine the promising new 
treatments and drugs on the horizon. But we cannot let

[[Page H3813]]

science leapfrog our ethics, our morals and our legal system. This is 
not a partisan issue, and it is bigger than a right-to-life issue.
  It is clear that adult stem cell research has opened the door to the 
dreams of lifesaving treatments and cures for our most deadly and 
debilitating diseases, but I do not believe it is time to open the door 
to more embryonic stem cell research and open the floodgates to human 
cloning.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 810.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, just speaking to the Members perhaps back in the offices 
listening, I have 820,000 constituents in Delaware, and probably more 
than a third of them have some kind of a disease that might be able to 
be benefited by embryonic stem cell research.
  That is true of the figures in the country. We have 110 million 
people who have illnesses out of the 290 million people who are living 
here. They have visited my office. They have visited your offices. 
There is not a person in this room who has not had many, many visits by 
people who have very, very serious needs, whose lives are going to be 
shortened.
  I am all for the first bill we debated today because I think it might 
help somewhat, but I have also looked at some statistics and I have 
come to realize that of the 15 leading diseases, adult stem cells 
cannot do anything about 14 of them and can do a only little bit about 
heart diseases as they deal with only blood diseases in terms of what 
they can do. Embryonic stem cell research has the ability, perhaps, to 
do much more than that.
  People are going to get up and they are going to say, well, it hasn't 
done anything yet. They were only discovered about 6\1/2\ years ago. If 
you read the vast body of research in the United States of America on 
this subject by people who are truly knowledgeable, you are going to 
learn there is more potential here than anything that has ever happened 
in medicine in the history of the United States of America. Congress 
should never, ever turn its back on this opportunity.
  How are we going to get there? How are we going to do embryonic stem 
cell research? I do not have time to go through the whole in vitro 
fertilization process except to say that we create embryos in that 
particular process. They are then frozen. They are generally used and 
well used, the 400,000 embryos which are out there, to help give birth 
to people who might not otherwise be able to have a child. But at the 
end of the process, a decision is made by the individuals that may be 
involved with that. If the decision is they no longer want that 
particular embryo, they may do a variety of things with it. They may, 
as has been discussed here, give it up for adoption. They may decide to 
have it discarded as hospital waste. That is where the vast, almost all 
of them actually go as hospital waste.
  We want to give them the opportunity to say, within that embryo there 
are stem cells which could help other people live better lives and give 
them the opportunity to be able, instead of having it put in a bag for 
hospital waste, sitting at that table, to be put over here, and the 
State to be able to do the research. That is what we need to do. We 
need to be able to develop that as rapidly as we possibly can for the 
benefit of all mankind.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell 
Research Enhancement Act.
  I have been in public office for over 30 years and throughout my 
career, I--just like all of you--have had the opportunity to change and 
improve public policy so this country may continue to flourish on the 
principles it was founded. And the 820,000 people I represent in the 
State of Delaware are a constant reminder to me of this responsibility. 
I am their voice in the Congress of the United States.
  Some of you may be wondering why I have become so interested and 
involved in embryonic stem cell research. And frankly, the answer is 
simple--those 800,000 constituents.
  We estimated that about one-half of all visits to my office are about 
health care and about one-half of those visits are by Delawareans who 
are suffering themselves or whose family members are suffering--from 
juvenile diabetes, Alzheimer's, cancer, Parkinson's, HIV and hosts of 
other dredge diseases. Year by year the groups would grow in number and 
soon we would have to get bigger rooms for our meetings.
  In the early years we would discuss the necessity of funding the 
National Institutes of Health, and I was proud to be able to support 
Newt Gingrich and the Republican Party's drive to double funding for 
the NIH. And that funding has gone toward the basic science needed to 
find cures and treatments to our most debilitating diseases. But in the 
past few years, the number one topic on these groups' minds was 
embryonic stem cell research.
  One little girl stands out in mind. I met her a few months ago at an 
event back in Delaware. Olivia was two months old when she was 
diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. Her parents were first time parents so 
it is no wonder that the practice of testing her blood sugar and giving 
her insulin shots was extremely heartbreaking. Olivia is now 6 and has 
never known life without diabetes. She is the person we are fighting 
for on the floor today.
  She is one of 110 million people who are suffering that may be helped 
by stem cell research.
  I remember very clearly the difficult decision President Bush made on 
August 9, 2001 and I know how careful he was to balance the needs of 
science with his own moral concerns. At the time, the compromise--to 
allow Federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells lines that 
had already been derived--seemed quite reasonable. But as we know, 
unfortunately, the number of lines eligible for research--once as high 
as 78--is now only at 22, with the NIH saying the number of lines will 
never get above 23.
  So when Diana DeGette and I began discussing how to expand the 
President's policy in an ethical manner, I went right back to the 
speech he gave to the Nation in 2001. We wanted to be as consistent as 
possible with the ethics he laid out in his speech as we worked to 
update the policy. The legislation we are going to vote on today, H.R. 
810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which has the backing of 
the medical groups, the scientists, the research universities and the 
patient advocacy groups, mirrors the President's ethical requirements.
  I will read them to you and ask that you think about them very 
closely:
  (1) Embryos used to derive stem cells were originally created for 
fertility treatment purposes and are in excess of clinical need;
  (2) The individuals seeking fertility treatments for whom the embryos 
were created have determined that the embryos will not be implanted in 
a woman and will otherwise be discarded; and,
  (3) The individuals for whom the embryos were created have provided 
written consent for embryo donation and without receiving financial 
inducement. You may ask what is different--we simply lift the arbitrary 
August 9, 2001 date.
  It is also critical that we are clear about what this legislation 
does not do:
  (1) No federal funding for the destruction of embryos or human life. 
This is prohibited by law.
  (2) No federal funding for the creation of embryos for research.
  Under our legislation it is up to the couple to decide what should 
happen to their embryos. Embryos can be adopted or donated; embryos can 
be frozen for future family building; embryos can be discarded. After 
that initial decision is made, and if a couple decides to discard the 
embryos, our legislation would allow those couples to make a second 
choice--do they want to donate them to research?
  An embryo or blastocyst is about 250 cells and the inner cell mass is 
about 100 cells and that is where the stem cells come from. They are 
created in a petri dish, are about 5 days old and are the size of a 
pine head. Of the 400,000 frozen embryos in in vitro fertilization 
clinics throughout the U.S., about 2 percent are discarded annually--
that is about 8,000--11,000 embryos that could be slated for research. 
Allowing the option of donating these excess embryos to research is 
similar to donating organs for organ transplantation in order to save 
or improve the quality of another person's life.
  The bottom line is when a couple has decided to discard their excess 
embryos they are either going to be discarded as medical waste or they 
can be donated for research. Throughout this debate you will hear about 
adult stem cells and more about umbilical cord cells and how these 
types of cells are sufficient for scientists.
  This is simply not true. Umbilical cord cells are adult stem cells 
and they are limited.
  Adult and umbilical cord cells are already differentiated into the 
types of cells they are, they are difficult to harvest and grow and 
they do not exist for every tissue type. On the other hand, embryonic 
stem cells are ``master cells''--they have the potential to grow into 
any type of cell in the body, they are easier to identify, isolate, 
purify and grow and they are capable of continual reproduction.
  Listen to what the NIH has to say on this topic:


[[Page H3814]]


       Human embryonic stem cells are thought to have much greater 
     developmental potential than adult stem cells. This means 
     that embryonic stem cells may be pluripotent--that is, able 
     to give rise to cells found in all tissues of the embryo 
     except for germ cells rather than being merely multipotent--
     restricted to specific subpopulations of cell types, as adult 
     stem cells are thought to be.

  In 2003, 1.6 million people died of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, 
Alzheimer's, kidney disease, liver disease and Parkinson's. Of the 15 
leading causes of death, adult stem cell research only addresses one. 
Adult stem cells have been around since the 1960s. Embryonic stem cells 
were only isolated in 1998. We must explore research on all types of 
stem cells, but the reality is the only policy that is restricted is 
the Federal embryonic stem cell policy.
  The NIH is the right place to oversee this research because it can 
regulate the ethics, it provides for scientific collaboration and peer 
review and promotes publication so all breakthroughs are reported and 
all scientists have access to the latest research discoveries. Without 
NIH oversight there are no guidelines as to how this research should be 
conducted.
  The United States has always been the premier leader in biomedical 
research in our country and around the world. As science continues to 
move rapidly forward, we need to continue to lead the way but we are 
not. Why should we waste one more year, one more day, forcing millions 
to suffer because of a policy that is outdated and unworkable.
  Does this Congress really want to look back 10 years from now and say 
that we were the ones holding the treatments up? Or do we want to be 
the Congress that says, we back science, we want research to flourish 
and we played a small role in making that happen.
  Support H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act and 
accelerate hope.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from California 
is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, a family invests their embryos. They are 
not going to save them for 1,000 years. Some of those embryos 
cryogenically deteriorate so they are going to discard those embryos. 
Others are just thrown down the toilet because someone does not want 
them anymore.
  Those are the embryos that we can use for stem cell research, only 
the ones that are going to be thrown away. If there are 400,000, then 
we will use 400,000. If there are only 10, we will use 10 unless they 
can be adopted, which I also support in this bill.
  People say that there has been no research. If you take a look in 
animals, they have actually saved spinal cords in animals, in heart, in 
Alzheimer's, but they just have not done it in humans. There is 
potential, both for adult and embryonic stem cell.
  I have been here 15 years and I am 100 percent prolife, 100 percent. 
This is an issue of life to me.
  I had a 6-year-old in the committee that said, Duke, you're the only 
person who can save my life. Do you have a child with diabetes? Do you 
have a child with other diseases that could be prevented? Then you 
would support this. I am for life and I am for the quality of life, but 
I do not want another 6-year-old to die.
  I opposed the California bill. It went too far. I do not support 
cloning, but I want to save life. We are this close to stopping 
juvenile diabetes. There are other embryos that are tainted so bad that 
you would not implant those and they want to study those so that they 
can stop those childhood diseases. But you cannot look a child in the 
eye when the only chance they have to live is this research.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).
  Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, this is a grand and glorious debate we are 
having today. Think of what we are doing. We are debating the best 
route for achieving wonderful, healing medical possibility, possibility 
that would have been unheard of not many years ago. But it is only 
possibility. By definition, good research is always about possibility, 
about the potential of finding the answers to that which we do not 
know.
  Let me share three perspectives with you today. First, that of a 
friend. This is a picture of a family I know. The mother, father and I 
trained together at the medical school in Arkansas. She was diagnosed 
with insulin dependent diabetes at age 7. She had early complications 
with retinal problems caused by the diabetes. Her husband is a doctor. 
Five years ago he had an accident and now has paralysis caused by 
spinal cord injury at the C7-T1 level. This family has hope, realistic 
hope that sometime in the many years of life ahead of them, medical 
research may give them the possibility of cure or dramatic improvement 
in her diabetes and his spinal cord injury.
  Second, as a family doctor, I practiced medicine. My patients and I 
relied on past research done by many good scientists striving in an 
ethical manner to end the harsh realities of so many diseases. I know 
some of my friends in opposition to this bill today argue that 
embryonic stem cell research is junk science. I do not share this view, 
but to those of you pondering this view today I say, let our gifted 
researchers, not us legislators, answer the unanswered scientific 
questions for us. Funded ethical research is not junk science. 
Premature conclusion is.
  Third, as patients, my wife and I have ventured into the world of 
fertility clinics. We have met doctors and nurses all working hard to 
help couples have families, and we have studied and prayed over the 
patient consent forms. The ultimate decision on what happens to 
unneeded embryos should be up to that fully informed family, and fully 
informed consent is part of this bill.
  I support this bill today. I do not know what, if anything, will come 
from this funded research. That is why we do the research.
  Please vote ``yes'' for this bill.
  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. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, as a physician, I know that 
respected scientists believe that misrepresentations and exaggerated 
claims in this debate are not only scientifically irresponsible, they 
are deceptive and cruel to millions of patients and their families who 
hope desperately for cures.
  It seems to me that there is one unmistakable fact. Many in our 
society have sincere, heartfelt, passionate, ethical questions, worthy 
of our respect, regarding the scientific or medical use of embryonic 
stem cells. If our goal is truly to cure diseases and help patients, 
science tells us that today the use of adult and cord stem cells has 
successfully treated or holds real potential for treating nearly 60 
diseases. The same cannot be said for embryonic stem cells, and adult 
stem cells carry none of the ethical questions or dilemma of embryonic 
stem cells.
  I support stem cell research, active, aggressive and scientifically 
based, with respect for the difficult ethical questions we face today. 
I urge my colleagues to join me in respecting science, in respecting 
ethical concerns. If we do, we will recognize that stem cell research 
and treatment of disease should actively proceed with those adult and 
cord stem cells that are providing and will increasingly provide 
excellent and exciting cures for patients in need.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), who has been a wonderful help on this bill.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I am fortunate to represent the University 
of Wisconsin, Madison, where Dr. Jamie Thompson and his team were the 
first to derive and culture human embryonic stem cells in a lab. These 
cells can be described as the parent cells of all tissues in the body. 
Embryonic stem cells open the possibility of dramatic new medical 
treatments, transplantation therapies, and cures.
  But at 9 p.m. on August 9, 2001, the hope and promise of this 
embryonic stem cell research was greatly curtailed. President Bush 
declared that researchers who received Federal funding could work only 
with embryonic stem cell lines created before that date and time. There 
were supposed to be 78

[[Page H3815]]

lines that were eligible for federally funded research. However, due to 
age, old technologies, contamination, only 22 are useful for research 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, why are we tying the hands of our scientists who receive 
NIH grants or other Federal dollars to support their research? Why are 
we curtailing scientific progress in America while scientists in other 
countries rapidly seize the opportunity inherent in advancing this 
research?
  H.R. 810 creates strong new safeguards and guidelines concerning 
research on human embryonic stem cells. Strict criteria, including 
written informed consent for donation, must be met before Federal 
researchers can derive and culture new stem cell lines.
  Some Members on the other side of this debate say their constituents 
are opposed to their Federal tax dollars being used on this 
groundbreaking science. Well, I have constituents as well, like young 
Jessie Alswager of Madison, Wisconsin. Jessie has juvenile diabetes, 
and every year he comes to Washington to lobby for this research to 
move us closer to a cure. Jessie is only 8; so I do not think he pays 
taxes yet; but his mom, Michelle, sure does. And Michelle, like 
millions of other Americans who could be helped by this science, very 
much want their tax dollars spent on stem cell research.
  I urge support of the Castle-DeGette bill.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader for yielding me 
this time.
  I ask myself this question: If we are going to deal with this debate 
on embryonic stem cell research, what are the ethics of this? One can 
go to Google and do a Google search on permissible medical experiments. 
And I did that, and I found that there is a list of 10 things that have 
to be qualifiers for permissible medical experiments on human beings. 
One is the subject must be a volunteer. The second one is there must be 
no alternative. The third one is results of animal experimentation must 
be proven successful prior to their experiments. The net result in 
death or disability cannot be accepted. The seventh one is there cannot 
be even a remote possibility of injury, disability, or death. The human 
subject must be at liberty to end the experiment. And the likely result 
cannot be injury, disability, or death. The exception is if a physician 
wants to experiment upon himself.
  Where do I find this information, Mr. Speaker? I find this 
information in the military tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10, 
October, 1946, Nuremberg.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
  (Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, we need to remember that 
embryonic stem cell research is legal. In the absence of the Federal 
Government, the States are already taking the lead. California is at 
the forefront of establishing a robust embryonic stem cell research 
program. New Jersey has followed suit, and seven other States are in 
the process of doing so. We do not want our stem cell research policies 
left to the vagaries of State electoral politics. The Federal 
Government in general, and NIH in particular, must be involved. The 
less NIH is involved with its time-tested methods and procedures, the 
less we are assured of good ethical guidelines and scientific methods 
will be followed. Instead, we will have more and more individual States 
attempting to set up their own regulatory schemes, something they may 
or may not be equipped to do.
  Opponents argue that it is the product of a utilitarian world view, 
that somehow this is a zero-sum game, if the Members will, in which 
life is taken in order to give life. I think the strictures that are 
established by H.R. 810 negate that argument. Under this bill, Federal 
research will proceed using those embryos not used in fertility 
clinics, embryos voluntarily given that would otherwise be destroyed, 
that is, embryos that held the promise of life but are certain not to 
fulfill that promise. What we are doing is extending the potential life 
where otherwise there would be none.
  I urge passage of H.R. 810.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono), a member of the committee.
  Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 810. I would 
like to thank the chairman for all of his work in bringing this bill to 
the floor, and I would like to thank my leadership for allowing a vote 
on this important legislation.
  As Representatives, we are in the unique position to frequently meet 
with a wide cross-section of people, many of whom are suffering from 
debilitating diseases, injuries, and ailments. These millions of 
patients, as well as their loved ones, have a clear message for 
policymakers: we support this research and we need their help.
  Opponents of this bill have argued that we should not use Federal 
funds to pay for embryonic stem cell research. I respectfully disagree. 
The issue at hand is allowing for more pristine stem cell lines to be 
eligible for research. Scientists and researchers throughout the United 
States are constantly reminding us that the focus needs to be on the 
quality of the stem cell lines available which are eligible for Federal 
research. I would also like to state that there is no funding for the 
derivation of the lines and the lines must be ethically in accordance 
with the principles the President has laid out in his policy. We are 
undoubtedly slowing research progress by forbidding researchers from 
using Federal funds to conduct research.
  Former First Lady Nancy Reagan has said about embryonic stem cell 
research: ``Science has presented us with a hope called stem cell 
research, which may provide our scientists with many answers that for 
so long have been beyond our grasp. I just don't see how we can turn 
our backs on this. We have lost so much time already. I just really 
can't bear to lose any more.''
  We all know that the impetus for Nancy Reagan was the battle that her 
husband, President Ronald Reagan, fought with Alzheimer's disease. The 
former first lady is not alone. Over 4.5 million Americans are affected 
by Alzheimer's. I am encouraged by scientists' claims that embryonic 
stem cells will allow for more research on Alzheimer's, including the 
possibility that they may be used to grow new brain cells to replace 
the brain tissue destroyed by the disease.
  Dana Reeves, the widow of actor and activist Christopher Reeves, sat 
with me less than 2 months ago and shared her family's devastating 
story. The potential for turning the hope for spinal cord injury into 
reality is evident, and I believe that by passing this legislation we 
can clear the way for research to move forward.
  Dana and Nancy are just two of the more visible faces of public 
figures who have asked for this research.
  Mr. Speaker, I implore my colleagues to please support this 
legislation, H.R. 810.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in strong support of the 
bipartisan Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005.
  One of the few places this is really an extremely controversial bill 
is right here because the majority of Americans strongly support 
embryonic stem cell research. They want the Federal Government to fund 
research that is critical for some 128 million Americans who suffer 
from juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, cancer, heart 
disease, spinal cord injuries, ALS, and other diseases.
  Stem cell research is a medical issue, one that should and 
fortunately does transcend political lines and instead focuses on human 
lives. One such life is that of Clara Livingston, a 9-year-old girl 
with diabetes. During her testimony last week in a hearing in Chicago, 
Clara said, ``There are things I don't like about diabetes. I have to 
put a one-inch needle into my skin to connect my insulin pump. I don't 
like pricks or shots. I don't like having high blood sugar and not 
being able to eat. I don't like going low and fainting.'' She 
continued, ``I would like to find a cure because finding a cure will 
help make America and the rest of the world not worry about diabetes.''

[[Page H3816]]

  Most scientists agree that embryonic stem cell research offers the 
greatest hope to patients like Clara. There are limitations on the 
usefulness of adult stem cells when compared to embryonic stem cells. 
For example, there are no adult stem cells in the pancreas. That means 
that adult stem cell research will be inadequate in helping Clara or 
any other patients who are patients hoping for a cure for diabetes.
  While it is important to continue working with adult stem cells, it 
is also vital to fund the research funding embryonic stem cells. We do 
a grave disservice to millions of children and adults living with 
serious illness, as well as the millions who will develop these 
conditions in the future, by prohibiting promising research. This bill 
will lift these arbitrary restrictions and permit funding of cell lines 
regardless of where they were created. Federal funding guidelines 
assure that research will meet ethical standards and allow advancements 
to be made as quickly as possible. As Steven Teitelbaum of Washington 
University in St. Louis said, ``This is not a contest between adult and 
embryonic stem cells. This is a contest between us as a society and 
disease.''
  I hope my colleagues will vote ``yes'' on this bipartisan 
legislation.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Burgess), who was an OB/GYN physician for 21 years and has 
delivered over 3,000 babies and understands that an embryo is a stage 
of development.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Burgess), member of the committee.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader and my chairman 
for yielding me this time.
  I do rise in opposition to this bill today.
  The debate that we are about is expanding Federal funding, not 
limiting research. There are no bona fide treatments available for 
embryonic stem cells. There is nothing in the laboratory, and there is 
certainly nothing in the clinics available to patients. Honesty is an 
important part of this debate, and I am concerned that more than a 
promise has been offered to people who are suffering and the reality is 
that those potential treatments are much more limited than they have 
been portrayed.
  The President, I think, wisely put parameters, set boundaries around 
this type of research back in 2001. Let us not forget that private 
funding for stem cell research is available today. A couple who has an 
embryo developed in an IVF clinic is perfectly free to take that embryo 
to a lab at Harvard or California and have a stem cell line developed. 
The reality is in a poll of my reproductive endocrinologists back home: 
that never comes up as an issue.
  But 22 cell lines are currently utilized. There are an additional 31 
cell lines available, per Dr. Zerhouni's testimony before our 
committee, that will be developed after the issue of animal growth 
medium becomes overcome. And there are two papers out this past week 
that indicate that that date may be quickly upon us.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we follow the money in this 
debate. The reality is if there are indeed a third of the population of 
the United States who would benefit from this research, I believe that 
the big biotech money would be jumping into this. We would not be able 
to keep them out. They would be buying patents and capturing cell lines 
for their future use.
  If there is one thing we learned in the last Presidential election, 
it was that both major candidates asserted that life begins at 
conception, and we are talking about taking a life. Remember that that 
inner cell mass that we are talking about that is taken at about 2 
weeks of development, if we put that on a timeline of a human 
pregnancy, about 5 days later we are going to see a heartbeat on a 
sonogram.
  So, Mr. Speaker, this is what the debate is all about. I urge us to 
protect life and vote against this bill.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Today we in the Congress are debating the essence of human life, the 
creation of life and the destruction of life. We are debating how one's 
family's life code, their DNA, is propagated and bequeathed to the next 
generation. Each human life begins as an embryo. What concerns me, as 
someone who cherishes life and is a strong supporter of medical 
research for epilepsy, for diabetes, for spinal cord injury, for 
Alzheimer's, for so many debilitating diseases, is that this bill seems 
to be on a very fast track. It is moving through this Congress at 
record speed and not under the normal procedures we depend on to make 
informed decisions.

                              {time}  1430

  Today I rise with more questions than answers on this bill. I respect 
the advocates. I respect those that do not support the bill. But I know 
one thing: On a matter of life and death, Congress should proceed 
carefully, thoughtfully and in an informed manner. All points of view 
must be heard and not suppressed.
  Most surprisingly, this bill never had a subcommittee nor a full 
committee hearing. So my opinion today about this bill is: not yet. I 
am not yet confident that this institution has allowed for full 
dialogue to develop on a matter of such gravitas. Regardless of how you 
view the bills before us, the lack of a full hearing record is most 
troubling indeed.
  I ask myself, why is the normal committee process subverted on a 
matter of such consequence? What do proponents have to lose? Where is 
the committee transcript that will tell us the diverging views of 
scientists on the potentiality of adult stem cell versus embryonic stem 
cell to improve life? The fact is, there is none. Some evidence 
indicates stem cell research from nonembryonic sources now has made a 
difference in treating 58 different diseases. We need to know more 
about the science.
  Then, where is the committee record that helps us struggle with the 
essential moral question of: how exactly does one destroy life in order 
to save it? Where is the committee transcript that reveals to the 
majority of Members not on the committee the ethical questions that we 
and every family should be addressing concerning the proprietary nature 
of the DNA in any embryonic cell?
  We go to great lengths as a Congress to protect intellectual property 
rights, as our Constitution requires. After all, this Nation provides 
for patents for computer software, for medical devices, for seed corn 
genomes; and yet we provide no protection for the DNA of a human 
embryo? Whose DNA will be bequeathed to the future and whose will not?
  How do we evaluate this bill when so much is missing? How do we 
evaluate which embryos should be allowed to be sent to research and how 
many to be adopted by infertile couples so those embryos can be 
developed into full human beings? Who will decide? Is it just a matter 
for the individual couple, or is there a larger, societal 
responsibility to protect life?
  The woman whose eggs are being taken, how is she legally protected? 
How is her husband or mate legally protected in this relationship? And 
what are the rights of the embryo? Where is the hearing record that 
informs us how to carefully manage any transfer of human embryos to 
research so their essential worth is recognized?
  We are told that the ethical requirements section of the bill will 
suffice, yet this section is but 156 words long. It directs that NIH 
will issue final guidelines within 60 days of passage of this bill. 
Sixty days? That is not even enough time to grow a tomato plant. I ask, 
is this realistic? And further, who will influence NIH without more 
congressional guidance?
  Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of money to be made in this new field of 
life science. I think Congress should know who is likely to be making 
it, especially when Federal funding becomes involved. Which biogenetic 
and pharmaceutical firms stand to benefit the most from moving this 
bill forward? Exactly who are they? Which immunosuppressant drug 
companies? Do we as Members of Congress not have a right to know 
something more from the nonexistent transcript from the committee?
  I find it most coincidental that last week the South Koreans doing 
research in this arena announced that they had cloned cells, making it 
appear as

[[Page H3817]]

though, if Congress did not act today, America would fall behind in the 
world research community. I found the timing of that announcement just 
all too convenient and asked myself, which companies were behind it?
  In my opinion, the subcommittee and committees of jurisdiction have 
not met their responsibilities to this Congress, by abdicating their 
hearing responsibility. All we have are documents from outside 
proponents and opponents, and frankly, that is not good enough. Where 
is the hearing record to which all Members can refer which recounts the 
struggles of proponents and opponents with the ethical requirements 
that should be a part of this bill, and not merely leave it up to the 
National Institutes of Health?
  On a matter of such magnitude, where some human embryos will be 
destroyed in the hope that new cures are made possible, the Congress 
needs to be more responsible.
  I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the DeGette-Castle bill and 
remand it back to committee.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair would remind all 
Members to refrain from using audio devices during debate.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), a member of the committee.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New 
Hampshire.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) 
is recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, a ``yes'' vote today is a vote for progress, 
for reason and for sound research.
  Mr. Speaker, it is conservative to conserve, and this bill utilizes 
stem cells that have already been discarded, discarded because in most 
cases those who undergo in-vitro fertilization have excess fertilized 
cells available. Their only choice today has been for freezer storage, 
putting them up for adoption or discarding them, yes, into hospital 
medical waste.
  Now we will add a fourth option, and that is to allow these embryos 
to be used for scientific research, to find cures for diseases that 
have afflicted Americans, a large portion of Americans, that threaten 
the lives of young people. This is not about life, this is about saving 
life, and it is important that the Congress make this statement for a 
brighter future for many, many Americans.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BASS. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, we do not know yet, but the possibility is 
very real that stem cell research may be the greatest breakthrough in 
the history of science. There are deep and profound moral and 
philosophic issues surrounding the research, but our government should 
be very cautious about coming down on the wrong side of science, 
especially when the scientific endeavor is designed to lengthen and 
ennoble life.
  It has been suggested here today that no breakthrough therapies have 
yet been developed with stem cell research. This is simply not the 
case. Using, for example, the microenvironment of human embryonic stem 
cells, Dr. Mary Hendricks and her team of researchers at Chicago's 
Memorial Research Center have developed a methodology to slow the 
aggressive properties of metastatic cancer cells. How in heaven's name 
can we deny the promise of such research?
  There is consensus at this time in this body and in the research 
community that scientists should not play God in attempting to clone 
human beings, but we are at a stage of human existence where there is a 
practical possibility that a blastocyst that would otherwise be thrown 
away as waste can, in a petri dish, be used to help solve these 
incredible diseases, from Alzheimer's to Parkinson's to diabetes to 
cancer.
  If one believes that life matters, the balance of judgment should be 
to carefully open the door, as this bill, led so beautifully by my good 
friends the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentlewoman 
from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), does. Not to open the door is to put our 
heads in the sands and foreclose the prospect of a better life for 
many, many Americans.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for the purpose of making a 
unanimous-consent request.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Castle-
DeGette amendment. I have a friend who is alive today because of stem 
cell research and injections that he has had. He would love to have 
been here today to tell you about it. He is in the bloom of health.
  Mr. Speaker, a couple of years ago, a very close, longtime personal 
friend of mine, John McCaffery, was diagnosed with lymphatic leukemia. 
He underwent radiation and chemotherapy treatments. But he remained 
critically ill. His doctor suggested that he have a stem cell 
transplant.
  John was fortunate enough that his brother proved to be a match. 
After causing John's brother to overproduce stem cells, doctors at 
Strong Memorial Hospital in Rochester, removed the excess stem cells 
and put them in John. Unlike a painful, complicated bone marrow 
transplant, John received his stem cell transplant via an IV.
  Without advancements over the years in stem cell research, John would 
not have had the option for a stem cell transplant. Rather, he would 
have had to continue with chemotherapy treatment until the cancerous 
cells eventually took over his body and he died.
  Mr. Speaker, stem cell research saved John's life. And, I am very 
happy to report that today, John is once again leading a healthy, 
productive life.
  The U.S. has the finest research scientists in the world, but we are 
falling far behind other countries, like South Korea and Singapore, 
that are moving forward with embryonic stem cell research. Adult stem 
cells from umbilical cord blood will likely lead to treatments for some 
diseases. But this must complement, not substitute, scientific research 
on embryonic stem cells--which is much more promising and will yield to 
advancements in the prevention and treatment of almost every disease 
American families face. The United States must be on the cutting edge 
of this important research. We have a responsibility to promote stem 
cell research which could lead to treatments and cures for diseases 
affecting millions of Americans.
  Without question, the U.S. should set high standards for moral and 
ethical use of stem cells. But how can we do this, if we are not 
actively involved in the research?
  Mr. Speaker, John is one person whose life was saved by stem cells. 
There will be thousands and one day, millions more lives saved if we do 
the right thing today. I urge all my colleagues to support both adult 
and embryonic stem cell research by supporting the Stem Cell 
Therapeutic and Research Act and the Stem Cell Research Enhancement 
Act.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and want 
to congratulate the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) for her leadership and his 
leadership on this bill. This is, I think, one of the most important 
bills that we will consider for the welfare of people not only in this 
country, but throughout the world.
  Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear about what this bipartisan, 
moderate bill would do and not do. This legislation, which has 200-plus 
cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, would not permit Federal 
funding for cloning; it would not permit Federal funding to create 
embryos, nor would it permit Federal funding to destroy embryos.
  This important legislation simply expands the current Federal policy 
of allowing Federal funding for research on stem cell lines derived 
after the arbitrary date of August 9, 2001, from embryos created for 
fertility treatment that would otherwise be discarded.
  Recall that on that date, President Bush announced that Federal funds 
would be available to support research on human embryo stem cells so 
long as such research was limited to existing stem cell lines. At the 
time it was believed that 78 stem cell lines were eligible. Yet today, 
as we know, only 22 such lines are available for research, and these 
lines are aged, contaminated or developed with outdated research. 
Meanwhile, there are at least 125 new stem cell lines with substantial 
potential that federally funded researchers cannot use.

[[Page H3818]]

  Thus, Mr. Speaker, I believe the issue before this House today is 
this: Will we foster embryonic stem cell research, research that holds 
great promise for the potential treatment or cure of diseases such as 
ALS, Lou Gehrig's disease, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and other 
diseases, and offer hope to those with spinal cord injury and other 
injuries of the nervous system, or will we stand in the way?
  I know that the opponents of this bill believe that we are ignoring 
the ethical and moral implications of such research. I do not share 
that view. But, in fact, this legislation requires the Department of 
Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health to 
issue guidelines for ethical considerations; it requires a 
determination that the embryos would never have been implanted and 
would have been discarded; and it requires the donor's written, 
informed consent.
  Mr. Speaker, I realize this is a difficult issue for many. It is, 
however, I think, an issue that the American people have made a 
judgment on. It is an issue which they, I think, overwhelmingly 
support. The polls seem to reflect that at least 60 percent of the 
Americans asked the question support this important effort. They 
believe it holds promise for them, for their spouses, for their 
children.
  We have talked much about life on this floor. It is important that we 
do so. It is important that we do so in a thoughtful and principled 
way.
  I believe that this moderate, well-thought-out, carefully constructed 
bill takes a step that America expects us to take. This is the People's 
House. I believe the people would have us pass this legislation, and I 
urge my colleagues to vote accordingly.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Akin).
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized 
for 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. AKIN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, just in response to 
what was said on the floor, this is a statement that has appeared on 
the floor, and also in print, which says that the bill before us 
prohibits Federal funding used for the destruction of embryos.
  By its very definition, it requires the destruction of embryos when 
it does the research. That ought to be very clear. The process talked 
about requires the destruction of embryos.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I rise today to oppose 
public funding for the destruction of human embryos.

                              {time}  1445

  There is actually a very simple reason for that, and that is because 
you and I were once embryos.
  Now, an embryo may seem like some scientific or laboratory term, but, 
in fact, the embryo contains the unique information that defines a 
person. All you add is food and climate control and some time, and the 
embryo becomes you or me.
  Now, there are people who want to use public money to destroy 
embryos, and they talk about this bill as being a good first step. What 
happens if we run the clock to step two or step three?
  My own daughter wrote a little story, and I will read it, about step 
three: ``I lived with 40 others in a compound supervised by cool, 
efficient orderlies. Instead of playing, I stood pondering a troubling 
dream from the night before. It was of a loving father giving his child 
a name. I have always been just 52561B.
  ``I started imagining what it would be like to be named when the lab 
technician called me down the sterile white hall to my monthly checkup. 
I was given the usual clear injection and scanned. The medic flipped 
through the images which showed my organs and wrote, `healthy, still 
usable' across the file.
  ``Several weeks later, I heard footsteps outside my cell and low 
voices. The door unlocked and I was led again into the clinic and 
placed on the stainless table, but the injection this time was amber 
colored and I immediately sensed that something was wrong. Numbness 
started spreading across my body, great agony, no breathing, and the 
table was lifted and I slid down a chute into a large, steel box with 
waste paper and garbage from the lunch room.
  ``My body now thrashed uncontrollably, but as everything grew dark, 
there was a bright figure who seemed to protect me. He looked at me 
with such love and said, `I have given you the name Tesia, which means 
``Loved of God.'' '
  ``I awoke to see a wrinkled face with twinkling dark eyes framed by 
white hair. He must have seen my questioning expression. He explained, 
`You were a clone being held as a source for body parts, but when a 
recipient dies, the clone is considered useless and is given a lethal 
injection. I managed to get to you before the poison finished its 
work.'
  ``I was stunned. After a pause, he said, `What shall I call you?' At 
first I was startled until I remembered. I said, `Tesia.'' '
  Mr. Speaker, this building was built by our Founders on pillars, but 
not just pillars of marble. One pillar was the conviction that God 
grants life as an inalienable right, and they fought so that pillar 
would not be toppled by tyrants. And our sons and daughters fight so 
that pillar will not be toppled by terrorists. We must vote today so 
that that pillar will not be toppled by technology that is run amok.
  Oppose public funding which destroys little you's and me's, and 
oppose this harvest of destruction.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), who is a member of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce.
  (Mrs. MYRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 810.
  I believe in the transforming and the lifesaving power of research 
and science, and I have seen firsthand how cutting-edge research can 
make a big difference in the lives of Americans who suffer with all 
sorts of diseases, and, I understand the value of federally funded 
research. I also support stem cell research.
  However, this debate is not about the merits of scientific discovery. 
There is no ban on research for the limited number of IVF embryos on 
which such research would even be possible. This debate is about 
Federal tax dollars and whether these dollars should be spent on the 
destruction of embryos, which I do not support.
  Supporters of this bill say we have nothing to lose by destroying 
existing embryos with Federal money because, after all, some of them 
will probably be discarded anyway. I would ask my colleagues to recall 
the reason why we do not conduct scientific research on Federal death 
row inmates.
  Aren't they going to die anyway? By all accounts, death row inmates 
are not innocent lives--but we don't conduct destructive experiments on 
them because it would be ethically reprehensible. We certainly don't 
dedicate taxpayer funds for that purpose.
  Those who've studied the implications of an embryonic stem cell 
research expansion know full well that Federal funding for the 
destruction of existing IVF embryos is no silver bullet for disease 
treatment. But that's how the bill will be sold on the floor today. 
H.R. 810 is merely the first step in an effort to spend federal money--
not only on the destruction, but on the creation of cloned embryos for 
research. I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans).
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 810 because we need 
to support studying every kind of stem cell, from cord blood to adult 
to embryonic.
  Parkinson's disease affects over 1 million Americans, and I am one of 
them. Many people think that this is a disease that mostly affects 
older citizens. That is not true. I was diagnosed when I was in my mid-
40s and Michael J. Fox, for example, was much younger than that.
  Parkinson's does not keep me from doing the things that are important 
to

[[Page H3819]]

my life and my work, but Parkinson's does affect me every day of my 
life. There are good days and bad days, but there is still a need for 
research and for a cure.
  Parkinson's has been said to be the most curable disease that is yet 
to be cured. Scientists believe a cure is on the horizon within the 
next 5 to 10 years. They also believe that the advances in Parkinson's 
research will lead to accelerated cures for other illnesses such as 
Alzheimer's.
  Only embryonic stem cells hold enormous potential in order to treat 
these patients. Doctors treating patients with disease or injury may 
feel compelled to ease the suffering by taking every ethical avenue 
possible to find treatments and cures. These doctors are among some of 
the most talented, dedicated, and well-respected doctors in this 
country.
  Today we decide whether to free these scientists or to hold them 
captive. We will decide whether those suffering from Parkinson's, 
diabetes, spinal cord injuries, and others will have the greatest 
potential for cures, or whether they will just simply sit on the bench.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is the right message to send 
patients and doctors.
  The American people agree. Poll after poll has shown that a wider 
majority of Americans support ethical embryonic stem cell research. The 
majority of Bush supporters, for example, have voted to support this 
research. Over 90 patient organizations, scientific and medical 
societies, and universities also support this research. Some think this 
research has given false hope to patients like me. But the science is 
moving forward and, with our help, will go even further.
  This is really an exciting day for me, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate 
everyone who has helped us.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, as stewards of hard-working Americans' tax 
dollars, we cannot ask our constituents to fund the killing of human 
embryos.
  Like the rest of my colleagues joining me today, I am strongly in 
support of scientific research to save and improve human life. But to 
fund Federal research on stem cells derived from killing human embryos 
is unethical and irresponsible.
  While stem cell research has never been prohibited in the private 
sector, President Bush permitted the usage of embryonic stem cell lines 
sufficient for extensive government-funded research nearly 4 years ago. 
In these 4 years, government and private research on those stem cells 
have produced nothing, cured no one; and there is no indication that 
that will change.
  In the meantime, ethical research not derived from embryos in the 
public and private sectors has helped cure almost 60 diseases. The 
private sector has proven the superiority and promise of cord blood in 
adult stem cell research by choosing to fund those areas. Let us learn 
from their example and not squander taxpayer dollars on unethical 
research.
  Mr. Speaker, we do have the power of the purse, and we cannot misuse 
it by funding the slaughter of human life.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 810. Science has 
advanced rapidly since the President announced his stem cell research 
policy. These cells were just identified less than 10 years ago and, 
already, the technology is progressing by leaps and bounds. The 22 
lines currently available under the President's policy were developed 
using outdated techniques and have been contaminated, possibly skewing 
the outcome of experiments.
  Given the promise that stem cells hold, it is time to drop the limit 
on current stem cell lines and allow researchers to do what they do 
best. It is tragic to let these cells go to waste when they could help 
to relieve so much suffering. It is time to let researchers go where 
the science leads them, not where politicians dictate.
  In order to explore all of the possibilities, scientists must have 
access to all three kinds of stem cells: adult, embryonic, and those 
from the umbilical cord blood. That is why I plan to vote for H.R. 810 
and the Smith bill as well. The two are not in opposition; they are 
complementary.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support H.R. 810 and for the sake of the 
millions suffering from diseases, I ask my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from the great State of Missouri, the Show Me State (Mr. Blunt), the 
distinguished majority whip.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time and for his leadership and the leadership of others on this debate 
today.
  This debate is defined in so many ways by the conscience of each 
Member; and as each Member comes to the floor, as each Member speaks, I 
think my colleagues can see that this debate uniquely is based on their 
own view of this and their deeply founded view of this.
  In fact, the whip's office is not real busy today, because we are not 
whipping this vote. I do not think my friends on the other side are 
whipping this vote either. Why would that be? Why would we have a vote 
on a bill like this that, based on the debate, is so important that we 
would not be trying to persuade Members? Because we feel on both sides 
of this aisle, apparently, today that this is a matter of real 
conscience. This is a matter where people can deeply disagree. This is 
a matter about the very definition of life itself.
  Because of that, I am firmly on the side of those who believe it is 
not time yet to federally fund this particular kind of research. There 
is private sector funding available. Some States like the State of 
California recently decided they would fund this in a significant way. 
Other States have decided they would totally outlaw research. So this 
is clearly an issue where the country is divided.
  The ethics of this issue, as the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) 
suggested earlier, are not as clear as they should be. The future 
ownership and use of this research is not as clear as it needs to be. 
The first principle of bioethics should be: first, do no harm. We are 
not at the point in this issue where we can firmly say we are not doing 
harm. We are at the point when we can say that all of those concerns 
that this research is not possible if we do not fund it with Federal 
funding are just not right. This research is possible. I do not agree 
with it myself, but I particularly do not agree that we should take the 
tax money of millions and millions of taxpayers who believe this is 
absolutely wrong and pay for this research in that way.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill, Mr. Speaker.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).
  Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) 
for their leadership on this issue.
  Like millions of American families, my own has been impacted by the 
loss of loved ones with debilitating diseases. My grandmother, Alvana 
Carpenter, died of cancer, and my first cousin Betty Stolz, to MS. We 
lost them too soon. That is one of the reasons I have joined this 
unparalleled and growing bipartisan coalition to cosponsor H.R. 810, 
along with over 200 Democrats and Republicans in this House. People 
from the Show Me State were polled not too long ago, and three-fourths 
of them were in support of this research continuing. Just like polls 
around the country, when Nancy Reagan called to lift the Bush 
administration ban on this research in 2004, three-fourths of Americans 
have come to the support of this cause.
  There is great promise in this research. Since its isolation of the 
embryonic stem cell in 1998, research has made dramatic progress in the 
U.S. We cannot and we must not abandon our leadership role in the 
scientific community and in establishing strong ethical standards for 
this research, which are incorporated in this bill.

                              {time}  1500

  I also became involved in this debate because of the extraordinary 
citizens that have come to advocate on its behalf, advocates like 
Bernie Frank, an

[[Page H3820]]

accomplished St. Louisian who has volunteered for the Parkinson's 
Action Network; advocates like Dr. Huskey from Washington University, 
who suffers with MS and continues her advocacy; advocates like Rabbi 
Susan Talve and her young daughter, Adina, who suffers from a 
congenital heart defect. Early stem cell research shows the potential 
to discover ways to grow new heart muscle cells.
  Mr. Speaker, the promise of stem cell research is real. Science, not 
politics, should determine the future of this vital research.
  We stand here with the tools in our hands to ease the pain and 
suffering of so many across the country and around the world. To forgo 
potential life-saving cures is simply unacceptable and unconscionable.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Weldon), who has graduated with honors, is a physician in 
internal medicine, and also has degrees in biochemistry.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as most of my colleagues know, I 
practice general internal medicine and I still do it. I have treated a 
lot of patients with diabetes, Parkinson's; indeed, my father died of 
complications of diabetes. My uncle, his brother, died of complications 
of Parkinson's disease.
  Let us just talk a little bit about how we got here, okay? This body 
voted years ago, no Federal funding for research that involves the 
destruction of a human embryo. And President Clinton, towards the tail 
end of his administration, did an end run around the congressional 
prohibition, and they were having outside labs destroy the embryos, get 
the embryonic stem cells and send them over to NIH. And I sent the 
President a letter telling him, You are violating the spirit of the 
law, if not the letter of the law.
  When President Bush became President, a lot of us alerted him to this 
problem, and he came out with his policy. And I thought it was really 
like a Solomon-like compromise. He said, We will not allow any more 
Federal funds to be used that involve the killing of human embryos, but 
we will allow research to proceed on the existing cell lines.
  And I sit on the committee that funds this. We have funded this 
research to the tune of $60 million over the last 3 years, embryonic 
stem cell research, what you are asking for more of. And the only place 
that I can find the research results printed is, I have to go to the 
rat-and-mouse journals. And the results are bad. These things tend to 
form tumors. The plasticity that some of you extol in these embryonic 
stem cells make them genetically unstable. They tend to form tumors. We 
call them teratomas in the medical profession. They grow hair and they 
grow teeth. They are genetically unstable.
  Meanwhile, on the adult stem cell line it is breakthrough after 
breakthrough after breakthrough. Indeed, the gentlewoman from Colorado 
said in her opening statement, there is no, no scientific evidence that 
will show that cord blood or adult stem cells will cure Alzheimer's, 
Parkinson's or Type 1 diabetes.
  Parkinson's disease was successfully treated 6 years ago in Dennis 
Turner using an adult stem cell. He had an 80 percent reduction in his 
symptoms. This was described at the American Association of 
Neurological Surgeons annual meeting in April of 2002.
  In 2003, Science-published Harvard researchers announced they had 
achieved a permanent reversal of diabetes in mice. This is now under 
human clinical trials today, while we speak. By the way, they tried to 
repeat that study using embryonic, mouse embryonic stem cells and it 
failed. And this lady was in a wheelchair and she can now stand up with 
adult stem cells.
  We do not need this bill. It is ethically wrong. We should be voting 
``no.''
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to recognize the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) if the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay) also wants to recognize him at this time. I yield him 1 
minute.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 2 minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Pitts) is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, we are all different. We are all different 
because we each have our own DNA. The ordering of genes in our body 
makes us unique. We have the color of our hair, skin, eyes, teeth, 
because of DNA. And each person has his or her own set of DNA, and that 
makes us each unique. Each and every person is valuable.
  I am a supporter of ethical stem cell research, Mr. Speaker. I do not 
support the dissecting and destruction of living human embryos to 
harvest stem cells for the purpose of experimentation and research, and 
that is because each of these living human embryos has its own genetic 
makeup, its own DNA.
  It is not animal DNA. It is not plant DNA. It is human genetic code, 
human DNA. The stuff that sets each person apart is there in this tiny 
little life that H.R. 810 would destroy. Each unique and distinct, but 
frozen.
  Early today I met with a man, Steve Johnson, from Reading, 
Pennsylvania, who is in Washington for this debate. Steve was in a 
bicycle accident 11 years ago and his bike was replaced with a 
wheelchair, and today Steve is a paraplegic. And he has heard the 
promises made that embryonic stem cell research might help him walk 
again. For Steve, though, that is unacceptable. And so Steve and his 
wife, Kate, adopted a little girl. Here are three little snowflake 
babies.
  He adopted little Zara when she was just a frozen embryo, stored at 
an IVF clinic. She was a leftover embryo that proponents of this bill 
would destroy for her cells. If someone had dissected her for embryonic 
stem cell research, she would not be here today. But she is here today 
with 21 other little snowflake children. Steve would not have his 
daughter because scientists want a laboratory experiment.
  Zara is living proof that advocates of H.R. 810 are wrong on this 
issue. What they do not admit is that Steve Johnson's paralysis is more 
likely to be reversed using adult stem cells. How do we know that? 
Because recently, we learned that cells taken from a person's nose, 
olfactory cells, are helping people walk again. Cells taken from cord 
blood are helping people walk again, today.
  Embryonic stem cells, no, not helping people walk again. They might 
say there is hope. There is no proof.
  I would like to challenge the other side to put up in front of a 
camera one person treated for spinal cord injury with embryonic stem 
cells. You cannot, can you? We can. Hwang Mi-Soon, Susan Fajt.
  How about Parkinson's? You cannot. We can. Dennis Turner. How about 
cancer? Leukemia? Sickle cell? You cannot.
  Adult stem cells are treating human patients today for the very 
diseases that the proponents of this bill claim might hopefully one day 
be treated through the destruction of living human embryos.
  The human being is in all stages of development, or disability, 
uniquely distinct and infinitely valuable.
  House Resolution 810 is a tragic betrayal of that value.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Lowey), I would just yield a minute to myself to respond to 
a couple of comments.
  First of all, there is a misconception here. Under the Castle/DeGette 
bill, no public funds are used for embryo destruction. Current law 
precludes that and we keep that under our bill.
  Secondly, we are not spending $60 million through the NIH through 
embryonic stem cell research. Last year it was really $25 million, and 
the reason is because the President's policy, issued in August of 2001, 
has not worked. Instead of 80 or 90 stem cell lines, we only had around 
19 to 22 stem cell lines. And of those lines, all of them were 
contaminated with mouse ``feeder'' cells, and many of them were not 
available to researchers here in country. That is why we have to 
ethically expand embryonic stem cell research.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Lowey).
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 810, 
and

[[Page H3821]]

I rise in strong support of this critical legislation.
  My colleagues, what an extraordinary moment we have before us. 
Embryonic stem cells have the potential not just to treat some of the 
most devastating diseases and conditions, but to actually cure them. At 
issue here is the fundamental value of saving lives, a value that we 
all share regardless of race, culture or religion.
  But this promise exists only if researchers have access to the 
science that holds the most potential, and are free to explore, with 
appropriate ethical guidelines, medical advances never before imagined 
possible.
  I also sit on the committee that funds the National Institutes of 
Health with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon). I am not a 
scientist, I am not a doctor. But as I sit on that committee and we 
hear the testimony, one after another, of people who are suffering, who 
have lost their loved ones, who are on the verge of losing another 
loved one, look at the 200 major groups who are supporting this 
legislation. And let us listen to them.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 810, and I rise in strong 
support of this critical legislation.
  My colleagues, what an extraordinary moment we have before us. 
Embryonic stem cells have the potential not just to treat some of the 
most devastating diseases and conditions, but to actually cure them. At 
issue here is the fundamental value of saving lives--a value that we 
all share regardless of race, culture, or religion.
  But this promise exists only if researchers have access to the 
science that holds the most potential, and are free to explore--with 
appropriate ethical guidelines--medical advances never before imagined 
possible.
  There is no question that scientific advancement often comes with 
moral uncertainties. We should and have ensured that difficult ethical 
and social questions are examined and debated before passing this 
legislation. In my judgment we now have a moral obligation to pursue 
each opportunity and provide crucial funding, support and oversight for 
this critical research.
  Like many of you, I believe that strong guidelines must be in place 
with vigorous oversight from the NIH and Congress before allowing 
federally-funded embryonic stem cell research.
  With appropriate guidelines we can ensure that the research with the 
most promise for medical achievement can be fully realized. While adult 
stem cells have yielded important discoveries, the evidence from 
scientists themselves suggests they don't have the same potential as 
embryonic stem cells.
  The legislation before us today would strengthen the standards 
guiding embryonic stem cell research and would ensure that embryos 
originally created for the purpose of in vitro fertilization could be 
made available for research only with the consent of the donor. Let me 
be clear. This legislation retains the current restrictions on creating 
human embryos for the purpose of research.
  So today I ask my colleagues to be as determined to find a cure as 
science allows us to be. With the appropriate guidelines in place, we 
are closer than ever to remarkable discoveries and on the brink of 
providing hope to millions of individuals who otherwise have none.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 810.
  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).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our chairman, and also 
thank the leader.
  You know, I believe that everybody engaged in this debate today means 
well, and this is one of those great debates that we have on this 
floor. It is full of passion. But this is not a debate about passion. 
It is not a debate about style. This is a debate about substance. And 
the substance of this debate is life, clear and simple. You know, there 
is a fact on this, also, I think we ought to look at.
  While we do not know where embryonic stem cell research might lead 
us, we do know that engaging in this form of research would require 
ending a human life for the purpose of experimentation. And that is 
something that I do not think any of us want to sanction. And in my 
opinion, we would be giving away our humanity, our sense of ethics, for 
the mere hope, the mere hope that this form of research would someday 
yield results.
  Meanwhile, H.R. 810, the bill that is under discussion diverts funds 
from research that has proven results, from research that does not 
require us to look the other way while human life is purposely ended.
  Adult stem cell research has made great leaps. We have heard about 
that today. Cord blood research has made great strides. We have heard 
about that also today. And we hear that by using islet cells from 
living donors or adult brain cells instead of embryos, there is a 
potential to cure diabetes.
  I think we should all vote ``no'' on H.R. 810. We should stop and 
look at the substance of the debate.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad).
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, critics of embryonic stem cell research 
maintain that it is wrong to promote science which destroys life in 
order to save life. As the leading prolife legislator in Washington, 
Senator Orrin Hatch put it, since when does human life begin in a petri 
dish in a refrigerator?
  To reduce this issue to an abortion issue is a horrible injustice to 
100 million Americans suffering the ravages of diabetes, spinal cord 
paralysis, heart disease, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease, cancer, 
MS, Lou Gehrig's disease and other fatal and debilitating diseases.
  I met with researchers from four of the main stem cell institutes in 
America. As one prominent researcher told me, and I am quoting, ``The 
real irony of the President's policy is that at least 100,000 surplus 
frozen embryos could be used to produce stem cells for research to save 
lives. But instead, these surplus embryos are being thrown into the 
garbage and treated as medical waste, thrown into the garbage and 
treated as medical waste.''

                              {time}  1515

  Only 22 of the 78 stem cell lines approved by the President remain 
today.
  As another leading researcher said, ``This limit on research has 
stunted progress on finding cures for a number of fatal and 
debilitating diseases.''
  Mr. Speaker, it is too late for my beloved mother who was totally 
debilitated by Alzheimer's disease which killed her. It is too late for 
my cousin who died a tragic, cruel death from juvenile diabetes while 
still in his 20s; but it is not too late for the 100 million other 
American people counting on us to support funding for life-saving 
research on embryonic stem cells.
  Let us not turn our backs on these people. Let us not take away their 
hope. Let us listen to respected pro-life colleagues and friends like 
Orrin Hatch, former Senator Connie Mack, former Health and Human 
Services Secretary Tommy Thompson when they tell us this is not an 
abortion issue. We should support embryonic stem cell research.
  Mr. Speaker, critics of embryonic stem cell research maintain it is 
wrong to ``promote science which destroys life in order to save life.''
  As the leading pro-life legislator in Washington, Sen. Orrin Hatch 
put it, ``Since when does human life begin in a petri dish in a 
refrigerator?''
  To reduce this issue to an abortion issue is a horrible injustice to 
100 million Americans suffering the ravages of diabetes, spinal cord 
paralysis, heart disease, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease, cancer, 
multiple sclerosis, Lou Gehrig's disease and other fatal, debilitating 
diseases.
  I have met with medical researchers from the University of Minnesota 
Stem Cell Institute, the Mayo Clinic, the National Institutes of

[[Page H3822]]

Health and Johns Hopkins University. As one prominent researcher told 
me, ``The real irony of the President's policy is that at least 100,000 
surplus frozen embryos could be used to produce stem cells for research 
to save lives. Instead, these surplus embryos are being thrown into the 
garbage and treated as medical waste.''
  Only 22 of the 78 stem cell lines approved by the President in 2001 
remain today. As another leading medical researcher said, ``This limit 
on research has stunted progress on finding cures for a number of 
debilitating and fatal diseases.''
  Mr. Speaker, the scientific evidence is overwhelming that embryonic 
stem cells have great potential to regenerate specific types of human 
tissues, offering hope for millions of Americans suffering from 
debilitating diseases.
  Mr. Speaker, it's too late for my beloved mother who was totally 
debilitated by Alzheimer's disease which led to her death. It's too 
late for my cousin who died a cruel, tragic death from diabetes in his 
20's.
  But it's not too late for 100 million other American people counting 
on us to support funding for life-saving research on stem cells derived 
from donated surplus embryos created through in vitro fertilization.
  Let's not turn our backs on these people. Let's not take away their 
hope. Let's listen to respected pro-life colleagues and friends like 
Senator Orrin Hatch, former Senator Connie Mack and former HHS 
Secretary Tommy Thompson when they tell us this is not an abortion 
issue.
  Let's make it clear that abortion politics should not determine this 
critical vote.
  Embryonic stem cell research will prolong life, improve life and give 
hope for life to millions of people.
  I urge members to support funding for life-saving and life-enhancing 
embryonic stem cell research.
  The American people deserve nothing less.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, in 1999 young Tessa Wick was diagnosed with 
juvenile diabetes. She began the laborious process which changed her 
life and she dedicated herself to doing everything that she possibly 
could to ensure that no one would have to suffer as she has.
  During that period of time, she has worked to raise large sums of 
money. She has testified before the United States Senate, and last 
Friday her father told me that she said to him not a lot has been 
accomplished yet. We have not yet found a cure. And her father said to 
me that we need to do everything that we possibly can to ensure that we 
do find a cure. We are all supportive of umbilical cord research, but I 
believe that it is proper for us to pursue embryonic stem cell 
research, Mr. Speaker.
  In a week and a half, we mark the first anniversary of Ronald 
Reagan's passing. Everyone knows how passionately Nancy Reagan feels 
about the need for us to pursue this research. I believe it is the 
appropriate thing to do.
  Now, there are no guarantees. We all know there are no guarantees at 
all, but passage of this legislation does provide an opportunity for 
hope, hope that we will be able to turn the corner on these 
debilitating diseases from which so many people suffer. And so I hope 
very much that we can pursue a bipartisan approach to this important 
measure. And while I am concerned that there is disagreement with the 
President of the United States, I hope that we will be able to, at the 
end of the day, work out a bipartisan agreement that will include the 
President of the United States in this effort.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. 
And just to be clear once again during this debate, this bill limits 
the use of only those embryos that will be discarded or destroyed from 
in vitro fertilization clinics with the consent of the donors.
  I rise in support of this legislation not because it promises cures 
for diabetes, Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, Alzheimer's, but 
because it gives us yet another opportunity to discover cures for these 
ailments. Adult stem cell research, yes, let us do it. Cord blood 
research, absolutely. But let us also allow the Federal Government to 
get more involved in embryonic stem cell research.
  The University of Wisconsin has been at the forefront of this 
research; yet our researchers are being held back because of current 
Federal policy. We are already falling behind the rest of the world in 
this research in light of South Korea's recent announcement last week. 
But it is precisely because the other countries are moving forward that 
makes our involvement all the more necessary. I believe that we as the 
leader of the Free World must provide important leadership on the 
ethical parameters, the ethical constraints that this research 
requires.
  Support this bipartisan bill.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on all sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton) has 7\1/2\ minutes. The gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) 
has 34 minutes. The majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay), has 27 minutes. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) has 17 
minutes. The gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) has 12\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point out that it has been said that 
there are 100,000 embryos available for research. I guess they want to 
add another portion to their bill requiring parents to give their 
embryos up for research because at the present time there are only 2.8 
percent of the parents that have allowed or have designated their 
embryos to be used for research. That means there are only 11,000 
available for this research.
  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. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, I 
support aggressive stem cell research and the judicious application of 
stem cells to mitigate and to cure disease. That is why I sponsored the 
Stem Cell Therapeutic Research Act of 2005 and I have been pushing it 
for almost 3 years. That is why those of us who oppose H.R. 810 
strongly support pouring millions of dollars into Federal funds to 
support ethical stem cell research to find cures, to alleviate 
suffering, to inspire well-founded hope and to do it all in a way that 
respects the dignity and sanctity of human life.
  I strongly oppose the Castle bill, however, because it will use 
Federal funds to facilitate the killing of perfectly healthy human 
embryos to derive their stem cells. Human embryos do have inherent 
value, Mr. Speaker. They are not commodities or things or just tissue. 
Human embryos are human lives at their most vulnerable beginning 
stages, and they deserve respect.
  Parents of human embryos are custodians of those young ones. They are 
not owners of human property, and the public policy we craft should 
ensure that the best interests of newly created human life is protected 
and preserved.
  The Castle bill embraces the misinformed notion that there is such a 
thing as left-over embryos, a grossly misleading and dehumanizing term 
in and of itself, that they are just going to be destroyed and thrown 
away and poured down the drain. That is simply not true.
  The cryogenically frozen male and female embryos that the genetic 
parents may feel are no longer needed for implanting in the genetic 
mother are of infinite value to an adoptive mother who may be sterile 
or otherwise unable to have a baby.
  Mr. Speaker, just one adoption initiative, the Snowflakes Embryo 
Adoption Program, has facilitated the adoption of 96 formerly frozen 
embryos with more adoptions in the works. I have met some of those 
kids. They are not leftovers, even though they lived in a frozen 
orphanage, perhaps many of them for years. They are just as human and 
alive and full of promise as other children. Let them be adopted, not 
killed and experimented on. They are not throwaways.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

[[Page H3823]]

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, the issue of embryonic stem cell research 
places humanity on the frontier of medical science and at the outer 
edge of moral theology.
  On the side of science there is much hope, even expectation that 
extraordinarily effective therapies will be developed due to a wide 
range of maladies from diabetes to Parkinson's, spinal cord injury and 
a host of others. Progress has been achieved in the laboratory in 
animal studies and in human application. Much has yet to be learned, 
however, about adverse outcomes, which is why scientists proceed 
cautiously without overpromising and with respect for moral 
considerations of their research.
  The latter gives me the greatest pause. An editorial in America 
Magazine said it well: ``The debate over embryonic stem cell research 
cannot be fully resolved because it is ignited by irreconcilable views 
of what reverence for life requires.''
  Let us recall Louise Brown, the first test tube baby. Her life began 
as a single cell, fertilized egg, in vitro. There are many leftover 
potential Louise Browns, potential human beings as cryogenic embryos 
conceived in the laboratory. Are they to be discarded or, can they be 
ethically used for stem cell research? That is the moral theology issue 
that we must resolve.
  I cannot get over the reality that human life is created in creating 
an embryo, whether in vitro or whether in utero. Each of us has to 
decide the morality of this unique aspect of the issue. But I cannot 
get over the moral theology underpinning of this extraordinary research 
on the frontier of science that we are tinkering with human life. And 
we must not tinker further. We know not where we head. It is between 
God and us. Let us resolve any uncertainty in favor of life.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Boehlert), the chairman of the Committee on Science.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, every invention, each new scientific 
concept, every technical advance in the history of mankind has been 
challenged and analyzed and debated, and properly so. Change makes us 
uncomfortable, forces us to design new paradigms; but in the final 
analysis, it is man's fundamental obligation to use science for the 
betterment of mankind.
  In this instance, we are called upon to heal diseases that have 
plagued and bewildered us for centuries. It would be unconscionable and 
irresponsible should we fail to live up to our obligation in this 
critical matter.
  The moral and ethical question is this, do we destroy embryos, simply 
discard them, embryos that will never be implanted in a womb but which 
can advance stem cell research to cure historic illnesses?
  The answer is, no, we should move forward with important scientific 
research, forward movement which will be enhanced in a measured way by 
passage of the measure before us.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the distinguished subcommittee chairman of 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 810, which I 
believe promotes human embryonic stem cell research at taxpayers' 
expense.
  Now, we have already spent $60 million. The gentlewoman from Colorado 
(Ms. DeGette) says, no, it is not $60 million; it is $25 million. But 
we have spent a lot of money, and I think $60 million is the right 
number.
  The gentlewoman says no government taxpayers; money will be used. 
Once a human stem cell is destroyed, who pays for the research 
thereafter? The U.S. Government does. The taxpayers do.
  I remind my colleagues that despite all this money, embryonic stem 
cell research has not resulted in any documented success whatsoever as 
compared to the astounding success of adult stem cells.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) pointed out he could not even 
find any success. He had to go to some obscure manuals publications to 
find notice of even the experiments. I also notice that there is no CBO 
estimate on this legislation H.R. 810. How much will this bill cost? We 
do not know.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
  Nearly 4 years ago, in August 2001, President Bush announced his 
Executive order limiting Federal funding to studies on existing cell 
lines.
  Mr. Speaker, the debate we are having today is about slippery-slope 
fears come tragically true. But the slope can get far more steep from 
here.
  Just last week, it was reported that scientists in South Korea 
created scores of cloned human embryos that they then destroyed to 
produce 11 stem cell lines. The age of cloning is upon us.
  Also recently in the news is the creation of man-animal hybrids, or 
chimeras, using animal sperm and human eggs, or human sperm and animal 
eggs.
  The apocalyptic creations are the inevitable result of what happens 
when Man and government believes it can foster good medical ends from 
ethically dubious means.
  It is bad enough that our government allows embryonic stem cell 
research, or that we have not yet outlawed cloning. The least that we 
can do is prevent the further spending of taxpayer dollars on these 
ill-advised experiments.
  Mr. Speaker, had either, or both, of the respective stem cell 
research bills appearing before us for debate and been ruled amendable, 
I had intended to offer an amendment regarding another alternative to 
embryonic stem cell research: stem cells from teeth.
  Another promising field of stem cell research comes from our very 
teeth: stem cells from human exfoliated deciduous teeth, SHED, aka 
``baby'' teeth. Last week a constituent of mine, Marc W. Heft, DMD, 
PhD, Professor and Interim Chair, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial 
and Diagnostic Sciences of the College of Dentistry at the University 
of Florida, pointed this out to me. The intramural program of the 
National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, IDCR, of the 
National Institutes of Health, NIH, has been a leader in this exciting 
line of research. On April 21, 2003, NIH scientists reported that for 
the first time, ``baby'' teeth, the temporary teeth children begin 
losing around their sixth birthday, contain a rich supply of stem cells 
in their dental pulp. The scientists said that ``this unexpected 
discovery could have important implications because the stem cells 
remain alive inside the tooth for a short time after it falls out of a 
child's mouth, suggesting the cells could be readily harvested for 
research. According to the scientists, who published their findings 
online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 
the stem cells are unique compared to many ``adult'' stem cells in the 
body. They are long lived, grow rapidly in culture, and, with careful 
prompting in the laboratory, have the potential to induce the formation 
of specialized dentin, bone, and neuronal cells. If followup studies 
extend these initial findings, the scientists speculate they may have 
identified an important and easily accessible source of stem cells that 
possibly could be manipulated to repair damaged teeth, induce the 
regeneration of bone, and treat neural injury or disease. ``Doctors 
have successfully harvested stem cells from umbilical cord blood for 
years,'' said Dr. Songtao Shi, a scientist at NIH's National Institute 
of Dental and Craniofacial Research, NIDCR, and the senior author on 
the paper. ``Our finding is similar in some ways, in that the stem 
cells in the tooth are likely latent remnants of an early developmental 
process.'' This article is titled, ``SHED: Stem cells from human 
exfoliated deciduous teeth,'' and the authors are Masako Muira, Stan 
Gronthos, Mingrui Zhao, Bai Lu, Larry W. Fisher, Pamela Gehron Robey, 
and Songtao Shi.
  In addition to the studies of stem cells from dental pulps of 
deciduous, ``baby'' teeth, there are ongoing studies of stem cells from 
the periodontium, the region where teeth connect to bone. July 8, 2004, 
again, NIH scientists also say these cells have ``tremendous 
potential'' to regenerate the periodontal ligament, a common target of 
advanced gum--periodontal--disease. The enthusiasm is based on followup 
studies, in which the researchers implanted the human adult stem cells 
into rodents and found most of them had differentiated into a mixture 
of periodontal ligament--including the specific fiber bundles that 
attach tooth to bone--and the mineralized tissue called cementum that 
covers the roots of our teeth.
  While most of this work is coming out of the intramural program of 
NIDCR, Dr. Heft shared with me that two involved extramural scientists 
are Dr. Mary MacDougall, University of Texas Health Sciences Center at 
San Antonio--also President of the American Association for Dental 
Research--and Dr. Paul Krebsbach, University of Michigan.
  And so, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we continue to foster existing, 
promising, stem cell research that is regenerative, not destructive.

[[Page H3824]]

                              {time}  1530

  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished 
and patient gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).
  (Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 810. Our 
research policies should be decided by scientists and doctors at the 
National Institutes of Health and not by Karl Rove and self-appointed 
religious gurus.
  If you believe it is morally superior to discard a single cell in a 
freezer rather than to use it to help millions of Americans with 
Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and diabetes, and you are asked to donate an 
embryo, then by all means refuse to do so. But do not tell my 
constituents that we cannot alleviate their suffering because it might 
offend modern-day Pharisees.
  Do not tell my constituent Don Reed and his son Roman, who is 
paralyzed from a high school football accident, that scientists working 
on stem cell research in California will not be able to collaborate 
with the NIH.
  Many in government already think they have the right to tell you whom 
you can marry, what kind of birth control you can use and how you die. 
Now they think their moral superiority extends to the single cell 
level. Beyond my outrage at this arrogance, I am saddened by this 
country's precipitous decline in the estimation of the rest of the 
world.
  If this bill does not pass and scientists of the world meet to 
discuss this rapidly advancing field, many of our key researchers will 
be stuck here working with the few stem cell lines that are considered 
inoffensive.
  The Flat Earth Society will tell you that the U.S. has to show moral 
leadership, and just because the overwhelming majority of the world's 
scientific community supports research, it does not mean it is the 
right thing to do.
  Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I do not need a lecture from the majority 
leader on moral and ethical leadership. I do not look to those that 
will not acknowledge the existence of global warming for scientific and 
ethical leadership. I do not think the politicians who so eagerly 
decided they knew what was best for Terry Schiavo know much about life, 
dignity, or suffering.
  I stand proudly with millions of Americans on behalf of this 
country's tradition of scientific leadership, and I urge a ``yes'' vote 
for H.R. 810.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
810. This bill, which we have already heard today, would reverse the 
embryonic stem cell policy instituted by the President of the United 
States in 2001, and I believe it is very misguided, in my opinion.
  I wish to thank the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) for their work on 
this legislation against H.R. 810. They have already outlined many of 
the reasons why the bill should be defeated, but I would like to share 
some additional thoughts.
  First, let me say that good people can disagree on this issue. 
However, what we are discussing today is the Federal funding of the 
embryonic stem cell. According to the statement of administration 
policy this morning, the administration strongly opposes passage of 
H.R. 810. The bill would compel all American taxpayers to pay for 
research that relies on the intentional destruction of human embryos to 
obtain stem cells, overturning the President's policy that supports 
research without promoting ongoing destruction.
  There are other vast financial resources available to fund this 
controversial issue. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against 
and not allow embryos to be killed for Federal funding research that is 
ethically and scientifically uncertain.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson), a member of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).
  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank both gentlemen for yielding me 
this time.
  The debate over embryonic stem cell research is important because 
there are no more important issues that we deal with in this Chamber 
than when we debate life and death.
  Mr. Speaker, as I stand here in this Chamber today, I am a human 
being. I am a man, an adult man. Sometime before I was a man, I was a 
teenager. Before that I was a child. And sometime before I was a child, 
I was a toddler. And before I was a toddler, I was an infant. And 
sometime before I was an infant, I was a fetus. And sometime before I 
was a fetus, I was an embryo. I did not look like I do today, but it 
was me. That embryo was me.
  At some point in our history, every single person here was also an 
embryo. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), you were an embryo once. 
The other gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the 
committee; yes, sir, you too were an embryo once. The gentleman from 
Delaware, the sponsor of this bill, you were an embryo once. The 
gentlewoman from Colorado, you too were an embryo once. The gentleman 
from Michigan, you were an embryo once. Now, we did not look like we do 
today, but it did not mean it was not you.
  A human embryo is a member of the human family. It has its own unique 
DNA. It is its own human entity. It is unique. It is irreplaceable, and 
it is a member of the species Homo sapiens. It is not just a bit of 
tissue. It is not just, as some have suggested, a couple of cells in a 
petri dish. It is human and it is alive. It might not look like you or 
me, but there was a time when you and I looked exactly like that 
embryo.
  Today, we are debating embryonic stem cell research, a type of stem 
cell research in which a tiny member of the human family must die. That 
is not just my opinion; that is a scientific fact. The gentlewoman from 
Colorado would suggest that under this legislation Federal funds would 
not be used to destroy human life. That is simply false.
  Those who conduct human embryonic stem cell research must destroy 
human life to do so. You cannot conduct embryonic stem cell research 
without destroying human life, and that is wrong. And it is certainly 
wrong to fund this unethical embryonic stem cell research using 
taxpayer money. And that is precisely what this legislation would do. 
It would use taxpayer money to fund research which destroys human life.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify something. I am actually not sure that 
those who oppose this bill understand what this bill really does.
  In 1995, two Members of Congress, Mr. Dickey and the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), inserted language in the appropriations bill, 
which is there every year and has been there every year I have been in 
Congress, and it says: ``No Federal funds shall be used to create or 
destroy embryos.''
  Now, those on the other side of this debate say they do not think 
Federal funds should be used for this research, even though by their 
own admission the majority of Americans support this research. And so 
here is what this bill does, and maybe once I explain it, everyone will 
want to vote for it.
  What it says is, People who go to in vitro fertilization clinics, 
there are leftover embryos as part of the process. They can decide one 
of two things: Number one, do they want to not discard the embryos and 
either donate them to other couples, and they can be these snowflake 
children, or to store them in a freezer? Or the donors can decide if 
they want to throw them away. Or do they want to donate them to 
science? It is their decision with informed consent.
  Now, if they decide to donate them, then what would happen would be 
the embryos would go to a clinic where a stem cell line would be 
developed from the embryo with private funds. No Federal funds. The 
only Federal funds used under the Castle/DeGette bill are Federal funds 
to then develop those embryonic stem cell lines.
  Just as the President's executive order in August of 2001 allowed 
stem

[[Page H3825]]

cell lines to be researched with Federal funding, but he limited those 
lines, we are allowing more of those lines.
  So no embryos will be destroyed with Federal funds. I hope that 
clarifies the situation.
  Mr. Speaker, I am now delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I have never seen such a well-attended 
debate, which shows the importance of this issue; and I rise today on 
behalf of my father who died of Parkinson's Disease. I also rise today 
on behalf of the millions of Americans like me who have watched their 
loved ones battle the ravages of some dreaded disease.
  I ask my colleagues, How many more lives must be ended or ravaged 
until our government gives researchers the wherewithal to simply do 
their jobs?
  Although there are no guarantees, many scientists have told me that 
embryonic stem cell research offers the best and only hope to discover 
a cure for many, many dreaded diseases. Embryonic research offers 
scientists the opportunity to extend life and the quality of life for 
future generations of Americans.
  As we are debating, other countries, other States, other people are 
moving forward with research with all speed. We should pass the 
DeGette/Castle bill. Life is too precious to wait.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell 
Research Enhancement Act of 2005. As a founder and co-chair of the 
Congressional Working Group on Parkinson's Disease, I support this 
legislation that will expand the number of stem cell lines that are 
available for federally funded research. I believe this bill will 
reopen the doors to scientific inquiry, allowing us to be able, once 
again, to utilize embryonic stem cells while adhering to strict ethical 
guidelines.
  I am and continue to be an opponent of human cloning. However, I 
recognize that we must move forward with ethical research that could 
lead to new drug therapies. We owe this to those suffering from 
Parkinson's disease, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and Lou Gehrig's 
disease. And we owe this to scientists who are eager to explore new 
frontiers of science and medicine, but who are restrained by Federal 
restrictions.
  Mr. Speaker, I have met with doctors, scientists, and researchers in 
my district's leading medical institutions who warn of a ``brain 
drain'' as their best and brightest relocate to places where funding 
for embryonic stem cell research is not restricted.
  I have spoken with lawmakers in the State of New York, who have 
garnered $1 billion in embryonic stem cell research funding, but 
without Federal funding, stem cell research will move forward without 
crucial oversight and guidelines.
  I have been persuaded by directors at the National Institutes of 
Health who have spoken out against the White House policy on stem 
cells.
  And I have been moved by the pleas of my constituents who are eager 
to find cures for suffering loved ones.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a mandate.
  In 2003, over 900,000 Americans died of heart disease and more than 
550,000 succumbed to cancer. I am sure that many in this Chamber have 
seen friends suffer through the misery of cancer and the indignities of 
chemotherapy. Who among us has not had a parent or grandparent look at 
us with vacant eyes because Alzheimer's has stolen their memory away 
from them? Too many of us have watched as our children with Juvenile 
Diabetes hold back tears as they give themselves insulin injections 
each day. Mr. Speaker, it does not have to be this way. Healing our 
children, family, and friends is a bipartisan issue. In fact, it is a 
moral imperative.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).
  Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for yielding me 
this time, and I am rising in opposition to the legislation that would 
fund the destruction of embryos in order to take the stem cells for 
research.
  There are a number of reasons that I oppose the bill. The very first 
one, though, is one of the statements we keep hearing over and over 
again from those who support the bill, and that is that these embryos 
would just be discarded. This morning, I met several families, parents 
with young children who are here in Washington. These children were 
just like every other child, but they were different. And they were 
different because these children are the snowflake babies.
  They have been referred to a little bit today, but for those just 
joining the argument, the snowflake babies are born from what would 
have been discarded embryos in fertilization clinics. It is important 
that we know this, because it is not, no option, that these embryos 
would be discarded or tossed aside.
  It is true these embryos are often adopted. And, in fact, the 
children I met today were wonderful evidence of that. It looks like 
these embryos do not have to be discarded. All they needed was a mother 
and 9 months.
  We do not have to choose between embryonic stem cell research and 
cord blood, assuming that only embryonic can solve problems. And, in 
fact, there is no proof that embryonic stem cell research can be 
successful. This list on the left on this chart shows all the different 
treatments currently using adult stem cells. On the right is the list 
of success with embryonic stem cells. It is a pretty empty list.
  I encourage my colleagues to reject the false promise of embryonic 
stem cell research and reject this legislation.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I come from Florida, 
and a lot of people think that only retirees and seniors live in 
Florida, but I want to put a face on a couple that was very successful 
with in vitro fertilization. They are 47 years old. They had a daughter 
born as a result of in vitro fertilization. The child was born with 
multiple heart problems and had to have three surgeries before she was 
2 years old.
  This couple believes that far more good can come from donating the 
remaining embryos for research. They have decided not to have any more 
children. And ultimately what we have not heard here is what the 
American people want. This is a couple that wants to be able to donate 
the embryos, which certainly they can do now, but they also want to 
have Federal research dollars go toward this.
  This really is all about where taxpayer dollars go. And when you look 
at the huge book of pork that comes out every single year, when we go 
back home and say to our constituents, would you rather have some of 
this money going to, for example, some foreign countries that regularly 
turn their backs on us, or would you like to see some significant 
research done from embryonic stem cells that would be disposed of, the 
majority of our constituents are clearly going to say, use the money 
for significant research.
  We have to remember that this is not an either/or. Certainly the 
umbilical cord research is a great science. We need to move forward 
with that as well as the embryonic stem cell research.

                              {time}  1545

  Remember, for this couple and her husband deciding to donate those 
embryos, they believe they will be saving other children's lives. They 
believe they will be helping an aunt who has early-stage Alzheimer's. 
They believe they will be able to help spinal cord injury victims. That 
is what this research holds the potential for. No, we do not have the 
cures yet; but unless we go forward, we never will. I fully support the 
Castle/DeGette bill, and hope other Members do, too.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 810, the Stem 
Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005. I stand with 200 of America's 
most respected research organizations in support of this bill.
  I would like to especially thank Congressmen Castle and DeGette for 
their tireless efforts on behalf of the millions of people who may 
benefit from enhanced stem cell research.
  I would also like to thank Speaker Hastert and Leader DeLay for the 
debate today and for giving the 200+ cosponsors of this legislation a 
vote on the House floor.
  I rise today as a mother, as a concerned grandparent, and as someone 
who is worried that the untapped potential of stem cell research may be 
falling by the wayside.
  In my congressional district on the gulf coast of Florida, I have had 
the pleasure of meeting Holly, a 47-year-old mother of two.
  Like many Americans, Holly and her husband had trouble getting 
pregnant, and their first daughter was born through in vitro 
fertilization.
  Her daughter was born with a congenital heart condition, and had 
three surgeries before her second birthday.
  As with most in vitro fertilization procedures, Holly and her husband 
had several embryos

[[Page H3826]]

left over after the procedure. They chose to keep the remaining embryos 
frozen.
  This couple was then blessed by a second miracle daughter who was 
conceived without in vitro fertilization The happy couple decided not 
to have any more children, and had to make a choice about what to do 
with their frozen embryos.
  Holly and her husband are well aware of Operation Snowflake and the 
adoption options for their embryos.
  But, like many other parents, they would rather donate their embryos 
for research to help prevent heart disease--like their daughter was 
born with--or cure cancer, Alzheimer's disease or Parkinson's.
  For Holly and her husband, they decided that donating their embryos 
for medical research would be their best chance to save other 
children's lives. Increasing stem cell research could find potential 
cures for many diseases that affect so many American families.
  Put another way, the issue of embryos and their ability to be used 
for stem cell research is kind of like a flashlight. Until you put the 
batteries in, a flashlight will not produce light.

  Likewise, only when an embryo is implanted in a uterus to grow, can 
life be sustained. Embryos sitting frozen in a clinic help no one. The 
embryo does not grow in the frozen state, so human life is not being 
created and nurtured.
  In addition, when the couple stops paying the daily fees to store the 
embryos, unless they have the medical donation option, their remaining 
embryos will be disposed of as medical waste. That would be tragic.
  Holly and her husband know this fact. They know that without the 
nurturing and love that a woman's body provides, these embryos will be 
wasted.
  Science tells us that after as short a time as eight years, these 
frozen embryos will begin to deteriorate, and lose their viability for 
implantation.
  Mr. Speaker, these embryos are too important to linger in a frozen 
test tube or to see discarded without helping mankind.
  Additionally, I have yet to hear in this entire debate what opponents 
of H.R. 810 would do with those embryos that are not adopted, and 
eventually go to waste in a cryogenic freezer.
  Would they want those embryos to be thrown out as medical waste, or 
instead help provide the basis for life-affirming scientific research?
  Holly and her husband know that the great potential and promise of 
stem cell research will not move forward without their donated embryos 
and their support.
  However, it is their respect for the culture of life that has brought 
them to this decision. They have weighed the choices available to them, 
and rather than donating the embryo for adoption, have chosen to let 
their embryos potentially save millions of lives.
  Thousands of people around the country have made similar decisions to 
support life-affirming and life-enhancing research.
  H.R. 810 will give hope where hope does not exist.
  Passage of this bill today will let the research on stem cells 
continue under ethical guidelines, and will provide millions of 
Americans suffering from terminal diseases the hope that they have been 
denied.
  All these organizations listed on this posterboard, such as the 
American Academy for Cancer Research and the American Medical 
Association, support H.R. 810. I urge my fellow Members of Congress to 
vote yes on the bill
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished minority leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, this is an important day for us in Congress. 
I myself am deeply indebted to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. 
DeGette) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for their great 
leadership and courage in bringing this legislation to the floor. I 
thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
  This is important legislation because every family in America, every 
family in America is just one phone call away, one diagnosis, one 
accident away from needing the benefits of stem cell research. We want 
all of the research to proceed, the umbilical cord research that we 
talked about this morning, and adult stem cell research. That is all 
very important. But we must have the embryonic stem cell research if we 
are truly going to have science have the potential it has to cure 
diseases.
  I served for many years, probably 10, on the Labor-HHS subcommittee 
which funds the National Institutes of Health. So I have studied this 
issue over the years. What we are doing here today is recognizing the 
miraculous power to cure that exists at the National Institutes of 
Health and in other institutes of excellence in research throughout our 
country. We are recognizing the miraculous, almost Biblical power that 
science has to cure.
  And what we have said, what we are saying here today is nothing that 
should not be considered of value. What we are saying is when these 
embryos are in excess of the needs of in vitro fertilization, rather 
than be destroyed, they will be used for basic biomedical research.
  It is interesting to me because when I first came to the Congress, 
some of the same forces out there that are against this embryonic stem 
cell research were very much against in vitro fertilization. It is 
difficult to imagine that now, but they were against in vitro 
fertilization and considered it not to be on high moral ground.
  The research is going to occur with Federal funding or without. It 
should not occur without high ethical standards that the Federal 
funding can bring to it. In order for our country to be preeminent in 
science, we must have the most talented, the most excellent scientists. 
They will not be attracted to a situation which limits scientific 
inquiry. As we all know, in science as in business, talent attracts 
capital, the capital to build the labs and all that is needed to do the 
research, and those labs in turn attract the excellent scientists, and 
that makes us first in the world, preeminent in science. We cannot 
allow this important endeavor to go offshore.
  I am particularly proud of my State of California where the people of 
California in a bipartisan way, as we are doing today, voted a 
commitment of resources to invest in embryonic stem cell research. We 
in California will become the regenerative capital of America, indeed, 
probably of the world. But this should be happening all over the 
country, and it should not depend on the local initiative of the State. 
That is good, but it should be coming from the leadership of the 
Federal Government with the ethical standards that go with it. We have 
ethical standards in California. They should be uniform throughout our 
country.
  To some, this debate may seem like a struggle between faith and 
science. While I have the utmost respect, and the gentlemen know I do, 
for those who oppose this bill on moral grounds, I believe faith and 
science have at least one thing in common: both are searches for truth. 
America has room for both faith and science.
  Indeed, with the great potential for medical research, science has 
the power to answer the prayers of America's families. I believe 
strongly in the power of prayer; but part of that prayer is for a cure, 
and science can provide that.
  Many religious leaders endorse the Castle/DeGette bill because of 
their respect for life and because they believe science, within the 
bounds of ethics and religious beliefs, can save lives and improve its 
quality. Groups as diverse as the United Church of Christ, the Union 
for Reform Judaism, the United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church, 
and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America all support 
this bill.
  The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America says the 
traditional Jewish perspective emphasizes the potential to save and 
heal human lives is an integral part of valuing human life.
  The Episcopal Church in its letter in support of this legislation 
says: ``As stewards of creation, we are called to help men and renew 
the world in many ways. The Episcopal Church celebrates medical 
research as this research expands our knowledge of God's creation and 
empowers us to bring potential healing to those who suffer from disease 
and disability.'' This is what they wrote, and much more, in support of 
this legislation.
  It is our duty to bring hope to the sick and the disabled, not to 
bind the hands of those who can bring them hope. I believe God guided 
our researchers to discover the stem cells power to heal. This bill 
will enable science to live up to its potential to again answer the 
prayers of America's families.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, thank all of our 
colleagues on both sides of this issue for their very dignified 
approach to how we are dealing with this legislation today, but

[[Page H3827]]

also say that today is a historic day, that the gentleman from Delaware 
(Mr. Castle) and the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) have given 
us the opportunity to move forward, again to answer the prayers of 
America's families, to meet their needs, to allow the science to use 
its Biblical power to cure; and for that I am deeply in their debt.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), a heart surgeon, a graduate from LSU, and 
chief resident of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery at the University 
of Rochester in Rochester, New York.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to vigorously oppose H.R. 810. It is ethically 
wrong to destroy human life, and H.R. 810 would allow for Federal 
funding to destroy human embryos.
  As a heart surgeon, I have dealt with life and death. I have held 
damaged hearts in these hands, and I have seen how powerful human 
emotions, coupled with hope, can be; but human emotions coupled with 
false hope and misinformation are dangerous.
  Embryonic stem cells have not produced a single human treatment and 
have significant limitations. They are prone to transplant rejection, 
prone to tumor formation, and there is a significant risk for 
contamination with animal viruses.
  Proponents of embryonic stem cell research are certainly aware of 
these problems, and that is why they view H.R. 810 as a stepping stone 
to human cloning.
  Adult stem cells have been used to treat 58 human diseases, and they 
do so without taking away what we are trying to preserve in the first 
place: life. Yes, life.
  For example, heart disease, the number one cause of death in the 
United States, coronary artery disease, has been successfully treated 
with adult stem cell therapies; and there have been 10 clinical trials 
that have been completed in human patients using bone marrow-derived 
adult stem cells to treat heart attack patients, damaged hearts.
  And in one trial, patients who were bedridden, not able to walk, were 
found to be jogging on the beach or climbing eight flights of stairs 
after successful treatment.
  Mr. Speaker, it is irresponsible to spend scarce Federal dollars on 
false promises when there are certainly alternatives with existing 
treatments that do not create an ethical dilemma. And for these 
reasons, I oppose H.R. 810 and urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
this as well.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, today the political center will hold with 
Nancy Reagan, and this Congress will stand for Yankee ingenuity and 
stem cell research.
  Our Constitution stands at its heart for the principle of the dignity 
of every individual and this idea is certainly central to our 
government and people. But there is a key American principle at the 
heart of our people that predates the Constitution. Nearly all of us 
are the sons and daughters of people who took risks to come to build a 
new life in a new world. If there is one American character that 
totally distinguishes us from all other countries, it is that Americans 
are innovators, explorers, inventors and scientists. We take risks, we 
try new things; and for 200 years the future came first to Americans, 
the most dynamic and forward-thinking people in all of human history.
  We invented the telephone, the radio, the airplane, we eradicated 
polio. Americans now receive more Nobel Prizes in medicine than all 
other European countries combined. We stand for innovation and 
leadership, and this Congress should ensure that American patients 
never have to leave our shores to find a cure.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), a distinguished doctor on the Committee 
on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Speaker, Leon Koss said that good things men do can 
be made complete only by the things they refuse to do.
  Now I have no doubts about the compassion and convictions of both 
sides on this issue, but I take issue with the direction of their 
convictions, because in the end a life without a name is still a life.
  Words cannot take away that this is a life. By calling them 
``discarded'' or ``unwanted'' embryos does not take away that they are 
still lives. While some may see this as scientific efforts of ingenuity 
and future Nobel Prize work, it does not take away the lethality of 
this research.
  Further, let me state that President Clinton's Bioethics Council 
stated: ``Embryos deserve respect as a form of human life.'' In 1999 
the council said: ``Funding of embryonic stem cell research should be 
done only if there are no alternatives.'' The research that we have 
reviewed today and has been reviewed by this Congress in the past when 
these amendments have been looked upon over the last decade, is that 
there is still no alternative in the sense that the research is showing 
that cord blood stem cell research and adult stem cell research is 
where the results are found.

                              {time}  1600

  I have as much compassion as anybody. I have worked with 
developmentally disabled kids all my professional life and would love 
to see cures for them, but I want to see the funding go in the 
direction where we can see success, where that direction has been 
achieved and we will continue to see that.
  But above all, let us remember that there are other things in medical 
research and medical ethics which come together here because you cannot 
divorce the two. If we say it is all right to use lethal methods in our 
research to remove the life of an embryo, what next? What next?
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, twelve million baby boomers will have 
Alzheimer's. Three million baby boomers will suffer from Parkinson's 
disease. Juvenile diabetes, Lou Gehrig's disease, spinal cord injuries 
will wreak havoc on the daily lives of millions of American families. 
These diseases are going to bankrupt the health care system of our 
country unless we take action. Today, we can take dramatic action, a 
step, to deal with this looming crisis.
  President Bush has threatened to use his first veto to prevent 
scientists from using Federal funds to search for these cures. This is 
wrong. Stem cell research is the light of life, the way out of the 
darkness, the life-giving, life-enhancing, life-extending path to hope.
  Hope is the most important four-letter word in the language. We must 
vote for hope, vote for life, vote for a brighter future for all of our 
loved ones. Vote for hope for a small girl forced to stick a needle 
three times a day into her young arm. Vote for hope for a beloved 
mother whose loss of balance leads to falls in the night. Vote for hope 
for a spouse who realizes that his memory of life and family are 
dissolving into a forgetful haze.
  Vote ``yes'' so that the next generation of children will have to 
turn to the history books to know that there ever was such a thing as 
juvenile diabetes or Parkinson's or Alzheimer's or any of these plagues 
that affect our Nation today and are going to turn into a crisis in the 
next generation.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I am one of seven 
children. I am the second oldest. My older brother John is 2 years and 
2 days older than I. We grew up together closer than any other members 
of the family.
  After I left this House on the first occasion, within 2 years, my 
brother developed Parkinson's. He has now suffered with it for 15 
years. I have learned a lot of things from my brother, but one of the 
things I learned most of all was there is a difference between right 
and wrong. There is a moral dimension in most of the serious issues 
that we must face.
  Would I like to support embryonic stem cell research without a 
question

[[Page H3828]]

of ethics because it might assist my brother? Sure. Would I like to see 
embryonic stem cell research in the area of cancer where it might have 
helped one of my sisters who has had cancer? Yes. Would I like to see 
it in terms of research of cancer that plagues 4-year-old children like 
my nephew? Of course. But can we divorce all of that from the ethical 
norm that we must present here?
  We look back in history and, yes, America has oftentimes promoted 
science. But America has made mistakes in the past. The worst mistakes 
we have ever made in the history of this Nation have been when we have 
defined a part of the human family as less than fully human and then 
done things to them that we would not allow done to ourselves.
  We have done it with slavery. We have done it with the Tuskegee 
medical experiments. Other countries have done it as well. The 
commonality among all of those mistakes, the greatest mistakes in our 
Nation's history, has been the ease with which we defined members of 
the human family as less than fully human.
  We are talking about embryonic stem cell research that requires the 
destruction of the embryo, the destruction of part of the human family. 
We should remember that as we talk here today. We should resolve doubt 
in favor of life as we do in our criminal justice system, as we do in 
our civil law system.
  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. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Massachusetts 
eloquently stated a minute ago, today this House has a historic 
opportunity to vote for hope, hope for millions of Americans suffering 
with devastating diseases. These patients, their doctors and 
scientists, have reason to hope, the potential that embryonic stem cell 
research has for developing new treatments for these devastating 
diseases.
  One of my dearest friends recently died of ALS, or Lou Gehrig's 
disease, which causes fatal destruction of nerve cells. The slow death 
sentence that ALS gives its victims is brutal. The disease took away my 
young friend Tom's ability to control his own muscles, paralyzing them 
and ultimately making it impossible for him to breathe. Stem cell 
research provides hope, not for Tom but for future ALS victims. 
Scientists believe they can use stem cell research to replace the 
devastated nerve cells that ALS leaves behind.
  With heart disease affecting so many of us in this Nation, the 
promise of embryonic stem cell research has advancements for the human 
heart which are incredible to think of. Instead of patients suffering 
because their heart cells are failing and no longer able to pump blood, 
new ways could be discovered to replace those cells.
  And with regard to cancer, stem cell research has enormous potential. 
For example, it could facilitate the testing of new medications and 
treatments, not in time for my daughter's life, but for her young 
children's generation. We cannot afford to wait.
  And it could be used to grow bone marrow that matches a patient and 
is not rejected by his or her body.
  In each of these cases, stem cell research holds out promise. It 
provides hope that longer, better-quality lives are possible. That is 
what this bill is about. It will expand the ability of the National 
Institutes of Health to fund this research and improve the chances for 
finding new treatments and cures.
  As we have discussed, each year thousands of embryos no bigger than 
the head of a pin are created in the process of in vitro fertilization. 
A small percentage of these embryos are implanted and, hopefully, 
become much-longed-for children. Some of the rest will be frozen, but 
most are discarded.
  They will not be used to create life, they will never become 
children, they will be lost without purpose. But under H.R. 810, with 
the informed consent of the donor, under strict ethical guidelines, 
these embryos can be used to give life to millions of Americans. Today, 
we can give this hope to millions who have little to hope for now.
  This is an historic opportunity. I urge my colleagues to do the right 
thing, to support lifesaving medical research. Support H.R. 810.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share a letter from a young 
girl in my district:
  ``Dear House of Representatives:
  ``My name is Kelsea King. I am 14 years old and have been dealing 
with diabetes for nearly 3 years now. There are many challenges in 
having this disease, both physical and emotional. Though it may be hard 
to believe, the emotional pain greatly outweighs the physical pain.
  ``My sister, Kendall, was also diagnosed with diabetes 2 years ago. 
She is now 7. It is very hard going through life knowing that both our 
lives could be shortened by this disease. It is also very difficult 
knowing what this disease makes us prone to, such as heart disease, 
liver problems, blindness and in extreme cases loss of limb. But the 
most difficult part of all is worrying about passing out due to low 
blood sugars, or being hospitalized. It is too large of a 
responsibility and too large of a burden for any 7-year-old and even 
for a 14-year-old.
  ``As you can see, my need for a cure to this disease is very great. 
But I do not want a cure if it takes the lives of others. I do not 
support embryonic stem cell research. I believe it is very wrong to 
take innocent lives for any reason, even if it benefits me. There are 
other ways of a cure. We just need proper funding. If we work together, 
we can find a cure through adult stem cell research.
  ``My hope and prayer is for my sister and I to be cured before we are 
adults so we can both live long and healthy lives. No one deserves 
diabetes but everyone deserves a cure through adult stem cell 
research.''
  The campaign for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research has 
been a campaign of half-truths, and at times, outright deception.
  Advocates of federal funding for destructive embryonic stem cell 
research do three things consistently:
  (1) Obfuscate the fact that a living human embryo is killed in the 
process of extracting the cells.
  (2) Obfuscate the fact that there have been no cures, treatments, 
therapies, or even clinical trials using embryonic stem cells.

[[Page H3829]]

  (3) Obfuscate the fact that there is unlimited private funding 
allowed for embryonic stem cell research.
  As Chairman of the Government Reform Subcommittee on Criminal 
Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, I sent a letter to the 
Director of the National Institutes of Health in October, 2002 
requesting a detailed report providing comprehensive information about 
the medical applications of adult and embryonic stem cells. It took 
almost two years to get a response from the NIH, and the response 
omitted many of the advances, applications and trials for adult stem 
cell research that had already been reported in peer reviewed journals. 
The one thing that was complete in the NIH response to our oversight 
request, was the listing of applications for embryonic stem cells: 
zero.
  The applications for embryonic stem cell research was zero then, in 
June of 2004, and it's zero now. The human applications for adult stem 
cells currently number 58, and range from lymphoma to chrones disease 
to heart damage to immunodeficiency syndrome.
  Finally, let me be clear: there is no ``ban'' on embryonic stem cell 
research. There is no limit to the amount of private money that may be 
devoted to this research. The research is being conducted throughout 
the country. The critical fact is that we are responsible for the 
public purse, and forcing the public to fund unproven research where 
living human embryos are destroyed is completely unconscionable. If 
private industry sees promise in embryonic stem cell research, you can 
be certain that investors will find it. But the public should not be 
forced to subsidize a speculative venture involving destruction of 
human life.
  Fourteen-year-old Kelsea King, an articulate young constituent of 
mine, has Juvenile Diabetes. Her struggle with this disease is 
emotionally and physically challenging, but she is strongly opposed to 
the idea of developing a cure that would involve the destruction of 
human life. As she wrote in a letter to me, ``I believe it is very 
wrong to take innocent lives for any reason, even if it benefits me.'' 
I am submitting Miss King's letter in its entirety for the record.
  H.R. 810 requires the public to pay for destructive embryonic 
research that has no current applications. It's an empty promise to the 
millions who suffer with disease, and would surely pave the way for 
embryo cloning.
  I am voting against H.R. 810, and I urge my colleagues to do the 
same.

                                          Avila, IN, May 23, 2005.
       Dear House of Representatives, my name is Kelsea King. I am 
     fourteen years old and have been dealing with diabetes for 
     nearly three years now. There are many challenges in having 
     this disease, both physical and emotional. Though it may be 
     hard to believe, the emotional pain greatly outweighs the 
     physical pain. My sister, Kendall, was also diagnosed with 
     diabetes two years ago. She is now seven. It is very hard 
     going through life knowing that both our lives could be 
     shortened by this disease. It is also very difficult knowing 
     what this disease makes us prone to, such as heart disease, 
     liver problems, blindness, and in extreme cases, loss of 
     limb. But the most difficult part of all is worrying about 
     passing out due to low blood sugars, or being hospitalized 
     for ketoacidosis (which is caused by blood sugar being too 
     high). It is too large of a responsibility and too large of a 
     burden for any seven-year-old, and even for a fourteen-year-
     old.
       As you can see, my need for a cure to this disease is very 
     great. But I do not want a cure if it takes the lives of 
     others. I do not support Embryonic Stem Cell Research. I 
     believe it is very wrong to take innocent lives for any 
     reason, even if it benefits me. There are other ways of a 
     cure; we just need proper funding. There is no proof that 
     Embryonic Stem Cell Research is better or more successful 
     than Adult Stem Cell Research. If we work together, we can 
     find a cure through Adult Stem Cell Research.
       My hope and prayer is for my sister and I to be cured 
     before we are adults so we can both live long and healthy 
     lives. No one deserves diabetes, but everyone deserves a cure 
     through Adult Stem Cell Research. My sister and I need this, 
     as well as the millions of other children in America who are 
     afflicted with this disease. Please help us--support Adult 
     Stem Cell Research!
           Sincerely,
                                                      Kelsea King.

  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) deserve our thanks for 
sponsoring the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act and working with so 
many families who have been impacted by diseases that may find cures as 
a result of this vital research. Their work and dedication on this 
legislation has been tremendous and praiseworthy. I also thank them for 
giving me the opportunity to cast one of the most important votes I 
will ever make in Congress.
  Almost everyone has lost some family member prematurely. I think of 
the grandmother, whom I never met, who died when her daughter, my 
mother, was only 16. I think of my mother-in-law who never had the 
opportunity to know her grandchild who is now 25. I think of my cousin, 
who was brilliant and never got to realize his full potential.
  Embryonic stem cell research has the potential to cure disease and 
save lives in ways never dreamed of. And it is only 6 years old. These 
are discarded embryos that were never in the womb. They were not taken 
from it and they were not put into it. But they can help save lives. 
That is why it is so important that we not only pass this legislation 
today, but that the President signs this bill into law.
  Sometimes ideology can box you in and cause you to make wrong and 
harmful decisions. I think it is time we recognize the Dark Ages are 
over. Galileo and Copernicus have been proven right. The world is in 
fact round. The earth does revolve around the sun. I believe God gave 
us intellect to differentiate between imprisoning dogma and sound 
ethical science, which is what we must do here today.
  I want history to look back at this Congress and say that in the face 
of the age-old tension between religion and science, the Members here 
allowed critical scientific research to advance while respecting 
important ethical questions that surrounded it.

                              {time}  1615

  We know that by allowing embryonic stem cell research to go forward, 
treatments and prevention for diseases will not come to us overnight. 
But we also know embryonic stem cell research has the potential to 
yield significant scientific advances to heal and prevent so many 
diseases throughout the world.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
  (Mrs. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I have a profound deep and abiding belief 
in the right to life. I have introduced a constitutional amendment to 
ban abortions every session of Congress since 1997 and have a perfect 
pro-life voting record.
  Two years ago I visited the Bader Peach Orchard in Campbell. I met 
the Baders' son, Cody, after my tour. Cody is a handsome and articulate 
young man who happens to live in a wheelchair because of a car 
accident. Cody asked that I rethink my opposition to embryonic stem 
cell research because he thought that one day if it did not help him, 
it might just help another young person like him. I later wrote a note 
to Cody's family telling them that even after hearing his story, I 
could not do as he asked. And I have regretted writing that letter ever 
since.
  My friends Joel and Dana Wood have a son James, who was diagnosed 
with muscular dystrophy when Dana was 9 months pregnant. James may 
never see his 21st birthday, and this is just heartbreaking. My late 
husband, Bill Emerson, and his mother, Marie, who passed away last 
night, both suffered from diseases for which stem cell research holds 
much hope: cancer and dementia. Embryonic stem cells are the only 
avenue for research we know of now that can possibly help alleviate 
those two diseases. Neither adult stem cells nor cord blood are 
plausible for the study or treatment of brain tissue.
  I have met with ethicists, scientists, two priests, and my own 
minister to talk about this agonizing decision. But when presented with 
an embryo, an embryo that cannot live outside a uterus, an embryo that 
is going to sadly be thrown out as medical waste, and the lives of 
little James Wood and young Cody, I ask do they not have as much of a 
right to life as that embryo that is going to be tossed away?
  I had dinner last Thursday night with my daughter and her friend, 
Will Coffman. Will's story is much like Cody's. We talked and talked 
about this issue. And Will said to me, We may never know how the story 
will end, but please do not let the story end right now.

[[Page H3830]]

  Mr. Speaker, my pro-life credentials are unquestioned. Who can say 
that prolonging a life is not pro-life? Technology and faith continue 
to present agonizing decisions and conflicts. Each life is precious, 
and so I must follow my heart on this and cast a vote in favor of H.R. 
810.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman physician 
from the State of Michigan (Mr. Schwarz).
  Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I have been a physician for 41 
years; and like my good colleagues who will not be supporting this 
bill, I would expect we could tell the Members stories of all the blood 
and gore and problems that we have waded through in those years and 
done our very best. I also consider myself a guy who is pretty much 
pro-life.
  This bill is not cloning. It is not somatic cell nuclear transfer. It 
is sound science. For those who have an ethical problem with the bill, 
I accept the fact that they have that problem and hope that at some 
point in the future we can sit down and discuss this issue. But for now 
they will have their position; I will have mine.
  Stem cell research, especially embryonic stem cell research, is going 
to go on apace very rapidly in all parts of the world, whether it is 
Singapore or Korea or Japan or China or the United Kingdom or Canada, 
other places on continental Europe. We are being left behind in this. 
We have the finest universities in the world, the finest researchers, 
the ability to bring stem cell research to a point where we will, 
indeed, have cures for everyday problems such as diabetes, such as 
Parkinson's, such as Alzheimer's, and perhaps even being able to create 
neuronal cells to take care of people who have spinal cord injuries. 
Science will march on.
  I believe this bill helps the living. Can there be any doubt that the 
potential of relieving widespread suffering with embryonic stem cells 
is morally superior to simply destroying the excess embryos? How can we 
call ourselves a culture of life when we ignore the living, when we 
ignore the infinite potential of embryonic stem cells?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The order of closing will be in 
this order: the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) first, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) second, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay) third, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) fourth, 
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) will close.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington State (Mr. McDermott).
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, while Europe and Singapore and California 
and Korea are moving forward in an effort to relieve human suffering, 
the United States Congress, 435 theologians, have gathered here to 
decide a values decision. We have no guidance. There was no in vitro 
fertilization or stem cell research when Jesus walked on the Earth. We 
are left to make the decision on our own.
  The decision comes down to this: a man and woman come in to a 
physician. He presents some semen. She presents some eggs. They put 
them in a jar or they put them in a petri plate, and it becomes an 
embryo. They have several of them; so they use one. They put it in the 
mother. She has a baby. And there are a bunch left. Now what shall we 
do with those? Shall we throw them down the sink, wash them away, or 
shall we use them to help people who have terribly debilitating 
diseases? That is what this issue is about.
  Like the last speaker, I am a physician. I have counseled people who 
were dying with Lou Gehrig's disease. To watch somebody drown in their 
own secretions, someone that you know and care about, and then come in 
here and say we are not going to look for a way to relieve that kind of 
agony, we will not worry about a 13-year-old kid who gets diabetes and 
has to give himself thousands and thousands of shots and loses the 
length of life that most of us expect because of that disease; we will 
say to them, well, Jesus wanted us to do this. I do not remember the 
Lord ever saying that. I do not ever remember his saying, I gave you a 
brain, you human beings. I do not want you to figure anything out. I do 
not want you to make it any better.
  This is a perfectly good values judgment on which everybody should 
vote ``yes.''
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Washington State (Mr. Inslee).
  (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I come to speak for life, life for people 
with diabetes, life for people with Parkinson's, life for people with 
damaged hearts.
  What possible benefit is it for life to discard these cells without 
allowing them to be used to bring life, to save life, to preserve life? 
If these cells have any future, it is through curing disease. If 
Members wish to give them life, then let them give life to others. This 
is their only hope, and it is our best hope.
  Dr. Connie Davis, the medical director of University of Washington's 
Kidney and Kidney-Pancreas Transplant Program, put this discussion in 
perspective when I was talking to her yesterday. She reminded me that 
the donation of a kidney used to be a controversial issue in this 
country. It is no longer so.
  Our bill allows donors of these stem cells to make a donation 
decision, a donation to research. A narrow segment of our Nation did 
not stop lifesaving kidney donations, and a narrow segment should not 
stop embryonic stem cell research. Healing is a moral thing to do.
  I met a man at the Transplant Association the other day. He and his 
wife had, in fact, had an in vitro fertilization. He had other 
additional embryos that were available. He wanted to make those 
available to cure people with diabetes and Parkinson's disease, and he 
had one thing he asked me. He said to me, Let me and my wife make that 
moral judgment, not the 435 strangers who know nothing about my moral 
interior values or my life.
  That is an American right to donation. We should preserve it and pass 
this bill.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Renzi).
  Mr. RENZI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader for yielding me this time.
  I recall being taught that the mustard seed is the smallest of all 
seeds, and yet it grows into the mightiest of trees. And the same can 
be said of the human embryo, something so very small, so unseen by the 
human eye, and yet so special at the very beginning of life that it 
needs to be safeguarded.
  The real heart of this argument is whether something so innocent 
should be killed and whether Americans should pay to facilitate the 
government-sanctioned experimentation on human life based upon a 
prospect, based upon a maybe, based upon a possibility, based upon the 
potential.
  The government already takes 285 million of our tax dollars each year 
and funnels it into pro-abortion organizations. The leadership of the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) undermines my ability to love my 
country, undermines our patriotism.
  I say stand fast against the secret pollsters and vote ``no'' on this 
legislation.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the debate on stem cell research challenges all of us to 
think carefully about the value we place on human life. Many of us turn 
to our faith traditions for guidance and wisdom. None of us has the 
right to legislate our religious beliefs and impose them on others. But 
as Members look to the teachings of their faiths for guidance, I ask 
them to remember that not all faiths hold that stem cell research is 
the enemy of life. The religious traditions of many of us do not tell 
us that a 14-day-old blastocyst has the same moral significance as a 
human being and do tell us that the obligation to preserve life, which 
includes the obligation to cure disease and alleviate human suffering, 
is paramount.
  I understand and respect the faith of all of my colleagues. It is a 
sincere faith that reveres life. I ask them to

[[Page H3831]]

accord that same respect to the faiths of others.
  Unfortunately, words have sometimes been used carelessly, and these 
words sometimes denigrate the faith of others. When the teachings of a 
faith are described as ``a culture of death'' because they hold that 
the potential to save and heal human lives is an integral part of 
valuing human life, that faith and its adherence are being slandered. 
How dare anyone slander the faiths of many Americans as ``a culture of 
death.'' God does not speak to one faith alone.
  We hear lots of speeches about respecting people of faith and the 
need to bring faith into the public square. The people who make those 
speeches should respect all faiths. We should vote our consciences, but 
we should not denigrate the faith and consciences of the millions of 
Americans who seek to preserve life and end suffering and who believe 
that embryonic stem cell research can save lives and therefore embodies 
the highest morality.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, most of my colleagues that support this 
bill are from the pro-choice field. I come at it from the pro-life 
section. A lot of times I disagree with my colleagues because I think 
in some cases they would go further, and a fact that many people will 
not take under their wing is that many of these stem cells are going to 
be thrown away, either cryogenically they deteriorate and they throw 
them away, or a woman says ``I don't want to keep them for 1,000 
years'' and they discard them. They literally throw them in the toilet.
  Now we can save life. They say there is no good to be done. Animal 
studies have shown that work with the spinal cord, heart and others 
have been successful. We have not done it on humans. If you take a look 
at some of the blood diseases with bone marrow used, that is stem cell.
  And we have hope in the future. I met a young man that had AIDS at 
NIH, and he only thought about dying. He said, ``Duke, all I need is 
hope to survive.'' This gives that hope, and I think it has promise.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the seminal question that we 
address is, should Americans be using their tax dollars to fund 
research that kills a living human embryo? My answer to that is an 
emphatic ``no.''
  It is our duty to ensure that we spend our money on things that work, 
and there are no therapies in humans that have ever successfully been 
carried out using embryonic stem cells. And that is really what this 
whole debate is about, paying for what works and paying for it in a way 
that is consistent with the morals of our taxpayers.
  Look, even the President and CEO of the Juvenile Diabetes Research 
Foundation, a group that is a strong supporter of destroying human 
embryos for research, he said, ``There have been more promising results 
in adult stem cells than there have been in embryonic stem cells.'' He 
predicted that their foundation would soon be spending more on adult 
cells research than embryonic research.
  Private organizations like these are choosing to use their research 
dollars on what works, adult stem cells research. Washington must also 
spend its money efficiently on what works, while representing the 
values of the taxpayer.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on Federal funding for killing living human 
embryos.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman that just preceded me, 
speaking to the House, said that he did not think this experimentation 
would work. Well, there is no way it will ever work if we do not allow 
the research to take place. There can be nothing that is more pro-life 
than trying to pursue research that scientists tell us will lead to 
cures for MS and diabetes and Parkinson's and other terrible diseases 
that people now suffer and die from.
  Some people have said, Well, let us have an alternative; let us use 
the stem cells from the umbilical cord.
  Mr. Speaker, that is not a replacement for embryonic stem cell 
research that would occur if we passed H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research 
Enhancement Act. We need to ensure that scientists have access to all 
types of stem cells, both adult and embryonic.
  Rather than opening the doors to research, the President's policy of 
stopping this work at NIH has set the United States back. It has meant 
that researchers who see the promise are leaving the National 
Institutes of Health. It means the edge that this country has had as a 
leader of research is now falling behind and we look to other countries 
who are going to take our place.
  For the sake of those who are suffering, for the sake of what science 
can bring to us, for the sake of life, I urge the adoption of this 
legislation. I do not think it is a good enough excuse to hold up a 
clump of cells and say, this we value and this we will protect, and 
then to look at our friends and our colleagues, people we know and 
people we do not even know, and tell them their lives we do not value.
  The United States is poised to assume a role of leading the world in 
this promising field. Vote for this legislation that will make it 
possible.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Barrett).
  Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this issue is more than 
facts and figures. For me it is personal. It is about my children, 
Madison, Jeb and Ross Barrett. It is about my nieces and my nephews, 
Hayden and English and Jason and Andrew. They are not just names, they 
are living, breathing human beings. They are people I care about, they 
are people I love. It is my family. And they began life as an embryo.
  Let us be clear, embryonic stem cell research is completely legal. 
What we are talking about today is whether taxpayer dollars should be 
used to destroy potential life, and, for me, life must supersede all 
other considerations, especially for the purpose of medical 
experimentation.
  Life is so precious, Mr. Speaker, and as long as I am a United States 
Congressman, I will do everything I can to protect it.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, which will expand 
funding for embryonic stem cell research, and I am proud to be an 
original cosponsor of it.
  What I would like to say today is the following: Scientists have 
informed us, the professional scientists in our country, not political 
scientists, but scientists, and what they have told us from their 
considerable work and research is that this issue represents hope. It 
represents hope for the cure of diseases that plague so many of our 
people, from juvenile diabetes all the way to the other part of life, 
which is Alzheimer's, and so many diseases in between.
  This Congress and previous Congresses have seen fit to double the 
funding of the National Institutes of Health. I have always called them 
the National Institutes of Hope.
  We are now on the threshold, we are now on the threshold of debating 
an issue that can bring hope to our people. It is up to us to have an 
ethical standard in this debate. That is why no human cloning is a part 
of the bill that I support. Why? Because no one supports that.
  The American people are decent and they want an ethical standard, but 
they also want their Nation's leaders to continue to give hope to them, 
hope for the cure of these diseases that cause so much human suffering. 
We have a responsibility in terms of our compassion, in terms of the 
instruction that our Nation's scientists have given to us.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this bill. It is an ethical bill, 
and it is a bill that is all about hope.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill which will expand funding 
for embryonic stem cell research, and I'm proud to be an original 
cosponsor of it.
  Under this bill embryonic stem cell lines will be eligible for 
Federal funding only if the embryos used to derive stem cells were 
originally created for fertility treatment purposes and are in excess 
of clinical need.

[[Page H3832]]

  Today, there are thousands of surplus embryos from fertility 
treatments that will never be used and will likely be discarded.
  We should allow parents who choose to donate these embryos for use in 
federally-funded stem cell research to do so.
  My home-state of California recently approved a $3 billion ballot 
initiative to fund embryonic stem-cell experiments. It is the largest 
State-supported scientific research program in the country. This 
initiative places California at the forefront of the field and exceeds 
all current stem-cell projects in the United States.
  But without additional Federal funding, our scientific leadership is 
being transferred overseas. Where the leading-edge research is carried 
out matters a great deal. Any policy restricting Federal funding for 
embryonic stem cell research threatens the long-term vitality of the 
U.S. economy, and most importantly denies millions of Americans hope.
  I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 810.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), who is an OB/GYN physician, who practiced for 26 
years and has delivered over 5,200 babies.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in opposition, strong opposition, to 
H.R. 810, not as a physician, not as an obstetrician-gynecologist, but 
as a pro-life Catholic who firmly believes in the sanctity of life.
  I have sat here for almost 3 hours listening to every word of the 
debate as part of my job as a member of the rebuttal team, and here is 
my legal pad of notes and rebuts. Most of those rebuts are against 
people on my side of the aisle, because this issue is clearly a 
bipartisan issue. You have Members, Republicans and Democrats, who are 
for the bill, indeed the authors, and you have Republicans and 
Democrats who are in opposition to the bill. So I have got plenty of 
rebuttals that I could make, but very briefly, I will just mention one 
or two.
  One of the gentlemen on my side of the aisle said that we need the 
Federal Government, we need the Federal Government involved in 
embryonic stem cell research and the funding of that to provide ethical 
guidelines to the States. You remember that comment, maybe an hour or 
so ago? Well, if the Federal Government is involved in a program where 
taxpayer dollars are spent to destroy human life, what ethical advice 
can they give to my State of Georgia, I ask? I think none.
  You see, I firmly believe in the sanctity of life, and I believe that 
life does begin at conception, and these embryos are definitely living 
human beings. The gentleman just said a few minutes ago that ``I can't 
imagine that a 14-week blastocyst has the same value as a human 
being.'' Indeed, it does.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to look at these charts and 
what we know with these so-called frozen throwaway embryos that nobody 
wants. Well, there are hundreds today of these snowflake children, and 
there will be many more when people realize this is available to them.
  Yes, it starts as an embryo, just a few cells, and then a blastocyst. 
But then here is a 20-week ultrasound with a beating heart and brain 
and limbs and moving, and then here is the final result.
  Let me just say in conclusion, the gentleman from New Jersey talked 
about his development, his growth and development, and going backwards 
in his life. He stood in this well and said, ``I am an adult man today. 
But yesterday I was a teenager, and before that I was a toddler.'' But 
he did not go the opposite direction and say ``In 20 years I will be a 
senior citizen, and after that I may be in a nursing home and I may 
have Alzheimer's. I may be a vegetable.''
  You would not want to destroy those lives, any more than the embryos 
at the beginning of life.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to say, if people want to donate their 
embryos to another couple for adoption, our bill allows that. But our 
bill also allows people who do not want to give their embryos for 
adoption to donate them for science, so the children who are alive 
today can be cured. I assume no one on the other side of this issue 
would want to force everybody to give up their embryos for adoption, 
because clearly that would be limiting the choice that people have.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent New Jersey, one of the few 
States that devotes its own resources to embryonic stem cell research.
  To help us understand this humane line of research, let us look at in 
vitro fertilization. Several decades ago, many people raised concerns 
about this procedure; everywhere there were attacks using the term 
``test tube babies.'' But today there are 400,000 young people who are 
the products of in vitro fertilization, and in every case, there are 
eggs, fertilized eggs, that were not brought to full-term birth.
  But people do not condemn the use of IVF. And just as we do not place 
ethical burdens on the children who were conceived through IVF, we 
should not place ethical burdens on the millions of Americans suffering 
from Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, et cetera.

                              {time}  1645

  I am hoping that several decades from today, we will look back and 
find ourselves thankful that we came to a humane, prudent conclusion. 
Embryonic stem cell research will have yielded new ways to diagnose, 
treat, and cure tragic diseases.
  I urge my colleagues to support the humane H.R. 810.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished majority leader 
for yielding me this time.
  We are here debating H.R. 810, which directs the Federal Government 
to spend tax dollars on embryonic stem cell research. This bill, 
therefore, implies that stem cell research is not already going on, but 
stem cell research is alive and well in America. Adult stem cells are 
currently being used to treat people, and successfully.
  This bill's approach, however, will remove stem cells from human 
embryos. This will kill the embryo. And whether we like to think about 
it or not, embryos are indeed human beings. Every human life begins as 
a human embryo; and by extracting their stem cells, this bill uses 
American tax dollars to destroy human life.
  The embryonic stem cell research in this bill destroys human life, 
and I believe that we as the American people should not destroy human 
life with American taxpayers' dollars, not even in the name of 
research.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, I recently had a granddaughter born. I 
looked at that little baby, and I was in love with her when I went to 
ultrasound and we saw her, even before she was born. When I saw the 
little snowflake children, I thought about their humanness. I thought 
about what joy they brought to their families. I thought about little 
children that needed to be comforted when they were hurt, little 
children that wanted to be put to bed at night with a kiss and a story, 
their wonderful humanness, and I thought about what the American people 
think of babies and how we cherish them. When I see these little 
children, I know their intrinsic value; and how we treat people, in 
whatever form of development, depends on how we perceive them.
  The embryo is a human being at an early stage of development. When we 
talk to many who have great knowledge about this, and I appreciate the 
doctors in our presence, we should never spend the American taxpayers' 
dollars to take the life of an innocent human being.
  As I look at this bill, I know it is very complex; but we need to 
always support human life.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 810. I 
commend my colleague, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), for 
her leadership on this issue.
  Stem cell research is not about abortion. Stem cell research is not 
about human cloning. We are talking about finding cures for 
Alzheimer's, paralysis, Parkinson's, and other diseases. We are talking 
about improving the lives of countless numbers of people in this 
country. That is what stem cell research is about.

[[Page H3833]]

  We are talking about putting American health care and researchers in 
the best position to finding the cures for today's diseases tomorrow 
and to preventing the diseases of tomorrow today.
  This spring, I joined my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Israel), for a congressional roundtable on stem cells and on the 
biotech industry. Doctors, researchers, and scientists spoke about how 
the President's strict limits on stem cell research is prohibiting them 
from conducting the level of research that they would like to do.
  I agree, but who is missing out the most are the 650,000 people we 
represent and the potential this research holds.
  American medical research has extended lives through immunization, 
treatments, and innovations. From eradicating polio to advances in 
diabetes, American research has been on the forefront.
  But there is still so much more that can be done and much more 
potential that exists. I commend my colleagues again for this bill 
being on the floor, and I support it wholeheartedly.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy of 
yielding me this time.
  I have been touched by the personal stories that we have heard here 
today. I think people are genuinely speaking from the heart.
  But the issue remains that we have embryonic stem cells that are 
either going to be thrown away for largely theological reasons, or they 
will be used for research to save lives. This research is going to take 
place in the United States and around the world. The question is, how 
rapidly? The question is whether the United States Government's 
official policy will remain frozen in place, or whether we will exert 
the same type of leadership that we have exerted in other areas of 
research, technology, and dealing with human health.
  For the sake of life, for the sake of health, for the sake of our 
families, I hope that this legislation passes, that we will be able to 
make sure that the Federal Government exerts its appropriate role in 
making sure that we have the resources, the direction, and the control 
to do this successfully.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  I rise in strong support of the legislation before us which I 
consider to be extremely important. It builds on the President's policy 
by merely allowing the use of embryonic stem cells created for 
fertility purposes to be donated with permission, but without payment, 
by the woman for research, research to cure some of the terrible 
diseases that plague our lives. These free citizens would simply 
exercise their right and their conscience in donating embryos that 
would otherwise be discarded, destroyed, as waste.
  I believe we have a moral responsibility to advance the research that 
saves lives, relieves pain, and prevents suffering, rather than 
destroying those embryos. Those embryos could produce the stem cells 
that would save lives, and should not be destroyed as waste.
  Why do we have to do this today? Because if we do not, stem cell 
research will be done, but will not be uniformly governed by NIH's 
ethics policy.
  Why do we have to do this today? Because no nation has created a 
sustained, strong, globally-competitive economy without the freedom to 
research the frontiers of knowledge.
  Finally, why do we have to do this today? Because it is the right 
thing.
  Now, we have heard a lot of discussion on the floor today about 
destroying these cells as taking life and, as a matter of conscience, 
this is a complicated issue and one on which we disagree. If you 
believe life begins when the sperm enters the egg, then, yes, you would 
believe this is a taking of life, though we would unceremoniously toss 
those same cells into a waste bucket. But if you believe that life 
begins when the fertilized egg is implanted in the mother's womb, 
which, of course, is essential for it to realize its potential for 
life, then using a fertilized egg that has not been implanted is not a 
taking of life. If, further, you believe that life begins later in the 
process, then you are not taking life.
  So I ask each of my colleagues to think carefully in conscience when 
life does begin; and, on that issue, your vote on this bill rests.
  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. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this stem cell 
research bill. The science will go on with or without the United 
States. Diabetes, Alzheimer's, Lou Gehrig's disease, these diseases 
will be cured either here in the United States or somewhere else in the 
world.
  This bill is not about human cloning, which I oppose. An embryo is 
special tissue. We should not create them with the intent to terminate 
them later. But here, the embryos were created with the intent to bring 
more children into the world. Many eggs were fertilized in this process 
and, once a baby is born, many fertilized eggs are left over, created 
with the intention to create a baby.
  As Oliver Wendell Holmes stated, even a dog can tell the difference 
between a stumble and a kick. Juries determine intent all the time and, 
here, intent is crucial. These cells were created with the intention of 
creating human life, and the only alternate fate for them now is 
disposal.
  Let us not waste potential human life; let us not waste these 
fertilized eggs by destroying them. Let us use them to save human lives 
through stem cell research. Support the Castle-DeGette bill.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas 
(Mr. Tiahrt).
  (Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, 58 to zero. Today we are asked to sear our 
conscience and harden our heart towards human life so we can experiment 
on fertilized human embryos because we are told it holds such great 
promise. The results from testing are far from promising, though. They 
are very disappointing.
  But there is an alternative. The adult stem cell research has been 
very successful compared to embryonic stem cell research, and this 
success was accomplished without the destruction of human life.
  In fact, more than 58 diseases have been treated using adult stem 
cells in contrast to no diseases having been treated by using living 
embryonic stem cell research. Fifty-eight to zero.
  Mr. Speaker, how do we know the score? Well, embryonic stem cell 
research is being conducted in America with private funding, but that 
funding is lacking. So the labs have come to us for more money. 
Apparently, venture capitalists invest only in projects that are 
profitable, and you can see it is far from profitable here: 58 to zero.
  So now we are asked to support embryo stem cell research because it 
is so promising, when the facts are it is not promising: 58 to zero.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  (Mr. UPTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  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

[[Page H3834]]

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. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to the time on all sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton) has 3\1/2\ minutes; the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) 
has 7 minutes; the majority leader has 8 minutes; the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak) has 6 minutes; and the gentleman from Delaware 
(Mr. Castle) has 3\1/4\ minutes.
  The order of closing will be the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) 
first; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) second; the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. DeLay) third; the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. 
DeGette) fourth; and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) last.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill and support the 
President's position on embryonic stem cells.
  Let's be clear. Embryonic stem cell research is legal in America 
today, and nothing in the administration's current policy has affected 
the legality of this research. The administration's policy simply 
provides that Federal taxpayer dollars not be used to destroy human 
embryos. I believe most Americans, when they understand this, agree 
with the administration. But this rule does not in any way limit the 
private sector from pursuing embryonic stem cell research.

                              {time}  1700

  But ultimately, Mr. Speaker, no one can deny that this debate 
involves profound ethical and moral questions. This is a matter of 
conscience for millions of Americans who are deeply troubled by the 
idea of their own funds being used to destroy another human life. For 
many of my colleagues, and for me, this is a vote of conscience.
  Let the private sector go forward, if it must, with the destruction 
of embryos for ethically questionable science. But spend the people's 
money on proven blood cord, bone marrow and adult stem cell research.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, in Missouri's 5th District there are two 
individuals, Jim and Virginia Stowers, who did not seek a Federal 
grant, but who used $2 billion of their own money to begin some very 
vital research. They founded the Stowers Institute. And the Stowers 
Institute employs brilliant researchers from more than 20 countries 
around the world, and they are working with the most advanced tools to 
answer the questions and build the bridges between diseases and cures.
  Our Nation is blessed with the greatest minds and researchers on this 
planet. But to whom much is given, much is required. And so, Mr. 
Speaker, this Nation has a wonderful opportunity right now to respond 
to the needs and the interests of its people.
  Two boys, twin boys were in bed. One fell out of the bed in the 
middle of the morning, and when the parents went in to see him and 
asked what happened, he said, as he looked up to the bed, I think I was 
sleeping too close to where I got in. And that is where we are, Mr. 
Speaker. Even after the President has spoken, we are, as a Nation, 
still sleeping too close to where we got in with regard to research on 
stem cells.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire of the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Ms. DeGette) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) how 
many speakers they each have left? I have four, actually five, counting 
me.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am 
intending to reserve the rest of my time for closing.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I have one more speaker and then I plan on 
closing.
  Mr. DeLAY. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
  (Mr. NEUGEBAUER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 810, 
but in strong support of adult stem cell research as it respects life.
  An embryo is a human at its earliest stage of life and deserves the 
same respect that we give infants, adolescents and adults.
  During this debate, some would attempt to justify embryonic stem cell

[[Page H3835]]

research on the basis that we are dealing with something other than 
real human beings. We use the words stem cell, but we could also use 
the words Nathan and Noah. These are justifications based on 
definitions of life that are purely arbitrary.
  Indeed, a human at the embryonic stage may look a little different 
than a human at the adult stage, but that does not make the embryo any 
less a human. The embryo possesses the genetic identity as it will as 
an adult. It is merely at an earlier stage in life.
  Just as we find it unconscionable and unethical to exploit human life 
in the name of science during the latter stages of life, neither should 
we accept the exploitation of human life at its earliest stages.
  Instead, we should focus our resources on supporting medical research 
such as cord blood and adult stem cell research that respect human 
lives and have an actual track record of creating cures.
  Vote against H.R. 810.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, as we debate this proposal, we cannot ignore 
the fact that every human life begins as a human embryo. Sadly, passage 
of this bill will put the government and taxpayers in the position of 
sanctioning and funding the destruction of that human life.
  Now, we all feel strongly about the need for aggressive and advanced 
research to cure and combat the myriad of diseases that prematurely 
take the lives of our friends and our family members and our fellow 
citizens. When we lost my father to cancer, our family certainly wished 
that medical breakthroughs had come sooner.
  That is why I am so supportive of the rapid progress being made in 
the fields of adult and umbilical cord stem cell research. Cord blood 
stem cells have already been used to treat patients, we have been 
hearing, for up to 67 diseases, and it is my understanding they have 
the potential to become any kind of cell, similar to what embryonic 
stem cells do.
  While I recognize that many proponents of this bill offer their 
support with good intentions, in this case we do have clear 
alternatives, and I would strongly urge my colleagues to support adult 
and umbilical and reject this bill.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I would yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I was recently asked by a kind and 
gentle lady my position on stem cell research. This is always a 
difficult question. But I told her, I am in favor of stem cell 
research, research that uses stem cells from cord blood and adult stem 
cell sources, research that is already showing great medical promise 
and avoids the ethically divisive issue of the destruction of an unborn 
human embryo, an unborn human person.
  Frankly, I did not know how she would respond. And she went on to 
tell me that she had MS herself. And she told me that if research found 
a cure using unborn human embryos, that she would not take that cure, 
that she could not in her conscience take that cure that sacrificed a 
human life.
  Mr. Speaker, let us set a new standard, one that aggressively 
promotes good research to help the sick and injured, one that respects 
the consciences of tens of millions of Americans who do not wish to see 
their tax dollars used in the destruction of unborn human life, one 
that supports a consistent life ethic and gives true hope to those who 
are suffering in our communities.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I do rise today in strong support of H.R. 
810.
  Over the past two decades, three-quarters of the scientists who have 
won the Nobel Prize in medicine have studied or taught in the United 
States. And this is not a coincidence. Our Nation has created an 
environment that values innovation and discovery, especially in 
biological sciences. H.R. 810 will help America continue to lead in 
this crucial field.
  Of course, there is more at stake in this debate than America's 
global standing. Stem cell research holds extraordinary potential to 
save lives and alleviate human suffering. I had a father who suffered 
from Parkinson's, a mother who passed away with Alzheimer's. And I am 
all the more convinced that we must pursue this research vigorously, 
because I believe it does have potential to yield results.
  I would argue that H.R. 810 is worthy of our support not just for 
what it allows but for what it restricts. The bill requires that 
embryos be in excess of clinical need. It does not permit financial 
compensation for those embryos, and it requires the donor's written, 
informed consent.
  This legislation appeals to hope, but it insists on caution as well. 
H.R. 810 is as thoughtful as it is ambitious. For that reason I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  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. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, the reason this vote is so important is simply 
because the embryo is human life. It is not animal, it is not 
vegetable, it is not mineral, but a tiny, microscopic beginning of a 
human life.
  Everyone in this room was an embryo at one time. I, myself, am a 192-
month-old embryo. The question we face is how much respect is due to 
this tiny little microscopic human life. If we are truly pro-life, we 
should protect it rather than treat it as a thing to be experimented 
with.
  Lincoln asked a very haunting question at a small military cemetery 
in Pennsylvania. He asked whether a Nation conceived in liberty and 
dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal can long 
endure? And that question has to be answered by every generation.
  What is wrong with this legislation? The motives of its sponsors are 
so noble. Well, I will tell you two things that are fatally wrong with 
this legislation. The first one is, for the first time in our national 
history, taxpayers' dollars are going to be spent for the killing of 
innocent human life. That is number one. And number two, this bill 
tramples on the moral convictions of an awful lot of people who do not 
want their tax dollars going to be spent for killing innocent human 
life.
  Americans paid a terrible price for not recognizing the humanity of 
Dred Scott. We are going to pay a terrible price for not recognizing 
the humanity of these little embryos. We should not go down that road.
  In World War II, 1940, before America got in the war, there was a 
publication called the Yearbook of Obstetrics and Gynecology. And Dr. 
Joseph DeLee wrote in that yearbook something that applies to us today. 
Here is what he wrote. ``At the present time, when rivers of blood and 
tears of innocent men and women are flowing in most parts of the world, 
it seems almost silly to be contending over the right to life of an 
unknowable atom of human flesh in the uterus of a woman.
  ``No, it is not silly. On the contrary, it is of transcendent 
importance that there be in this chaotic world one high spot, however 
small, which is safe against the deluge of immorality and savagery that 
is sweeping over us.
  ``That we, in the medical profession, hold to the principle of the 
sacredness of human life and the rights of the individual, even though 
unborn, is proof that humanity is not yet lost.''
  I believe humanity is not yet lost, and this vote will tell us the 
answer to that question.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me, and I commend the gentleman for his leadership on 
this issue.
  We have heard a lot of discussion of the three known forms of stem 
cell therapies that are hypothesized to treat all these diseases. One 
of the nice things about adult stem cell treatments and why I think 
they have been embraced, and part of the reason they have been so 
successful is, if you use a cell from your own body, there are no 
tissue rejection concerns.
  If you use a cord blood or placental blood stem cell, there are 
tissue rejection concerns; but it is felt by the advocates of the 
gentleman from New

[[Page H3836]]

Jersey (Mr. Smith's) bill, such as myself, that by obtaining the bank, 
we would be able to enter all of your genetic information and come up 
with a match. And one of the questions I have for my colleagues who 
have been an advocate for the Castle/DeGette bill is, how, if these 
embryonic cells were ever proven to be useful, and that has yet to be 
demonstrated in the literature, how would you override the tissue 
rejection concerns?
  Mr. Speaker, it takes us to a very important part of this debate that 
we really have not dwelled on very much. They say there are 400,000 
embryos in the freezers, but the truth is the vast majority of those 
embryos are wanted, and their own studies suggest only 275 cell lines 
will be available if this bill becomes law.
  Mr. Speaker, the place we are going to have to go to make embryonic 
stem cell work, if it ever can be demonstrated to work, is creating 
human embryos for this purpose. And that really brings me to my point. 
If you are going to go down the road of creating human embryos, you 
really only have two options. You are going to need tens of thousands 
of women to donate their eggs, or you are going to have to clone. And 
that is why people like myself have been saying, wait to see what is 
next, because that is going to be the next debate.

                              {time}  1715

  If this becomes law, we are going to be asked to embrace Federal 
funding for creating human life for this research. No longer using the 
so-called excess embryos, but either exploiting women for their eggs or 
worse, we are going down the path of cloning. And I assure you, if you 
find those options objectionable, they will be cloaked with the same 
kind of arguments that have been used to support this bill. People will 
say it is for the purpose of helping the sick and suffering. And what I 
have been saying over and over again, if you actually read the medical 
journals, the promise and the potential appear to be in the ethically 
acceptable alternatives of adult stem research and cord blood research.
  Reject this bill. Vote ``no'' on Castle/DeGette.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I make a simple plea to save 
lives by supporting H.R. 810, the DeGette/Castle bill, and to help 
Americans who are suffering. I ask for a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 810 
simply to save lives.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 810, the ``Stem Cell 
Research Enhancement Act of 2005.'' As a supporter of the bill, I would 
argue that it is necessary to expand the number of stem cell lines that 
can be used in federally funded research in order to accelerate 
scientific progress toward the cures and treatments for a wide variety 
of diseases and debilitating health conditions--including Parkinson's 
Disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's Disease, ALS, cancer, and spinal cord 
injuries.
  According to the National Institutes of Health, NIH, of the 78 stem 
cell lines that were declared eligible for Federal funding in 2001, 
only about 22 lines are actually available for study by and 
distribution to researchers. Further, NIH concludes that these stem 
cell lines are contaminated with ``mouse feeder'' cells, making their 
therapeutic use for humans uncertain. These NIH-approved lines lack the 
genetic diversity that researchers need in order to create effective 
treatments for millions of Americans.
  H.R. 810 would expand the number of stem cell lines that would be 
made available under strict ethical guidelines. The stem cells would be 
derived from excess frozen fertilized embryos that would otherwise be 
discarded. It is estimated that there are currently about 400,000 
frozen IVF embryos, which would be destroyed if they are not donated 
for research. The embryos could be used only if the donors give their 
informed, written consent and receive no money or other inducement in 
exchange for their embryos.
  It is important for me to note that it is simply not true that adult 
stem cells offer the same, or better, potential for treating disease as 
embryonic stem cells. While embryonic stem cells have qualities that 
give them the potential to treat a wide variety of diseases and 
injuries, adult stem cells do not have those same qualities. Unlike 
embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells cannot be induced to develop 
into any type of cell. Furthermore, adult stem cells may not exist for 
certain tissues, and adult stem cells are difficult to identify, 
purify, and grow.
  Unless Federal funding for stem cell research is expanded, the United 
States stands in real danger of falling behind other countries in this 
promising area of research. Researchers have already moved to other 
countries, such as Great Britain, which have more supportive policies. 
The recent announcement that South Korean researchers have produced 
cloned human embryos that are genetic twins of patients with various 
diseases, and have derived stem cells from them, shows just how far 
that country is going. While it is important to recognize that this 
bill has nothing to do with cloning, it is also important to recognize 
that other countries are moving ahead in stem cell research.
  This bill provides a limited--but nonetheless highly significant--
change in current policy that would result in making many more lines of 
stem cells available for research. It would do so under strict ethical 
guidelines. The measure has widespread bipartisan support. Passage of 
this bill would provide hope for those millions of Americans suffering 
from diseases that may be treated or even cured as a result of stem 
cell research
  Before concluding, I would just mention that the National Academy of 
Sciences, NAS, recently issued a set of guidelines to ensure that human 
embryonic stem cell research is conducted in a safe and ethical manner. 
Because of the limitations of the current federal policy, only 22 stem 
cell lines are eligible for federal research and fall under the 
jurisdiction of National Institutes of Health guidelines. Specifically, 
H.R. 810 requires that:

  The stem cells must be derived from human embryos that were donated 
from in vitro fertilization clinics, and that were created for the 
purpose of fertility treatment, but were in excess of the clinical need 
of the people seeking such treatment;
  The embryos would not have been used for fertility treatment, and 
would otherwise be discarded;
  The individuals seeking fertility treatment donated the embryos with 
informed written consent and without any financial payment or other 
inducement to make the donation.
  In addition, the bill requires that not later than 60 days after 
enactment, HHS, in consultation with the National Institutes of Health, 
issue final guidelines to carry out the requirements of this bill. 
Finally, the measure requires HHS to report annually to Congress on the 
activities carried out under this bill. The report must include a 
description of whether, and to what extent, these activities were 
carried out in accordance with the requirements of this bill.
  In closing, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 810.
  Listen to the following news reports which indicate this research as 
viable and of great need for so many.

       Since the federal government's science officials have 
     abdicated their traditional role in setting ethical rules for 
     medical experimentation, the National Academy of Sciences has 
     filled the void with useful guidelines for research with 
     human embryonic stem cells. Acting on behalf of scientists 
     around the country, the NAS last week issued stem cell 
     research guidelines that should become a blueprint for 
     ethical behavior in both the public and private sector. The 
     Atlanta Journal Constitution, May 3, 2005.
       Kudos to the National Academy of Sciences for ably filling 
     the breach caused by the absence of federal guidelines on 
     human embryonic stem cell research. While we prefer that 
     rules governing research on human tissues be federal and 
     enforceable, the National Academy of Sciences' new voluntary 
     guidelines are a necessary stand-in. The Baltimore Sun, May 
     3, 2005.
       With the federal government's role limited, research has 
     been proceeding without clear, consistent guidelines . . . 
     These and other recommendations are a good start toward 
     ensuring that stem cell research is conducted in an ethical 
     way. . . The federal government is still not doing all that 
     it should, but these recommendations ought at least to help 
     the private companies and states that are moving ahead with 
     research that offers so much hope for many Americans. The 
     Winston-Salem Journal, May 3, 2005.
       The National Academy of Sciences gave a much needed boost 
     to embryonic stem cell research last week when it issued 
     ethics guidelines that should help researchers find a clear 
     path through a minefield of controversial issues. . . they 
     will give practicing scientists the assurance that they can 
     proceed with their work while adhering to principles endorsed 
     by a panel of distinguished scientists, ethicist, and others. 
     The New York Times, May 2, 2005.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Delaware 
(Mr. Castle) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank both the Republican 
and Democratic leadership for allowing this to take place here today.
  Sometimes there are issues of such critical social importance that it 
is

[[Page H3837]]

only right that the Congress of the United States do this in the open, 
and they did that and for that we should all be very appreciative.
  I just want to leave my colleagues with some closing thoughts, 
perhaps some of the things I started with. There are 110 million people 
just in the United States of America out of 290 million who have some 
sort of illness that potentially could be helped by the use of 
embryonic stem cells. Most of those will never be helped by the use of 
adult stem cells. We know that anything other than just the use of 
adult stem cells in blood tissues has been experimental at best and 
probably will never work.
  I would encourage everyone to use their conscience as they vote 
today, to think about their constituents at home. We talk about life, 
and I do not necessarily want to get into that argument back and forth, 
but the bottom line is there are a lot of lives that are being 
foreshortened in the United States of America and across the world that 
perhaps could be lived out to their fullest if that opportunity was 
given to the individuals involved.
  Remember that this research is going on at the private sector level. 
It is also going on at the State level. It is even going on to a degree 
at the Federal level. There has been $60 million spent over 3 years on 
this research at the Federal level, and about $625 million has been 
spent on adult stem cells at the Federal level. So the research is 
going on at the time.
  Our ethic standards in this bill, and if you read it, it is only 3 
pages long, exceed any ethical standards that have ever existed before 
including what the President had before.
  The National Institutes of Health said: ``Human embryonic stem cells 
are thought to have much greater developmental potential than adult 
stem cells. This means that embryonic stem cells may be pluripotent, 
that is, able to give rise to cells found in all tissues of the embryo 
except for germ cells rather than being merely multipotent, restricted 
to specific subpopulations of cell types, as adult stem cells are 
thought to be.''
  That is where the science is. You can argue all you want, but if you 
do any extensive reading on this, that is where the science is. These 
are the stem cells which can make a difference, the embryonic stem 
cells.
  There are discussions of dollars. There are no dollars used directly 
in the destruction of embryos at an in vitro fertilization clinic. 
There are dollars used in the research ultimately. But let us look at 
that. Let us consider what that is all about.
  At the end, when those who have created the embryo make the decision 
that they no longer need or want that particular embryo, the physician 
has to make a decision about what to do with it. There are some options 
there. Not a lot of options. One of them is to give that particular 
embryo up for adoption. Some people do not choose to do that. There 
have only been fewer than 100 so far. And I think that is wonderful. I 
think that option should be offered.
  Some people may make other decisions, but basically it will be one of 
two decisions if this legislation passes. One is to put it into 
hospital waste, warm it up to room temperature, thereby destroying it 
at that point and doing it that way, or to be giving it up for 
research. And my judgment is if that is a decision, why are we not 
helping the 110 million people out there who need help, as opposed to 
allowing this to go to hospital waste because it will happen anyhow.
  If you do not like that, you better go out and lobby against what 
they are doing in in vitro fertilization clinics, and I do not think 
that we want to do that.
  There are about 400,000 of these embryos. That is probably a low 
estimate today. That is an estimate of about 3 years ago. About 2 
percent are given up a year. That is 8,000. The numbers that are more 
limited than that are just wrong. A lot of people now, if this passes, 
are going to be offered the opportunity to give up the embryo for 
research instead of hospital waste, and they are going to make that 
decision, and we will get the kind of work that we need.
  I would just close by saying that 14 out of the 15 diseases that are 
most likely to kill people in the world are not ever going to be helped 
by adult stem cells. We need to do this. With your vote today you can 
provide hope to tens of millions of Americans and many more around the 
world. Support H.R. 810.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) has 
2 minutes remaining.
  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

[[Page H3838]]

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. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, what we have before us today is not a debate as some 
have suggested between science and ideology, but between aspirations 
and actions. Both sides of this debate wish to ease human suffering.
  So what divides us is not our ends, but the means to which we would 
resort to pursue those ends. That is why the Castle bill must be 
defeated, because while we are motivated by our aspirations, we are 
defined by our actions; and the Federal Government simply cannot 
sanction the actions authorized and funded by this legislation.
  For all the arguments we have heard today, scientific, ethical, 
political, the debate for and against the Castle bill, for and against 
the authorization of Federal taxpayer dollars to fund medical research 
predicated on the destruction of human embryos is in essence a question 
of the level of respect and dignity our government chooses to grant 
human life in its earliest stage. That embryos are human beings is not 
a political dispute. An embryo is a person, a distinct, internally 
directed, self-integrating human organism. An embryo has not merely the 
potential to become a human being. It is one, and as such, just like a 
newborn or a toddler or a teenager, possesses instead the internally 
directed potential to grow into adulthood, to become in a sense what he 
or she already is.
  An embryo is whole, just unfinished, just like the rest of us. We 
were all at one time embryos ourselves, and so was Abraham, so was 
Mohammed, so was Jesus of Nazareth and Shakespeare and Beethoven and 
Lincoln. And so were the 79 children, those snowflake children, those 
snowflake children ages 6 and under who have been adopted. Do not throw 
them away. Adopt them.
  These children have been adopted through different programs, but 
particularly the Snowflake Embryo Adoption Program, who under the 
Castle bill and its predictable progeny might otherwise have been 
destroyed in a petri dish, these children that were embryos.
  An embryo is nothing less than a human being, a fact both morally 
intuited and scientifically unquestioned. What level of respect and 
dignity, then, should our government grant such little creatures, these 
tiny beings who our eyes suggest are not like us but who our hearts and 
minds know in fact are us?
  The Castle bill is very clear, and though I oppose it, its clarity 
well serves both sides in this debate. The Castle bill says essentially 
that the potential medical and scientific progress represented by an 
embryo's stem cells justifies, justifies taxpayer funding for the 
destruction of that embryo through the harvesting of the stem cells.
  Of course, it is not the hoped-for end of the Castle bill that we 
oppose, nor necessarily, among some on this side of the aisle, even its 
destructive means, but instead the entitlement of those destructive 
means to Federal tax dollars.
  After all, human embryos are being harvested for medical research 
every day in this country. We just do not think the government should 
be forcing the American people to pay for it, especially considering 
the discouraging track record of the kind of research the Castle bill 
has in mind.
  To date, Mr. Speaker, none, none, not one of the countless and 
extraordinarily well-endowed private embryo-cell-harvesting projects 
has yielded a single treatment for a single disease. Not one.
  Embryonic stem cell therapies which are by design definitely 
untherapeutic to the embryos have in fact proven to be similarly 
harmful to those patients the treatments were supposed to help.
  Harvested embryonic stem cells are typically rejected by the host 
patient and often form cancerous tumors as a byproduct of that 
rejection. That is to say, Mr. Speaker, it does not work.
  And, indeed, many embryonic stem cell experts concede that such 
research will not yield results for decades, if at all, if ever. In 
truth, then, it is not the ends that would supposedly justify the 
grizzly means of the Castle bill, but the mere aspiration to those 
ends.
  On the other hand, better developed stem cells from the umbilical 
cords of newborn babies and the bone marrow of fully grown adults have 
led to treatments of no fewer than 67 separate diseases.
  Based on this successful track record, the biomedical industry is 
pouring its own money into adult stem cell research. It is the smart 
investment.
  In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Castle bill would throw taxpayer 
money at the same unsuccessful research that companies with the 
financial motivation for developing such research are avoiding. It just 
does not work.
  Indeed, one might say the stubborn advocacy of embryonic harvesting 
in the face of the overwhelming clinical evidence of its futility might 
be a genuine case of ideology trumping science.
  But what if it did work, Mr. Speaker? What if all the Utopian 
comments of the Castle bill's proponents were to come true? What then?

                              {time}  1730

  What if we could be sure that government-funded destruction of human 
embryos could do all the things we are asked to believe? Well, in that 
case, Mr. Speaker, we would still be right to oppose it because in the 
life of men and nations, some mistakes you cannot undo. Some mistakes 
do not just come back and haunt you, they define you.
  A decision by our government to sanction embryo harvesting here at 
the very dawn of the biotechnology age could come to own us, for the 
paltry research sum envisioned by the Castle bill is but the first 
generation, the first drop of the deluge. Its offspring will ultimately 
include cloning, genetically engineered children, a black market of 
human body parts, and a global economy organized around the 
exploitation and hyper-ovulation of impoverished women and girls for 
their eggs.
  If the mere aspiration of ends justify the means here, in our first 
ethical challenge of the biotechnology age, how could we hope for a 
higher standard the next time? Which returns me to the irreducible 
question of this debate: What level of respect and dignity ought this 
government grant defenseless unburdensome human life at its earliest, 
most vulnerable stage?
  Given the biological fact of a human embryo's membership in the human 
family, given the technological necessity of embryonic destruction as a 
precondition of embryonic stem cell research, given the medical reality 
of embryonic stem cell research's consistent therapeutic failure, given 
the moral catastrophe of means-justifying-the-ends morality, and given 
the physical revulsion people instinctively feel when considering the 
destruction of defenseless human life by scientists in lab coats; given 
all these factors, the

[[Page H3839]]

answer a proponent of taxpayer-funded embryonic stem cell harvesting 
and research must give is ``none.'' For if we afford the little embryos 
any shred of respect and dignity, we cannot in good faith use taxpayer 
dollars to destroy them.
  I wish there was another way, Mr. Speaker, but there is not. It is 
just wrong, not as a matter of ideology or even fate, but as a matter 
of respect and dignity.
  We are not asking anyone here to recognize the rights of human 
embryos, but the wrongs of human adults. This is not about the embryo's 
standing as a juridical person, but our standing as moral persons. 
Because the choice to protect a human embryo from federally funded 
destruction is not ultimately about the embryos, it is about us and our 
rejection of the treacherous notion that while all human lives are 
sacred, some are more sacred than others. I heard it said here today, 
Some are more sacred than others.
  Like our embryonic cousins, Mr. Speaker, our Nation is whole but 
unfinished. The issue is a test in which we are asked out of good and 
pure intentions just this once, just this tiny little bit, to let the 
ends justify the means, to let the noble aspirations justify ignoble 
actions.
  In this test, in this vote, then, we have an opportunity today to 
speak truth to the power of biotechnology, to rise up against the 
prevailing winds of human excess and hold fast to the dignity of human 
life upon which all other worldly truths are based: to ensure our 
appetite for knowledge is checked by our knowledge of our appetites; to 
stand up, as only America can, in the name of the least among us, whom 
we serve, and become the people we are.
  I ask my colleagues, seize the opportunity and vote ``no.''
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, first I would like to give my heartfelt thanks to my 
partner, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), our bipartisan whip 
team, the 201 cosponsors of this bill, and so many others who spoke 
today from the bottom of their hearts.
  More than 100 years ago, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes recognized 
that we are living in an increasingly complex world and that ``the 
chief worth of civilization is just that it makes the means of living 
more complex.'' This world, he says, ``calls for great and combined 
intellectual efforts instead of simple, uncoordinated ones.''
  The truth of Justice Holmes' words in today's complex world is best 
seen in the state of scientific research. We are on the verge of 
breakthroughs that will cure diseases that affect tens of millions of 
Americans. Yet some want to turn away from this potential, to refuse to 
even acknowledge its existence, simply because they do not understand 
the complexity of this issue. This refusal is slowing the process of 
ethical science and, worse, delaying advancements that could cure 
diseases that affect patients and families around the world.
  Our constituents want more from us. They want their elected officials 
to thoughtfully examine tough issues like embryonic stem cell research, 
and create policies that address both practical and ethical challenges. 
They also expect us to consider these issues not as Democrats or as 
Republicans, not as pro-life or pro-choice, but as people with family 
members and friends whose lives could be made better or even saved by 
our decisions.
  Passing H.R. 810 will allow the Federal Government to enable 
scientists, not politicians, to determine whether embryonic stem cell 
research will lead to cures for diseases that now plague us, and it 
will do so while establishing the clear and strict ethical guidelines 
that are absent today.
  In 2001, the President issued his executive order establishing the 
current embryonic stem cell research policy in an attempt to balance 
bioethics and science. In the last 4 years, it has become clear that 
the policy has failed on both counts. Research has been stymied in this 
country, going into private hands and offshore. Research moves ahead, 
but not with the resources and coordination of the National Institutes 
of Health and without clear ethical standards.
  I recognize that new science creates new moral dilemmas. That is why 
our bill sets explicit controls on how stem cell lines can be created. 
It gives another option for embryos created for in vitro fertilization, 
embryos created in petri dishes, that would otherwise be destroyed so 
that they can be used to potentially save or extend lives. It gives the 
patients for whom the embryos are created the decision on how they will 
be used: as now, freezing for possible future use; discarding them as 
medical waste or donating them to other couples for implantation; and 
if this bill passes, another option, donating them for critical 
research that could save millions of lives of people who are already 
born.
  Here is why we need to pass this bill. These are two young brothers 
from Denver, Colorado. Wyatt and Noah Forman. Both of these boys have 
Type 1 diabetes, and both of them have been diagnosed since they were 
2. A couple of months ago, little Noah had convulsions in the middle of 
the night from low blood sugar. His parents thought they would lose 
him, and now they cannot sleep at night. Without a cure, Wyatt and Noah 
face possible complications ranging from a heart attack to kidney 
failure or even blindness as they grow up.
  How can we tell these boys, these two boys and millions of others, 
that we would rather throw the embryonic stem cells that could provide 
them a cure than to allow them to be donated for science? How can we 
tell our colleagues, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) and 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), our mothers with Alzheimer's, 
our brothers with Lou Gehrig's disease, the millions of Americans who 
are praying for a cure and for whom embryonic stem cell research may 
hold the key, Sorry, the Federal Government is opting out?
  Let us not let 1 more year, 1 more month, or 1 more day go by without 
acting. Let us reclaim the Federal Government's role as the leader in 
ethical basic research. Let us give those whom we are sworn to 
represent hope. Let us pass H.R. 810.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Dent).
  (Mr. DENT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 810.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of H.R. 810, the Stem 
Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005.
  Today there have been bills presented that discuss, among other 
things, the merits of embryonic stem cell study versus cord blood cell 
utilization. This discussion, while interesting, misses the point of 
promoting stem cell research in general: Scientific breakthroughs that 
may originate from stem cell examination have the power to better, and 
even save the lives of our fellow citizens afflicted with terrible 
diseases. Stem cell research holds out hope for those suffering with, 
for example, diabetes, Parkinson's, and coronary heart disease, the 
number one killer of adults in this country. We must encourage this 
research, and the legislation offered by my colleagues from New Jersey 
and Delaware is an important step forward in our attempts to find cures 
for these diseases.
  Moreover, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act promotes the 
establishment of ethical standards with regard to the procurement of 
embryos utilized in the research. The only embryos that can be utilized 
are ones that were originally created for fertility treatment purposes 
and are in excess of clinical need. Further, the individuals seeking 
fertility treatments for whom those embryos were created have 
determined that these embryos will not be implanted in a woman and will 
be otherwise discarded. Finally, these same individuals have provided 
written consent for embryo donation.
  The development of standards, both ethical and clinical, is an 
important aspect of stem cell research. This bill directs that the 
National Institutes of Health develop guidelines to insure that 
researchers adhere to the highest possible principles in scientific 
inquiry. Here we have a unique opportunity to establish national 
standards that will become the benchmark for scientific study 
throughout the world. By encouraging scientific breakthroughs while at 
the same time observing the highest possible standards of ethical and 
clinical behavior, we can go a long way towards battling genetically-
based diseases that have ended the lives of so many.
  Thank you Mr. Speaker, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the majority leader, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), for

[[Page H3840]]

the tenor of the debate today and for granting extended time and making 
sure all points of view have been heard on this important issue.
  Although I am going to vote for Castle/DeGette, I do not necessarily 
speak as an advocate for its passage as much as I want to speak about 
why I have decided to vote for it.
  I respect Members on both sides of this issue. I made sure that 
members of the committee I chair, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
regardless of their position, had an opportunity to speak and put their 
comments on the record.
  I come at this as a 100 percent pro-life, lifetime, voting Member of 
Congress. As I said earlier, this will be my second vote this year 
where I have not adopted the pro-life position. So I am not quite 100 
percent any more, but I would think that 99.8 percent over 21 years 
qualifies me as a pro-life Congressman.
  I have also voted numerous times for our defense bill, where we have 
voted hundreds of billions of dollars to defend our Nation and put our 
young men and women at risk, some of them that might have to give up 
their lives. I have voted for many bills for our law enforcement 
officials, where again they may have to give up their lives to protect 
the common good.
  Now, you might say, yes, but in those instances they were adults and 
they had free will and they voluntarily made a choice that they might 
have to sacrifice their lives.
  Well, I accept and support that an embryo is a life. I agree with the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson) that we were all embryos once. 
I understand that. And, obviously, at 7 days or 14 days, embryos do not 
have consciousness. They do not have free will. They do not have the 
neuro cells or brain cells to make a decision whether they want to 
voluntarily make a sacrifice. I understand that.
  But I would say this: If they did, out of the 400,000 that we think 
may be in existence, if you narrow that down to the 2.8 percent that 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) talked about that are probably not 
going to be used for reproductive purposes, if they did, would not some 
of them, knowing the stakes, volunteer? It only takes one, the right 
one, that magic silver bullet embryo that creates that magic stem cell 
that can be replicated into any of the 200 cell lines that make up the 
human body.
  If I had that opportunity, might I not take advantage of it? Somebody 
would. And since they cannot, because they do not have consciousness, 
under a traditional law in this United States of America we give 
custody to the parents. A parent will make a decision at some point in 
time, or a family member will make a decision at some point in time 
that perhaps they do not want to put up for adoption, which is the 
decision I would make.

                              {time}  1745

  Why not? In addition to the cord blood bill that we have just passed, 
why not make it possible for some of these under the conditions in the 
Castle/DeGette bill for some to be used for research purposes. It does 
not take many. I respect those who say, no, you cannot do it at all. 
But I also say given a choice, let us err on the side of opportunity. 
That is why I am going to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 810. This 
bipartisan legislation will enhance existing stern cell research and 
help our nation's scientists make significant progress toward the 
development of treatments for conditions affecting more than 100 
million Americans.
  But this is not just about Americans. For years, our country has led 
the world in medical advancements, and people from around the globe 
travel here for medical education as well as for lifesaving care. 
Today, the House is considering opening new lines of research--research 
that will help the United States retain its place as a world leader in 
this burgeoning new field, while helping to alleviate the pain and 
suffering of many around the world.
  Current federal policy, put into place by President Bush on August 9, 
2001, allows federal funds to be used to support research from the 
stern cell lines that existed on that date, but it bans the creation of 
additional stern cells from embryos that are stored at in vitro 
fertilization clinics. To many observers, this policy seemed a 
reasonable compromise at the time, as many scientists believed that the 
existing 78 stern cell lines would be available for use. In fact, only 
22 lines are available and some of these were found to have been 
contaminated from contact with mouse ``feeder'' cells. In addition, the 
22 available lines were developed using science that has since seen 
significant improvements. Scientists at the National Institutes of 
Health report that these lines also lack the genetic diversity 
necessary to perform extensive research for diseases that 
disproportionately affect minorities. These deficiencies decrease the 
overall number of opportunities available for our scientists and 
undermine potential progress in the stern cell field. In essence, our 
policy has discouraged scientific exploration by restricting the extent 
of research. It is wrong for Congress to tie the hands of our 
scientists while millions of Americans suffer.
  Since the President's policy was implemented, I have heard from 
hundreds of Marylanders who have been diagnosed with debilitating 
illnesses, including leukemia, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, 
Alzheimer's disease, and spinal cord injuries. They are grateful for 
the federal research funding that Congress has provided in past years, 
particularly the doubling of the NIH budget over a five year period, 
and they look to the future with hope that more effective treatments 
and someday, cures, will be forthcoming.
  I have also heard from the academic medical centers across the 
country. These are the places where the most complex medical procedures 
are performed, where medical school graduates from around the world are 
trained, where our most groundbreaking research is conducted. Two of 
the finest academic medical centers are located in Baltimore--the 
University of Maryland Medical Center and the Johns Hopkins University 
Medical Center. This bill presents an opportunity to expand their 
ability to make life saving and life extending discoveries.
  Some of my colleagues have raised ethical concerns about stem cell 
research, and I believe that this bill effectively addresses these 
concerns. The authors of this bill, Mr. Castle and Ms. DeGette, have 
written this legislation so as to not encourage the creation of human 
embryos for research or for any other purposes. This bill stipulates 
that all embryos used for research must have been originally created 
for in vitro fertilization and are in excess of clinical need; it 
requires that the embryos would not have been implanted and would have 
otherwise been discarded; and it requires donors to provide written 
consent before embryos may be donated for research. These guidelines 
are ethically sound; they help ensure that enhancing stem cell research 
policy will not come at the expense of respect for human life.
  It is not certain that stem cell research will result in cures, but 
it is fairly certain that if we close off promising avenues, such as 
stem cell research, finding those therapies and cures will take much 
longer.
  In 2001, two months before President Bush issued his stem cell 
policy, Sue Stamos and her daughter, Faith, came to visit me in my 
office. At the time, Faith was three years old--a very brave little 
girl who had been diagnosed with juvenile diabetes. Sue asked for my 
support for federal research to help find a cure for Faith, and I 
promised to do everything I could to help. Back in June of 2001, our 
knowledge of stem cell research's potential was nowhere near what it is 
now, and we did not yet know what the President would propose. Today, 
we have much broader and deeper knowledge about the scientific 
possibilities of stem cells, but much less capacity to research stem 
cell lines than we had anticipated. Today, I will vote to keep my 
promise to Sue and Faith Stamos and to the thousands of other 
Marylanders who are waiting for cures. I will vote to expand the stem 
cells lines available for federally funded research.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I must note that stem cell research is a 
controversial and emotional subject. It touches on questions of human 
suffering, medical ethics, scientific potential, the role of 
government, moral considerations, and life itself. H.R. 810 strikes the 
right balance. It encourages research, but it does not encourage the 
creation of embryos for research purposes. It allows us to support the 
efforts of the brilliant scientists in our research institutions who 
have dedicated their careers to alleviating the suffering of others. It 
allows us to honor the wishes of in vitro fertilization donors who want 
to make a contribution toward medical advancement. It was right for the 
leadership to allow a vote on this important bill, and it is right for 
the House to pass it.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 810.
  Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 810, to 
provide for human embryonic stem cell research. The measure is a 
crucial first step toward helping millions of people who suffer today 
from diseases that are currently without treatment. By broadening the 
federal government's investment in this nascent technology, I am 
confident that we will be able to offer help to these men, women,

[[Page H3841]]

and children that would be impossible by conventional means.
  The room for growth in embryonic stem cell research is exponential. 
According to the National Institutes of Health, this work may one day 
be used in gene therapy and to overcome immune rejection. Heart 
disease, Alzheimer's, Krabbe disease and stroke are just a few of the 
maladies that this research could help to treat and eventually cure.
  My region in Western New York has a number of great research 
institutes that boast a rich history of tackling devastating health 
afflictions. For example, Roswell Park Cancer Institute (RPCI), located 
in Buffalo, implemented the nation's first chemotherapy program.
  RPCI's Center for Pharmacology and Therapeutics is one of few in the 
nation capable of all phases of drug development, from the conceptual 
stage through manufacturing and testing. This year, RPCI's strong basic 
and clinical research programs attracted major research grants and 
contracts totaling more than $75 million. The Institute has sponsored 
or collaborated on more than 350 clinical trials of promising new 
cancer treatments and its developing cancer genetics program will rival 
the world's leading programs in that field.
  The Institute has also made significant contributions to the landmark 
human genome project, and its new Center for Genetics and Pharmacology 
will adjoin the University at Buffalo's Center of Excellence in 
Bioinformatics and Life Sciences and the new 72,000 sq. ft, $24 million 
Hauptman-Woodward Medical Research Institute building that opened less 
than two weeks ago. The three centers form a state-of-the-art life 
science cluster in downtown Buffalo that will transform lives in my 
district and across the world through the cutting edge stem cell and 
genomic research.
  Western New York has made a commitment to curing disease, caring for 
the sick and preventing the needless loss of life wherever possible. 
Our innovative institutes, led by some of the best researchers in the 
world, can make an immeasurable difference in people's lives. It would 
be unconscionable, now that we are so close to the ability to use stem 
cells to fight off the diseases and maladies that plague us, for us to 
turn our backs and withhold that care. Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to 
pass H.R. 810. We have the tools to save lives; it is now our duty to 
use them.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, today the House is considering H.R. 810, the 
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, which expands funding for 
embryonic stem cell research. As an advocate of stem cell research, I'm 
proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation because I believe 
that this critical research can lead to cures for Type 1 Diabetes, 
Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, paralysis caused by spinal 
cord injury, and other serious health problems.
  Over 3,000 people die every day in the United States from diseases 
that may some day be treatable as a result of stem cell research. Now 
is the time for Congress and the Administration to recognize that the 
current policy does not work.
  In 2001, President Bush crafted a policy to allow limited federal 
support for some embryonic stem cell research. Four years later, 
however, it's clear that his policy has hindered progress. Today, of 
the 78 stem cells lines approved for federal research, only 22 are 
available to researchers. These 22 lines are not only contaminated but 
were also developed with outdated techniques.
  Under H.R. 810, embryonic stem cell lines will be eligible only if 
embryos used to derive stem cells were originally created for fertility 
treatment purposes and are in excess of clinical need. Today, there are 
thousands of surplus embryos from fertility treatments that will never 
be used and will likely be discarded. We should allow parents to donate 
these embryos for use in federally-funded stem cell research.
  This November, my home-state of California approved a $3 billion 
ballot initiative supported by Governor Schwarzenegger to fund 
embryonic stem-cell experiments. It is the largest state-supported 
scientific research program. This initiative puts California at the 
forefront of the field and exceeds all current stem cell projects in 
the United States.
  However, with the Federal Government on the sidelines, scientists are 
still reluctant to pursue stem cell research and the private sector is 
unwilling to invest in the field. We are losing ground to the rest of 
the world. As the Washington Post reported last Friday (May 20, 2005), 
South Korea is leapfrogging ahead of us and is developing techniques 
proving that stem cell research is robust.
  Now, the public, researchers and industry are looking to Congress for 
leadership. Stem cell research should not be about politics. It should 
be about science, medicine and hope. We have an opportunity to help end 
the suffering of millions of people with chronic or terminal diseases, 
and we should seize it.
  Stem cell research is not only critical to saving lives but it also 
stimulates our Nation's economy. Stem cell research is the next ``big 
thing'' in biotechnology after the human genome project. Long-term 
economic growth depends on productivity, productivity depends on 
technology, and technology ultimately depends on basic science, which 
is why any policy restricting federal funding for embryonic stem-cell 
research threatens the long-term health and vitality of the U.S. 
economy. Biotechnology is at a stage of development similar to where 
information technology was in the late 1980s--ready to explode.
  For our leadership in science and technological leadership, where 
innovative leading-edge research is carried out matters a great deal, 
but under the current policy we're leaving the field even before the 
game has begun.
  Now the President has said he will veto this bill. He may succeed in 
stifling stem cell research in our country, but he will not stop 
scientific progress. It will occur elsewhere. If the U.S. fails to 
embrace stem cell research, we will only slow progress in treating 
disease and cede our leading role as a technological leader.
  The Federal Government should be in the business of encouraging and 
assisting research that can help save the lives of its citizens. The 
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 accelerates scientific 
progress toward cures and treatments for a wide range of diseases while 
simultaneously instituting stronger ethical requirements on stem cell 
lines that are eligible for federally funded research.
  I urge all my colleagues in the House to support this legislation.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell 
Research Enhancement Act, to put science and compassion ahead of 
ideology and fear.
  The promise of embryonic stem cells is that they alone have the 
potential to develop into any kind of body tissue, including blood, 
brain, muscle, organ, or nerve tissue. Scientists believe that this 
unique ability might lead to breakthroughs in a number of illnesses 
that are now untreatable. Over 100 million Americans suffer from 
diseases and conditions that may one day be treated using stem cell 
therapies, including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, juvenile diabetes, Lou 
Gehrig's disease, severe bums, and spinal cord injuries.
  For the very reason that we do not yet know what kind of treatments 
stem cell research will yield, it would be unwise not to explore the 
possibilities.
  As one researcher at Harvard Medical School and Boston's Children's 
Hospital recently wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine, ``the 
science of human embryonic stem cells is in its infancy.'' Restricting 
stem cell research now ``threaten[s] to starve the field at a critical 
stage.'' It's critical to understand the science of stem cell research 
to weigh the moral and ethical issues involved. This bill allows 
funding of research on stem cells that are harnessed from fertility 
clinics.
  In vitro fertilization is a technology that has allowed millions of 
couples to share in the joy of childbirth. It results in the creation 
of embryos that are never implanted into the womb, never grow to be 
more than a handful of cells, and would otherwise be discarded. 
Harnessing stem cells for medical research from fertility clinics is a 
compassionate, pro-family, and pro-life position.
  As one of the world's foremost centers of medical research, 
Massachusetts has much at stake in the stem cell debate. Not only are 
our hospitals, research facilities, and institutions of higher learning 
on the cutting edge of conquering disease, they are also major economic 
drivers keeping us competitive in the global economy and employing tens 
of thousands of people.
  Massachusetts has over 250 biotech firms. That is more than all of 
Western Europe combined.
  If we continue the current ban on stem cell research, it does not 
mean that research will stop elsewhere. But it would put America--the 
world's most powerful engine of innovation and progress--on the 
sidelines.
  Mr. Speaker, America should be leading the world in using our 
compassion and our scientific knowledge to develop lifesaving 
therapies. I urge support for H.R. 810.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, as an original co-sponsor of H.R. 810, I rise 
in support of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.
  I want to applaud my colleagues Rep. Castle and Rep. DeGette for 
working together to introduce this common sense bi-partisan measure.
  Mr. Speaker, we know that our population is aging. Debilitating 
chronic diseases like cancer, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and diabetes 
are becoming far more common.
  Diabetes in particular is a huge problem, and like many other 
diseases, minority communities are disproportionately affected by it.
  In my district in Alameda County, approximately 13.4 percent of 
African Americans have been diagnosed with diabetes compared to 4.5 
percent of Whites. And the diabetes death rates of Latinos and African 
Americans are as high as 2-2.5 times those of Whites.
  Expanding the number of embryonic stem cell lines available for 
research will assist scientists to develop therapeutic treatments and

[[Page H3842]]

cures for diabetes and a range of other diseases.
  By passing this bill we will not only help to improve the health and 
well being of the public, but we will also help to eliminate future 
chronic health care costs and improve the health of our economy as a 
whole.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, it is important that I give voice to the 
important issue of stem cell research. This is not an issue that anyone 
takes lightly. Life is precious in all forms, and it is important to do 
all that we can to ensure issues surrounding life and quality of life 
are given the highest priority.
  Millions of Americans suffer from debilitating diseases like Juvenile 
Diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's and a host of other diseases 
that reduce the quality of life or cause loss of life. Stem cells 
derived from embryos have shown tremendous promise in the fight to rid 
society of many of these diseases. In 2003 alone there were 1,681,339 
deaths from diseases that could benefit from this research.
  Many couples across America struggling to have children benefit from 
In Vitro Fertilization, a process where embryos are created to provide 
couples with the potential to have children. In many cases, couples 
have left over embryos that would be destroyed. This legislation simply 
provides the opportunity for those embryos to save lives already being 
lived.
  Lives being lived by people like Tambrie Alden from Glens Falls, NY. 
Tambrie has had Juvenile Diabetes for 28 years. She goes through 10 
daily finger sticks a day and has worn an insulin pump for 10 years. 
Each day brings a different battle for Tambrie; she must constantly 
monitor the highs and lows of her condition. Tambrie has had over 200 
laser eye surgeries due to Juvenile Diabetes, which also continues to 
attack her organs ability to function properly.
  On Sunday, Tambrie turns 47. She celebrates every birthday to the 
fullest, because when she was diagnosed with Juvenile Diabetes, the 
doctors told her she would not live past 43. Tambrie lives on borrowed 
time and worries about losing her sight and not being able to see her 
grandchildren grow up. She knows that embryonic stem cell research 
probably won't help her, but she prays the promise it holds will ensure 
that her grandchildren don't have to suffer as she has. That's why we 
are here today, to make sure that people like Tambrie can live their 
lives to the fullest.
  This action is limited to promoting responsible research with embryos 
that would be destroyed otherwise. Congressional oversight on this 
ethically sensitive issue is the right balance to ensure that our 
nation remains diligent in our approach to medical research, while 
taking important steps to improve the quality of life for those who 
suffer from debilitating diseases.
  The bill establishes strict standards for use of fertility clinic 
embryos. First, written permission is required of the couple donating 
the embryo. Second, there can be no financial compensation, much like 
organ donation. Finally, the legislation requires the National 
Institutes of Health to establish strict oversight for the scientific 
community to ensure ethical guidelines are adhered to.
  Embryonic stem cell research is a new form of research in the early 
stages. I am fundamentally opposed to cloning embryos or creating 
embryos for scientific research. This legislation does not a ow 
cloning, it merely ensures that embryos already created and unused 
serve a higher purpose than being destroyed.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act and H.R. 2520, the 
Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act that we debated earlier today. 
Both bills would expand stem cell research, which holds tremendous 
promise to curing and treating some of the most devastating diseases 
and conditions facing Americans today. This issue is about medical 
research coupled with high ethical standards and providing hope to 
those most in need--it should have no role in any party's political 
agenda.
  In 2001, President Bush announced that for the first time federal 
funds could be used to support limited research on human embryonic stem 
cells, specifically ``existing stem cell lines where the life and death 
decision has already been made.'' Under this policy, only 78 embryonic 
stem cell lines are eligible for use and according to the National 
Institutes of Health (NIH), only 22 of those lines are viable for human 
research. Since 2001, 128 embryonic stem cell lines have been developed 
that are ineligible for federally funded research.
  Both bills--the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act that would 
create a new federal program to collect and store umbilical-cord-blood 
cells and expand the current bone-marrow registry program and the Stem 
Cell Research Enhancement Act that would increase the number of stem 
cell lines that can be used in federally funded research--establish 
much-needed ethical standards and expand the possibilities of stem cell 
research for new treatments and cures.
  According to the NIH, in the United States more than 4 million people 
suffer from Alzheimer's disease; one in every four deaths is from 
cancer; and every hour of every day, someone is diagnosed with juvenile 
(type 1) diabetes. These brave individuals battling life-threatening 
and debilitating diseases are not responsible for policy or debate, but 
they will be the ones most affected by the outcome of today's vote.
  The President was quoted by the Associated Press over the weekend 
saying, ``I made it very clear to the Congress that the use of federal 
money, taxpayers' money to promote science which destroys life in order 
to save life is--I'm against that. And therefore, if the bill does 
that, I will veto it.'' This legislation will not create life for the 
purpose of destruction. These bills will expand the scope of research 
that the Bush Administration has already approved. It is unfortunate 
President Bush would dash the hopes of so many people looking for 
medical answers through research.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues join me today in advancing science 
and supporting H.R. 810. Congress and the Administration must not 
withdraw from progress, but embrace the immense opportunities that 
expanded stem cell research can have for the future and wellbeing of 
our Nation's public health.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the 
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, H.R. 810. I would like to thank 
Representatives Castle and DeGette for their leadership on this 
important issue.
  Recent advancements in medical technology have created hope for the 
millions of people, and their families, who suffer from the effects of 
diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and diabetes. Stem cell 
research may hold the key to better treatment options, and even a cure, 
for diseases like these and others.
  Many of us will have lasting images of President Ronald Reagan and 
Christopher Reeves as their frail bodies deteriorated over the years. 
And I will never forget my own father's battle against Alzheimer's and 
how his slow deterioration and passing impacted our family. Their 
personal health battles took on a new meaning as the public debate 
heated up over the merits and ethics of embryonic stem cell research.
  As we look towards the future of medical research, we must always 
proceed with strict ethical caution. I believe the Castle/DeGette 
legislation meets this criteria by establishing strict requirements for 
which new embryonic stem cell lines would be eligible for federal 
funding. Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research would mean 
that research could advance at a faster pace while providing stringent 
requirements and oversight of the research. National and international 
involvement is needed to ensure research institutions and companies do 
not intentionally or unintentionally overreach their bounds.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of H.R. 810, the 
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, I rise in strong support of 
this legislation. H.R. 810 is essential legislation that will expand 
opportunities for scientists to treat spinal cord injuries, multiple 
sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, and 
other devastating diseases.
  There are ethical concerns over the use of embryonic stem cells in 
research, and we should not treat stem cells as just another laboratory 
product. We must strongly prohibit unethical practices, such as human 
cloning. And we should not allow embryos to be bought and sold.
  But it is important to recognize that, as part of the process of in 
vitro fertilization, many embryos are created that are never used and 
are slated to be destroyed. With the stringent moral safeguards 
established by this legislation, including the required written consent 
of the donors, I believe we should permit the use of stem cells from 
these embryos. The use of embryos for research that would otherwise be 
destroyed strikes a responsible balance between the ethical and medical 
values associated with stem cell research.
  The current state of stem cell research suggests that there is 
significant progress to be made if we move forward in this area. 
Leading scientists have testified that adult stem cells and umbilical 
cord stem cells do not share the ability of embryonic stem cells to 
replicate all other cells in the human body. If we don't invest in stem 
cell research, millions of Americans with some of the most debilitating 
diseases will not be able to avail themselves of the treatments or 
cures that might result.
  In addition, if we fail to invest federal resources in embryonic stem 
cell research, the U.S. will lose its competitive advantage in this 
essential area of science. The limited federal support for stem cell 
research is just one area of science in which the U.S. is falling 
behind. Last year China produced 160,000 more engineers than we did. 
Nearly 40 percent of U.S. jobs in science or technology requiring a 
Ph.D.

[[Page H3843]]

are now filled by people born abroad--that's up from 25 percent in 
1990. We now rank below 13 other countries--including Japan, Germany, 
and South Korea--in the percentage of 24-year-olds with a college 
degree in a science or engineering field--that's down from third in the 
world 25 years ago.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation will help the U.S. to move forward on 
our moral imperative to perform stem cell research in an ethically 
responsible way. I urge all of my colleagues to support it.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, the promise for curing a whole host of 
debilitating diseases is brighter than it's ever been. Today, Congress 
has the opportunity to capitalize on breakthrough scientific research 
to help millions across our country.
  Representatives Castle and DeGette have crafted this bill 
meticulously, which would allow the use of surplus embryos from in 
vitro fertilization treatments and require donor consent. It does not 
allow stem cells to be sold for profit. This legislation takes an 
ethical and moral approach to a challenging subject, and throughout is 
respectful of the value of life.
  Real political courage and leadership--on both sides of the aisle, in 
the House and Senate--was required to bring us to this point. People 
from every point along the political spectrum--from Nancy Reagan to the 
late Christopher Reeve--have embraced the promise and potential of stem 
cell research.
  Parkinson's, cancer, Alzheimer's, juvenile diabetes, spinal cord 
injuries--cures for these and other serious ailments may lie in stem 
cell research. We owe it to generations of suffering Americans and 
their families to help find treatments that could lead to full 
recovery.
  Many in this body like to talk about ``values.'' Today, I say to 
them: using discarded embryos to find scientific cures for fatal 
diseases is our moral obligation. Saving life is precisely what we all 
care about.
  Mr. Speaker, a vote for H.R. 810 is a vote to save lives. I urge all 
my colleagues to support this bipartisan, bicameral legislation.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I have been watching today's 
proceedings from California as I recuperate from surgery. I feel 
compelled to reach out to my colleagues to underscore the utmost 
importance of H.R. 810, the ``Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.''
  H.R. 810 is a comprehensive bill that fully balances the ethical 
concerns associated with stem cell research with the incalculable 
benefits such research can confer upon millions of Americans.
  Now is the time for action! We must continue to expand the scope of 
embryonic stem cell research. We must not tie the hands of researchers 
who will hopefully deliver to our communities cures for these life 
threatening diseases.
  Research on adult stem cells is important. However, I think we need 
to recognize the limitations that are inherent in that type of 
research. While adult stem cells are being used to treat blood diseases 
such as leukemia and lymphoma, adult stem cells cannot be used to form 
any cell. Experts believe that adult stem cells are not going to 
produce the answers to diseases like sickle cell disease, Multiple 
Sclerosis, heart disease, liver disease, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and 
numerous kinds of cancers we so desperately seek. Adult stem cells are 
not a substitute for embryonic stems cells.

  I would like to speak specifically to the large numbers of African 
Americans and other minorities who will hugely benefit from this 
potentially lifesaving research. Too many of my constituents are 
disproportionally affected by many of the diseases researchers hope to 
cure with information gleaned from embryonic stem cell research.
  In particular, diabetes, Parkinson's, and especially sickle cell 
disease run rampant in our communities. I want to be able to look at 
every single one of my constituents who is afflicted with a disease 
that researchers believe they can treat eventually based on research 
done on embryonic stem cells and tell them that here in Washington we 
are doing absolutely everything we can to save their lives and assuage 
their pain.
  I introduced bills over the last two Congresses to bring awareness to 
the need for expanding the number of stem cell lines because I 
recognize that we must embrace groundbreaking solutions to the problems 
posed by fatal diseases.
  The research has progressed so far since 1998, when scientists first 
isolated human embryonic stem cells. Amazing discoveries have been made 
in such a short time. What sense would there be in restricting the 
ability of researchers to, within the boundaries set by, strict ethical 
guidelines, progress with this research as far as is possible? Why are 
we tying the hands of our scientific community to save lives on the 
basis of an arbitrary date, while across the world this research will 
be used to save lives?
  This bill answers those questions resoundingly: we will not unduly 
restrict the essential research that could save the lives of millions. 
We will move forward. We will find an end to suffering that could be 
prevented, in my community and nationwide.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say that I will be casting 
my vote for H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005.
  I am voting for this legislation with the face of Ashley Dahly on my 
mind. Ashley is a 17-year-old high school junior from Devils Lake, 
North Dakota. She is a happy teenager with an adoring family. She likes 
school, enjoys Student Congress and speech class, and loves ice 
skating.
  Ashley also has juvenile diabetes. In fact, today she is at home 
missing her finals because of high blood sugars. Ashley is North 
Dakota's delegate for Children's Congress through the Juvenile Diabetes 
Research Foundation, taking place here in Washington on June 18-22nd. 
Ashley's goal is to enter a health-related field such as a nurse or 
diabetes educator, because as Ashley has said, ``I know the pain that 
children diagnosed with diabetes go through, and I think I could help 
in relieving that pain.''
  There is currently no cure for juvenile diabetes, a disease that 
affects another child every hour of every day. Embryonic stem cell 
research offers great potential for advancing treatments or even curing 
diabetes, as well as many other diseases such as Parkinson's disease, 
cancer, ALS, paralysis and others. Particularly in the case of 
diabetes, embryonic stem cell research holds the greatest possibility 
for understanding and curing this disease, since adult stem cells are 
not present in the pancreas, the organ attacked by diabetes.
  Embryonic stem cell research is an extremely difficult issue, 
involving the potential for critical medical breakthroughs on the one 
hand, and very complex bio-ethical issues on the other. The bill 
requires that research only be conducted on stem cells derived from 
embryos created for fertility treatments that were in excess of the 
need of the mother and would otherwise have been destroyed. My vote 
today is supported by over 200 major patient groups, scientists, and 
medical research groups, and I believe that my vote can provide hope to 
families in North Dakota like Ashley's who are suffering through the 
illness of a loved one.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, on the birthday of my daughter, Katy, who 
was born 8-10 weeks prematurely, but still lives and blesses my life. 
There are so many well-meaning people who want to see others cured. We, 
everyone of us in this body, want that. We know that. It is being said 
that no one will be harmed by the use or destruction of human embryos 
that were going to be waste anyway. Dear friends, when you use the 
product of the callous mistreatment of life, even though you use 
sterilized gloves, you nonetheless are an accomplice after the fact in 
encouraging future such destruction and mistreatment--even though you 
have the very very best of intentions. How many times as a judge have I 
heard, ``But, I never meant to hurt anyone. I thought I was just 
helping.''
  In the recent past, we lost a great American who had been injured in 
an accident and who encouraged the use of embryonic stem cells. That 
man had a heart as big as all outdoors and is an inspiration to so very 
many of us. His strength and courage and perseverance in the face of 
unsurmountable odds should be an encouragement for all who face 
adversity. He is quoted as saying something that others have said, but 
as a justification for embryonic stem cell usage--basically that we 
should be about doing the greatest good for the greatest number of 
people. That is the utilitarian way.
  It is worth noting that if a society only did what was the greatest 
good for the greatest number of people, that society would kill off the 
elderly who were no longer productive and kill off the young who were 
not likely to ever be very productive. That would also be a society 
that did not spend time trying to fix something that had been extremely 
broken. That is a society that would simply weigh the cost to repair a 
human, decide that such person was ``Totaled'' then clone a new one to 
replace it. That society would be killing its very soul.
  That is not the American way. We want to be a help to the helpless, 
and speak for those who can't speak. A moral society should do that. To 
demand money from American taxpayers so that we as a Congress can 
encourage the destructive use of life under the guise that it may be 
thrown away anyway, is not a direction that this America should go. Our 
history has been that, rather than destroying life, we go to all kinds 
of extremes to save it. If a child is in a deep hole, America sends all 
the resources it has to try to save it regardless of cost. When someone 
may not return from a trip to the moon, we use every available resource 
to try to bring them home. When a soldier is captured or out on the 
battlefield wounded, many others often risk their lives to save the 
one. That has been, that should be our legacy. What a legacy! But to 
demand money with the full force of the federal government's 
enforcement and the IRS so that the beginning of life can be destroyed, 
will add

[[Page H3844]]

such a darkness on the conscience of this society, we simply should go 
no farther down that road.
  It is a bit offensive that some would come forward and assert that we 
are telling individuals with Lou Gehrigs disease and other terribly 
debilitating diseases that we will not look for a cure--that we 
basically do not care. We are looking for cures and we are doing so 
with the most promising avenues available and that is with stem cells 
that do not destroy life.
  It is extremely offensive that some would come forward and say 
basically that in the name of religion, Christian and Jewish groups 
support the federal government's certain destruction of embryos under 
the possibility that at some point it somehow may lead to possibly 
saving a life or lives. If we are going to invoke the thought of, as 
our forefathers' put it, our Creator, then let's at least invoke our 
Creator's unwavering honesty. The truth is that this bill is not 
determining whether embryonic stem cell research will go on. IF it is 
so incredibly and amazingly promising, do you know who would be all 
over this? Private pharmaceutical and health care industries would be 
in pursuit knowing that if they find a cure, they will be the most 
profitable company on the face of the earth.
  But it is not private investment capital that is being sought. It is 
people wanting grants that will be torn from the pockets of taxpayers 
against the will of perhaps half of them or more (polling data from 
those with an agenda is not all that trustworthy) and putting it into 
someone else's pocket in the name of destroying embryos.
  Embryonic stem cell research can go on and has gone on with billions 
of dollars from some states and from some private money. What many of 
us are saying about this legislation is, if it is so promising, you go 
raise the capital privately by buying stock to use in embryonic stem 
cell research, and let our tax dollars go to the stem cell research 
that seeks to both save and make lives better. I know this is a matter 
of conscience, and I do so know and believe in the integrity and great 
intentions of many of those who disagree, but please do not take my tax 
dollars for money to destroy life. Let those who feel so compelled, 
spend your own, but I would hope even then you would spend your own 
money on the lines with the most promise and not take life in the name 
of helping life.
  May God not only bless, but have mercy on us all.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 810, the Stem 
Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005. This legislation takes the 
critical first step in expanding the number of stem cell lines that are 
eligible for federally funded research.
  For years, the United States has been the preeminent world leader in 
the field of biotechnology. We have made extraordinary advancements in 
the treatment, management and prevention of a wide range of 
disabilities. It's nearly impossible to read a newspaper without 
hearing of some new breakthrough--drug cocktails for AIDS patients; 
gene therapy treatments; new medical devices.
  These advancements are cause for celebration. Our mothers and 
fathers, our spouses, children and grandchildren are benefiting like 
never before. They are living longer, healthier lives due to our 
investments in scientific research.
  Much like this earlier research, the potential benefits from stem 
cells are almost limitless. And as policymakers, we have the rare 
opportunity to help further scientific innovation that, with the proper 
research and development, could produce better treatments--or even 
cures--for diseases like diabetes, Parkinson's Disease, and cancer.
  Despite some arguments that we have heard today, recent developments 
have proven that we are not far off from recognizing the true potential 
of this research. In fact, just last week, scientists in South Korea 
successfully created the world's first human embryonic stem cells that 
are patient-specific. This advancement was applauded around the world 
as a major step in the effort to produce cell-based therapies that 
won't be rejected by the body's immune system.
  And in my home state of Massachusetts, ViaCell and New World 
Laboratories, two small biotech companies, have made notable progress 
in their research on spinal cord injuries and tissue regeneration. 
Though no one can predict the outcome of embryonic stem cell research, 
what is certain is that without federal support, we will never fully 
recognize it's potential.
  We are at a pivotal point in our nation's history, and I hope that my 
colleagues will carefully consider this issue, leaving out partisan 
politics. With federal support, this research could have a real and 
tangible impact on millions of lives in this country. Our Nation's 
current policy severely limits scientific research, and we must not 
continue on this dangerous course. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting H.R. 810.
  Mr DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 810, the ``Stem Cell Research 
and Enhancement Act of 2005.''
  Let us be very clear about why we are here today. We are here to 
decide whether our Nation will move forward in the search for 
treatments and therapies that will cure a multitude of dreaded diseases 
that afflict an estimated 128 million Americans.
  Today, millions of Americans suffer from Alzheimer's disease, 
Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries or spinal dysfunction, and 
diabetes. And today, along with the tremendous number of Americans 
living with cancer, approximately 1.5 million new cases were diagnosed 
in the United States last year. Today, we can vote for H.R. 810, and in 
doing so, choose to save lives and help to end the suffering of so many 
Americans.
  Stem cells are the foundation cells for every organ, tissue, and cell 
in the body. Embryonic stem cells, unlike adult stem cells, possess a 
unique ability to develop into any type of cell. Embryonic stem cell 
research holds the potential for treating a variety of diseases such as 
Lou Gehrig's disease, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, autism, 
cystic fibrosis, heart disease, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, and 
osteoporosis, as well as spinal cord injuries.
  H.R. 810 would impose strict ethical guidelines for embryonic stem 
cell research and would lift the arbitrary restriction limiting funds 
to only some embryonic stem cell lines created before August 10, 2001. 
By removing this arbitrary restriction, H.R. 810 will ensure that 
researchers can not only continue their work to prolong or save lives, 
but also conduct such research using newer, less contaminated, more 
diverse, and more numerous embryonic stem cells.
  H.R. 810 does not allow Federal funding for the creation or 
destruction of embryos. This bill only allows for research on embryonic 
stem cell lines retrieved from embryos created for reproductive 
purposes that would otherwise be discarded. This point is critical: If 
these embryos are not used for stem cell research, they will be 
destroyed.
  Former first lady Nancy Reagan once said, ``Science has presented us 
with a hope called stem cell research, which may provide our scientists 
with many answers that for so long have been beyond our grasp. I just 
don't see how we can turn our backs on this. We have lost so much time 
already. I just really can't bear to lose any more.''
  Let us not turn our backs on this important research and the 128 
million Americans who could benefit from it. Let us not lose any more 
time. Let us pass H.R. 810, the ``Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 
2005.''
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor and 
strong supporter of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. I 
am pleased that the House leadership brought this important legislation 
to the floor and am proud to be a part of the important debate 
occurring today.
  Mr. Speaker, embryonic stem cells have the ability to develop into 
virtually any cell in the body, and many believe they may have the 
potential to treat many illnesses such as Parkinson's disease, juvenile 
diabetes, Alzheimer's, blindness, sickle cell anemia and many other 
medical conditions, including spinal cord injuries. Like many other 
issues facing us today, however, stem cell research forces us to 
confront the challenge of balancing long-standing ethical questions 
with the possibilities presented by scientific and technological 
advancements. The remarks made on the floor today by my colleagues have 
reflected the difficulty in dealing with this issue, as many members 
wrestle with their beliefs and emotions.
  Most familiar with this issue know that in August 2001, President 
Bush announced that federal funds for the first time would be used to 
support research on human embryonic stem cells. However, the funding 
would be limited to ``existing stem cell lines.'' The National 
Institutes of Health (NIH) has established the Human Embryonic Stem 
Cell Registry, which lists stem cell lines that are eligible for use in 
federally funded research. Although 78 cell lines are listed, 22 
embryonic stem cell lines are currently available. Scientists are 
concerned about the quality, longevity, and availability of the 
eligible stem cell lines.
  That is why I am a cosponsor of H.R. 810, and strongly support its 
passage. This important legislation increases the number of lines of 
stem cells that would be eligible to be used in federally funded 
research. It does so, however, by requiring that the stem cells meet 
certain requirements. Specifically, the stem cells must be derived from 
human embryos donated from in vitro fertilization clinics. They also 
must have been created for the purpose of fertility treatment, but were 
in excess of the clinical need. The embryos must also not have been 
intended for use in fertility treatment, and would otherwise be 
discarded. Finally, under H.R. 810, the embryos must have been donated 
by individuals seeking fertility treatment with informed written 
consent and without any financial payment or other inducement to make 
the donation.

[[Page H3845]]

  Mr. Speaker, I have listened as member after member has come to the 
floor to tell a personal tale of a loved one suffering from a disease 
that, with additional research, stem cells could help cure. We all have 
our stories Mr. Speaker. My uncle, Morris K. Udall, who served in this 
body for decades, suffered from Parkinson's disease. There are too many 
people across the world suffering from devastating diseases for which 
stem cells hold great hope and promise. We need to foster additional 
research that is conducted in an ethically responsible way. H.R. 810 
does just that.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research 
Enhancement Act of 2005.
  H.R. 810 is the safest, most ethically and morally sound way to 
proceed with this potentially life-saving scientific advancement. This 
debate is not about whether or not embryonic stem cell research should 
occur. The Administration is not stopping private embryonic stem cell 
research. It just opposes the expansion of public stem cell research.
  The private sector is not restricted from such research. The private 
sector currently uses frozen embryos which would otherwise be 
discarded. Corporate entities already have access to 125 new and better 
embryonic stem cell lines, created after August 9, 2001, when the 
President announced his new stem cell policy.
  H.R. 810 expands the number of frozen embryos to be used for stem 
cell research by the Federal Government. Federally sponsored research 
is subject to greater oversight and safeguards and higher ethical 
standards. Ethical controls over privately funded research are limited.
  Recent scientific breakthroughs have demonstrated that embryonic stem 
cell research has life saving potential. It could result in saving 
millions of lives. It could be the answer to the prayers of those who 
suffer from Parkinson's, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, spinal cord 
injuries and other debilitating conditions. Recent studies have set 
back the case for the efficacy of adult stem cells.
  Embryonic stem cell research will continue with or without the 
federal government. This bill expands federal research, which will be 
subject to greater oversight and safeguards.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of 
the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which will expand the federal 
policy and implement stricter ethical guidelines for this research.
  Embryonic stem cell research is necessary in discovering the causes 
of a myriad of genetic diseases, to testing new drug therapies more 
efficiently on laboratory tissue instead of human volunteers, and to 
staving off the ravages of disease with the regeneration of our bodies' 
essential organs.
  President George W. Bush's policy on stem cell research limits 
federal funding only to embryonic stem cell lines that were derived by 
August 9, 2001, the date of his policy announcement.
  Of the 78 stem cell lines promised by President Bush, only 22 are 
available to researchers.
  Unfortunately these stem cell lines are aged and contaminated with 
mouse feeder cells, making their therapeutic use for humans uncertain. 
According to the majority of scientists, if these stem cell lines were 
transplanted into people, they would provoke dangerous viruses in 
humans.
  What is even more disturbing is the fact that there are at least 125 
new stem cell lines, which are more pristine than the lines currently 
available on the National Institutes of Health registry, which are 
ineligible for federally-funded research because they were derived 
after August 9, 2001.
  This restrictive embryonic stem cell research policy is making it 
increasingly more difficult to attract new scientists to this area of 
research because of concerns that funding restrictions will keep this 
research from being successful.
  The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act does not change the current 
policy on the use of federal funds; this measure simply seeks to lift 
the cutoff date for lines available for research.
  H.R. 810 will also strengthen the ethical standards guiding the 
federal research on stem cell lines and will ensure that embryos 
donated for stem cell research were created for the purposes of in 
vitro fertilization, in excess of clinical need, would have otherwise 
be discarded and involved no financial inducement.
  Contrary to what opponents have been saying, the Stem Cell Research 
Enhancement Act will not federally fund the destruction of embryos.
  H.R. 810 is clear that unused embryos will be used for embryonic stem 
cell research only by decision of the donor. No federally-funded 
research will be supported by this measure if the embryos were created 
and destroyed solely for this purpose.
  In February 2005, the Civil Society Institute conducted a nationwide 
survey of 1,022 adults and found that 70 percent supported bipartisan 
federal legislation to promote embryonic stem cell research.
  Let public interest triumph over ideological special interests. 
Public interest is best served when the medical and the scientific 
community is free to exercise their professional judgment in extending 
and enhancing human life.
  I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of the Stem Cell Research 
Enhancement Act.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 
strong support of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 
2005.
  Stem cells have tremendous promise to treat a myriad of devastating 
diseases and disorders.
  Embryonic stem cells can become any cell type in the body, and their 
promise lies in the ability to tailor-make cellular treatments, heart 
muscle for heart disease, pancreas cells for diabetes, or nervous 
system cells for spinal cord injury.
  Stem cells are relatively new on the research scene; it was only in 
1998 that the techniques were developed to isolate stem cells from 
humans, and we have a lot to learn about how to make the cells develop 
in the ways that will be essential for therapeutic application.
  Today, I would like to highlight how the Reeve-Irvine Research Center 
has made significant head way in making the promise of embryonic stem 
cells a reality.
  Work recently published by Dr. Hans Keirstead and his group has shown 
that they are able to turn human embryonic stem cells into a clinically 
useful cell type.
  To use embryonic stem cells for therapy, it is critical to devise 
ways to cause them to turn into particular cell types. If un-
differentiated stem cells are transplanted into the brain or spinal 
cord, they may become a teratoma, a tumor made of many different cells 
like bone, muscle, and hair.
  So, to be useful for therapy, embryonic stem cells must be 
``restricted'' to differentiate into the desired cell types. That is, 
they must be told what specific cell type to turn into as they mature.
  Dr. Keirstead's group has developed a unique method to create these 
differentiated cells.
  Moreover, as report in Journal of Neuroscience, his group has been 
successful in transplanting these cells into an acute spinal cord 
injury.
  Once transplanted, these cells have been able to survive in a living 
organism, move to areas where they are needed, and do what they are 
supposed to.
  The result is a significant improvement in walking ability, at least 
at an early time point post injury. This finding is proof of principle 
that human embryonic stem cells can be a viable therapeutic agent.
  Dr. Keirstead's cells are on the federally approved list. They are 
among the very few lines that are actually usable, and he is among the 
very few who have had access to human embryonic stem cells.
  Dr. Keirstead's progress since 2001 when he received the cells has 
been remarkable. His group has learned how to maintain the embryonic 
stem cells, no small feat in itself. They have learned how to transform 
the cells into differentiated cells, they have learned how to use the 
cells to treat new spinal cord injury in animals.
  All this in less than 4 years, and in one lab.
  Imagine the progress that could have been made with, 100 labs working 
with embryonic stem cells on not only spinal cord injury but 
Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, and so many others.
  The Reeve-Irvine Research Center is one of a handful of places in the 
U.S. that has the know-how to use embryonic stem cells.
  With more lines available, we could readily address issues related to 
paralysis by developing new cell populations, like motor neurons, or by 
testing the therapeutic quality of other lines.
  In addition, more researchers would be able to devote their talents 
to this area of research.
  My father is suffering from Alzheimer's. I know that my family would 
do anything to find a cure for this horribly degenerative disease. I 
would ask my colleagues, would your family do any differently? Would 
the families of your constituents do any differently?
  The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 before Congress today, 
if passed, would open the door to our country's brightest scientists to 
find the treatments that Dr. Keirstead's work suggests are really there 
waiting to be discovered.
  I urge my colleagues to support this research and to vote for H.R. 
810.
  Ms. CARSON. Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my strong, principled and 
hopeful support of H.R. 810. I commend the vital leadership of my brave 
colleagues, Representatives Castle and DeGette, for bringing this 
urgent issue to the floor.
  Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is needed to help 
American scientists

[[Page H3846]]

move this research forward, research which has the potential to 
revolutionize medicine and save countless lives.
  While adult stem cells have been very useful in treating some 
cancers, embryonic stem cells appear to have a far greater potential 
for treating disease than adult stem cells. Scientists regard embryonic 
stem cell research as one of the greatest hopes for the cure of medical 
conditions such as Parkinson's disease and diabetes due to their unique 
ability to develop into virtually any type of cell in the body.
  Recently, researchers at the University of Miami came up with a 
technique to transform embryonic stem cells into the insulin-producing 
cells destroyed by Type-l diabetes. Such research may also help us 
better understand the causes of birth defects, genetic abnormalities, 
and other conditions that arise during the critical period of early 
human growth. Other possible medical applications include the repair of 
crippling injuries such as spinal cord damage and the ability to 
correct the damaging side effects of existing medical treatments like 
chemotherapy.
  This debate is not about whether or not embryonic stem cell research 
will progress, for it surely will. This research is already taking 
place around the globe, and right here in America. The question is: 
will we lead the way? This debate is about American leadership in this 
world. For generations America has led the world in scientific 
advances. We must continue to support the work of our brilliant 
scientists and help them once again lead the world in this vitally 
important new field.
  This bipartisan legislation would expand the scope of stem cell 
research while enacting stringent procedural guidelines. All activities 
would be subject to the strict ethical guidelines of the National 
Institutes of Health. No federal funds would be used to conduct 
research on unapproved stem cell lines. The cells used in this research 
will be donated voluntarily by patients of in-vitro fertilization 
clinics. It makes no sense, and it is just plain wrong to ban research 
using embryos that are being simply thrown away today.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not our place as legislators to decide which 
medical research does and does not have merit. We must not block 
advances in life-saving and ethically conducted science. I commend my 
colleagues for supporting this critical legislation.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of the Stem Cell Research 
Enhancement Act of 2005, I believe that stem cell research holds the 
promise of scientific breakthroughs that could improve the lives of 
millions of Americans. This bi-partisan legislation would provide 
federal funding for a wider range of research while establishing 
ethical guidelines.
  The most compelling arguments for expanding federal funding for stem 
cell research can be heard in the heart wrenching stories of 
individuals suffering from debilitating diseases for which there are 
currently no cures or treatments. While it is too late for the 
countless Americans who have passed away from terrible diseases, it is 
not too late for the millions of other Americans hoping this House will 
support funding for this potentially life-saving resource. For these 
patients and their families stem cell research is the last hope for a 
cure.
  This bill provides that embryos that are otherwise likely to be 
discarded can be used to help develop treatments for debilitating 
diseases and life saving cures. We should allow federally supported 
research to proceed to find such treatments and cures.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 810, 
the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005. This bill would expand 
the current Federal policy on embryonic stem cell research by allowing 
federally funded research on stem cell lines derived after August 9, 
2001, while implementing strong ethical guidelines to ensure Federal 
oversight of the research.
  Most of the scientific community believes that for the full potential 
of embryonic stem cell research to be reached, the number of cell lines 
readily available to scientists must increase. Just last month, a 
number of NIH directors testified before the Senate Appropriations 
Committee that the current policy is restrictive and hinders scientific 
progress. We are already at risk of losing our scientific and 
technological edge because of increasing competition around the world.
  Other countries--such as China, India, and the United Kingdom--are 
forging ahead with embryonic stem cell research because of less 
restrictive policies. India, for example, has an extensive stem cell 
regulatory system, yet allows the derivation of new stem cells from 
surplus embryos at fertility clinics. Our restrictive policy not only 
puts us at risk of losing our scientific edge, we are also at risk of 
losing some of the best American scientists to other countries where 
policies are less restrictive.
  Important advances in the science of embryonic stem cell research 
have been made since the August 2001 policy was set. Earlier this year, 
researchers at the University of Wisconsin in Madison figured out how 
to grow human embryonic stem cells without using mouse feeder cells. 
This is exciting news since mouse feeder cells are thought to be a 
source of contamination if the cells are ever to be used 
therapeutically in humans.
  From its earliest days, stem cell research has been important to the 
people of Wisconsin. In fact, Dr. James Thomson, a researcher at the 
University of Wisconsin, was the first to isolate and culture embryonic 
stem cells.
  In 2003, this esteemed researcher received the Frank Annunzio award, 
given to recognize the innovative research of American scientists who 
devote their careers to improving the lives of people through their 
work in science. Wisconsin has been at the forefront of embryonic stem 
cell research from the beginning. This legislation is essential to make 
sure the important work of our scientists is not unnecessarily 
sidetracked by politics.
  But this legislation is not only important because of the potential 
for advances in science and technology. More important is the fact that 
embryonic stem cell research could lead to new treatments and cures for 
the many Americans afflicted with life-threatening and debilitating 
diseases. Scientists believe these cells could be used to treat many 
diseases, including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, and spinal cord 
injuries. However, the promise of this research may not be reached if 
the Federal policy is not expanded.
  Mr. Speaker, it has become increasingly clear that the American 
public supports expanding the Federal stem cell policy. Just yesterday, 
results from a survey of Wisconsin voters were released showing 
overwhelming support for embryonic stem cell research. Nearly two-
thirds of those polled support expanding Federal policies to support 
more research--regardless of party affiliation.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important 
legislation that will allow science to move forward unimpeded, has the 
potential to revolutionize the practice of medicine, and can offer hope 
to the millions of Americans suffering from debilitating diseases.
  Mr. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill and 
all of the promise that comes with funding embryonic stem cell 
research. This bill represents an important step forward for the 
scientific and medical communities in our country, offering hope to the 
millions of Americans who suffer from diseases that stem cell therapies 
may be able to cure.
  Unfortunately, President Bush has threatened to veto this bill when 
it arrives on his desk. I am appalled that a President who talks so 
much about embracing a ``culture of life'' would deny funding for a 
possible cure that could save a child from suffering from juvenile 
diabetes; repair a damaged spinal cord to allow a person to walk again; 
save a grandparent from the onset of Alzheimer's disease; or put a halt 
to the ravages of Parkinson's disease.
  The potential benefits from embryonic stem cell research are almost 
boundless and would certainly touch the life of a friend or family 
member of everyone in America. Mr. Bush's ban on providing Federal 
funds for stem cell research has seriously damaged our Nation's efforts 
to be a leading voice in the development of this new technology.
  Allowing Federal funding for research on stem cells is vital to 
making real progress as quickly as possible to find real cures. I urge 
my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill that will certainly 
have long-lasting effects in improving the health and well being of 
millions of Americans.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, as a physician I'm certain of one 
thing: Science is not Republican or Democrat, Science is not 
conservative or liberal. Science is science. Decisions in science 
should be based on the scientific method--a standardized method of 
evaluation and implementation of a solution or treatment of a disease.
  When followed, it allows for the greatest amount of critical thinking 
about any issue. If followed, it results in the best outcome. This 
would be true in public policy as well. If not followed in a 
legislative body, then decisions tend to be made based upon who has the 
largest group of supporters or greatest passion and emotion. Now there 
is nothing wrong with numbers, passion or emotion, it just may not get 
you to the correct solution--especially in the scientific arena.
  There has been significant misrepresentation of science today and in 
this debate, because ``science is not a policy or a political program. 
Science is a systematic method for developing and testing hypotheses 
about the physical world. It does not promise miracle cures based on 
scanty evidence. . . . statements . . . made regarding the purported 
medical applications of embryonic stem cells reach far beyond any 
credible evidence, ignoring the limited state of our knowledge about 
embryonic stem cells and the advances in other areas of research that 
may render use of these cells unnecessary for many applications. To 
make such exaggerated claims, at

[[Page H3847]]

this stage of our knowledge, is not only scientifically irresponsible--
it is deceptive and cruel to millions of patients and their families 
who hope desperately for cures and have come to rely on the scientific 
community for accurate information. . . . Non-embryonic stem cells'' on 
the other hand have a history ``very different from that of embryonic 
stem cells.'' Cord and adult stem cells are ``Producing undoubted 
clinical benefits and . . . (b) one marrow transplants'' have benefited 
``patients with various forms of cancer for many years before it was 
understood that the active ingredients in these transplants are stem 
cells. . . . Use of these cells poses no serious ethical problem, and 
may avoid all problems of tissue rejection if stem cells can be 
obtained from a patient for use in that same patient. . . . In contrast 
to embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells are in established or 
experimental use to treat human patients with several dozen conditions. 
. . . They have been or are being assessed in human trials for 
treatment of spinal cord injury, Parkinson's disease, stroke, cardiac 
damage, multiple sclerosis,'' juvenile diabetes ``and so on. . . .
  ``Therefore . . . to declare that'' embryonic stem cell research 
``will . . . receive any particular amount of federal funding, 
regardless of future evidence or the usual scientific peer review 
process--is . . . irresponsible. It is, in fact, a subordination of 
science to ideology.
  ``Because politicians, biotechnology interests and even some 
scientists have publicly exaggerated the ``promise'' of embryonic stem 
cells, public perceptions of this avenue have become skewed and 
unrealistic. Politicians may hope to benefit from these false hopes to 
win elections. . . . The scientific and medical professions have no 
such luxury. When desperate patients discover that they have been 
subjected to a salesman's pitch rather than an objective and candid 
assessment of possibilities, we have reason to fear public backlash 
against the credibility of our profession. We urge you not to 
exacerbate this problem now by repeating false promises that exploit 
patients' hopes for political gain.''
  I have quoted from a letter signed by 57 scientists--MD's and PhD's--
written during last year's presidential campaign. It expressed real 
concern about a cavalier public posture and policy during a debate on 
such a sensitive ethical matter.
  It seems to me that there is one unmistakable fact: Many in our 
society have sincere, heartfelt, passionate, ethical questions, worthy 
of our respect, regarding the scientific or medical use of ES cells.
  If our goal is truly to cure diseases and help patients, science 
tells us that today the use of adult and cord stem cells has 
successfully treated or holds real potential for treating nearly 60 
diseases. The same cannot be said for ES cells.
  And adult stem cells carry none of the ethical questions or dilemma 
of ES cells.
  I support stem cell research--active, aggressive, scientifically 
based--with respect for the difficult ethical questions we face today.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in respecting current science--in 
respecting ethical concerns. If we do, we will recognize that stem cell 
research and treatment of disease should actively proceed with those 
adult and cord stem cells that are providing and will increasingly 
provide excellent and exciting cures for patients in need.

                                                 October 27, 2004.
     Senator John F. Kerry,
     John Kerry for President, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kerry: Recently you have made the promotion of 
     embryonic stem cell research, including the cloning of human 
     embryos for research purposes, into a centerpiece of your 
     campaign. You have said you will make such research a ``top 
     priority'' for government, academia and medicine (Los Angeles 
     Times, 10/17/04). You have even equated support for this 
     research with respect for ``science,'' and said that science 
     must be freed from ``ideology'' to produce miracle cures for 
     numerous diseases.
       As professionals trained in the life sciences we are 
     alarmed at these statements.
       First, your statements misrepresent science. In itself, 
     science is not a policy or a political program. Science is a 
     systematic method for developing and testing hypotheses about 
     the physical world. It does not ``promise'' miracle cures 
     based on scanty evidence. When scientists make such 
     assertions, they are acting as individuals, out of their own 
     personal faith and hopes, not as the voice of ``science''. If 
     such scientists allow their individual faith in the future of 
     embryonic stem cell research to be interpreted as a reliable 
     prediction of the outcome of this research, they are acting 
     irresponsibly.
       Second, it is no mere ``ideology'' to be concerned about 
     the possible misuse of humans in scientific research. Federal 
     bioethics advisory groups, serving under both Democratic and 
     Republican presidents, have affirmed that the human embryo is 
     a developing form of human life that deserves respect. Indeed 
     you have said that human life begins at conception, that 
     fertilization produces a ``human being.'' To equate concern 
     for these beings with mere ``ideology'' is to dismiss the 
     entire history of efforts to protect human subjects from 
     research abuse.
       Third, the statements you have made regarding the purported 
     medical applications of embryonic stem cells reach far beyond 
     any credible evidence, ignoring the limited state of our 
     knowledge about embryonic stem cells and the advances in 
     other areas of research that may render use of these cells 
     unnecessary for many applications. To make such exaggerated 
     claims, at this stage of our knowledge, is not only 
     scientifically irresponsible--it is deceptive and cruel to 
     millions of patients and their families who hope desperately 
     for cures and have come to rely on the scientific community 
     for accurate information.
       What does science tell us about embryonic stem cells? The 
     facts can be summed up as follows:
       At present these cells can be obtained only by destroying 
     live human embryos at the blastocyst (4-7 days old) stage. 
     They proliferate rapidly and are extremely versatile, 
     ultimately capable (in an embryonic environment) of forming 
     any kind of cell found in the developed human body. Yet 
     there is scant scientific evidence that embryonic stem 
     cells will form normal tissues in a culture dish, and the 
     very versatility of these cells is now known to be a 
     disadvantage as well--embryonic stem cells are difficult 
     to develop into a stable cell line, spontaneously 
     accumulate genetic abnormalities in culture, and are prone 
     to uncontrollable growth and tumor formation when placed 
     in animals.
       Almost 25 years of research using mouse embryonic stem 
     cells have produced limited indications of clinical benefit 
     in some animals, as well as indications of serious and 
     potentially lethal side-effects. Based on this evidence, 
     claims of a safe and reliable treatment for any disease in 
     humans are premature at best.
       Embryonic stem cells obtained by destroying cloned human 
     embryos pose an additional ethical issue--that of creating 
     human lives solely to destroy them for research--and may pose 
     added practical problems as well. The cloning process is now 
     known to produce many problems of chaotic gene expression, 
     and this may affect the usefulness and safety of these cells. 
     Nor is it proven that cloning will prevent all rejection of 
     embryonic stem cells, as even genetically matched stem cells 
     from cloning are sometimes rejected by animal hosts. Some 
     animal trials in research cloning have required placing 
     cloned embryos in a womb and developing them to the fetal 
     stage, then destroying them for their more developed tissues, 
     to provide clinical benefit--surely an approach that poses 
     horrific ethical issues if applied to humans.
       Non-embryonic stem cells have also received increasing 
     scientific attention. Here the trajectory has been very 
     different from that of embryonic stem cells: Instead of 
     developing these cells and deducing that they may someday 
     have a clinical use, researchers have discovered them 
     producing undoubted clinical benefits and then sought to 
     better understand how and why they work so they can be put to 
     more uses. Bone marrow transplants were benefiting patients 
     with various forms of cancer for many years before it was 
     understood that the active ingredients in these transplants 
     are stem cells. Non-embryonic stem cells have been discovered 
     in many unexpected tissues--in blood, nerve, fat, skin, 
     muscle, umbilical cord blood, placenta, even dental pulp--and 
     dozens of studies indicate that they are far more versatile 
     than once thought. Use of these cells poses no serious 
     ethical problem, and may avoid all problems of tissue 
     rejection if stem cells can be obtained from a patient for 
     use in that same patient. Clinical use of non-embryonic stem 
     cells has grown greatly in recent years. In contrast to 
     embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells are in established or 
     experimental use to treat human patients with several dozen 
     conditions, according to the National Institutes of Health 
     and the National Marrow Donor Program (Cong. Record, 
     September 9, 2004, pages H6956-7). They have been or are 
     being assessed in human trials for treatment of spinal cord 
     injury, Parkinson's disease, stroke, cardiac damage, multiple 
     sclerosis, and so on. The results of these experimental 
     trials will help us better assess the medical prospects for 
     stem cell therapies.
       In the case of many conditions, advances are likely to come 
     from sources other than any kind of stem cell. For example, 
     there is a strong scientific consensus that complex diseases 
     such as Alzheimer's are unlikely to be treated by any stem 
     cell therapy. When asked recently why so many people 
     nonetheless believe that embryonic stem cells will provide a 
     cure for Alzheimer's disease, NIH stem cell expert Ron McKay 
     commented that ``people need a fairy tale'' (Washington Post, 
     June 10, 2004, page A3). Similarly, autoimmune diseases like 
     juvenile diabetes, lupus and MS are unlikely to benefit from 
     simple addition of new cells unless the underlying 
     problem--a faulty immune system that attacks the body's 
     own cells as though they were foreign invaders--is 
     corrected.
       In short, embryonic stem cells pose one especially 
     controversial avenue toward understanding and (perhaps) 
     someday treating various degenerative diseases. Based on the 
     available evidence, no one can predict with certainty whether 
     they will ever produce clinical benefits--much less whether 
     they will produce benefits unobtainable by other, less 
     ethically problematic means.
       Therefore, to turn this one approach into a political 
     campaign--even more, to declare that it will be a ``top 
     priority'' or receive

[[Page H3848]]

     any particular amount of federal funding, regardless of 
     future evidence or the usual scientific peer review process--
     is, in our view, irresponsible. It is, in fact, a 
     subordination of science to ideology.
       Because politicians, biotechnology interests and even some 
     scientists have publicly exaggerated the ``promise'' of 
     embryonic stem cells, public perceptions of this avenue have 
     become skewed and unrealistic. Politicians may hope to 
     benefit from these false hopes to win elections, knowing that 
     the collision of these hopes with reality will come only 
     after they win their races. The scientific and medical 
     professions have no such luxury. When desperate patients 
     discover that they have been subjected to a salesman's pitch 
     rather than an objective and candid assessment of 
     possibilities, we have reason to fear a public backlash 
     against the credibility of our professions. We urge you not 
     to exacerbate this problem now by repeating false promises 
     that exploit patients' hopes for political gain.
           Signed,
       Rodney D. Adam, M.D., Professor of Medicine and 
     Microbiology/Immunology, University of Arizona College of 
     Medicine.
       Michael J. Behe, Ph.D., Professor of Biological Sciences, 
     Lehigh University.
       Thomas G. Benoit, Ph.D., Professor and Chairman of Biology, 
     McMurry University, Abilene, TX.
       David L. Bolender, Ph.D., Department of Cell Biology, 
     Neurobiology and Anatomy, Medical College of Wisconsin.
       Daniel L. Burden, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Chemistry, 
     Wheaton College.
       William J. Burke, M.D., Ph.D., Professor in Neurology, 
     Associate Professor in Medicine, Associate Professor in 
     Neurobiology, Saint Louis University Medical Center.
       Mark W. Burket, M.D., Professor of Medicine, Division of 
     Cardiology, Medical College of Ohio.
       W. Malcolm Byrnes, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department 
     of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Howard University 
     College of Medicine.
       Steven Calvin, M.D., Assistant Professor of OB/GYN and 
     Women's Health, Co-Chair, Program in Human Rights in 
     Medicine, University of Minnesota School of Medicine.
       James Carroll, M.D., Professor of Neurology, Pediatrics, 
     and Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Medical College of 
     Georgia.
       John R. Chaffee, M.D., Assistant Clinical Professor, 
     Department of Family Medicine, University of Washington.
       Robert Chasuk, M.D., Clinical Assistant Professor, 
     Department of Family Medicine, Tulane University.
       William P. Cheshire, Jr., M.D., Associate Professor of 
     Neurology, Mayo Clinic.
       Richard A. Chole, M.D., Ph.D., Professor and Head of 
     Otolaryngology, Washington University in St. Louis, School of 
     Medicine.
       Maureen L. Condic, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department 
     of Neurobiology and Anatomy, University of Utah School of 
     Medicine.
       Keith A. Crist, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of 
     Surgery, Medical College of Ohio.
       Keith A. Crutcher, Ph.D., Professor, Department of 
     Neurosurgery, University of Cincinnati Medical Center.
       Frank Dennehy, M.D., FAAFP, Assistant Clinical Professor of 
     Family Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University.
       Kenneth J. Dormer, M.S., Ph.D., Professor of Physiology, 
     University of Oklahoma College of Medicine.
       Lawrence W. Elmer, M.D., Ph.D., Associate Professor, Dept. 
     of Neurology Director, Parkinson's Disease and Movement 
     Disorder Program, Medical Director, Center for Neurological 
     Disorders, Medical College of Ohio.
       Kevin T. FitzGerald, SJ, Ph.D., David P. Lauler Chair in 
     Catholic Health Care Ethics, Research Associate Professor, 
     Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center.
       Raymond F. Gasser, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Cell 
     Biology and Anatomy, Louisiana State University School of 
     Medicine.
       Hans Geisler, M.D., Clinical Professor of Obstetrics and 
     Gynecology, Indiana University Medical Center.
       Donald A. Godfrey, Ph.D., Professor of Otolaryngology, 
     Department of Surgery, Medical College of Ohio.
       Samuel Hensley, M.D., Assistant Clinical Professor, School 
     of Medicine, University of Mississippi.
       David C. Hess, M.D., Professor and Chairman, Department of 
     Neurology, Medical College of Georgia.
       Paul J. Hoehner, M.D., MA, Ph.D., FAHA Associate Professor, 
     Department of Anesthesiology, The University of Virginia 
     School of Medicine.
       C. Christopher Hook, M.D., Consultant in Hematology and 
     Internal Medicine, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Mayo 
     Clinic College of Medicine.
       Elizabeth A. Johnson, M.D., Consultant, Hematology/
     Oncology, Mayo Clinic Jacksonville Assistant Professor of 
     Oncology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine.
       Nancy L. Jones, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Pathology, 
     Wake Forest University School of Medicine.
       C. Ward Kischer, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor, Cell Biology 
     and Anatomy, Specialty in Human Embryology, University of 
     Arizona College of Medicine.
       Kirsten J Lampi, M.S., Ph.D., Associate Professor of 
     Integrative Biosciences, School of Dentistry, Oregon Health 
     Sciences University.
       John I. Lane, M.D., Assistant Professor of Radiology, Mayo 
     Clinic School of Medicine.
       David L. Larson, M.D., Professor and Chairman, Department 
     of Plastic Surgery, Medical College of Wisconsin.
       Micheline Mathews-Roth, M.D., Associate Professor of 
     Medicine, Harvard Medical School.
       Roger R. Markwald, Ph.D., Professor and Chair, Department 
     of Cell Biology and Anatomy, Medical University of South 
     Carolina.
       Victor E. Marquez, Ph.D., Chief, Laboratory of Medicinal 
     Chemistry, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer 
     Institute, Frederick, Maryland.
       Ralph P. Miech, M.D., Ph.D., Associate Professor Emeritus, 
     Department of Molecular Pharmacology, Physiology & 
     Biotechnology, Brown University School of Medicine.
       Mary Ann Myers, M.D., Associate Professor, Medical College 
     of Ohio.
       Rimas J. Orentas, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Pediatrics, 
     Hematology-Oncology Section, Medical College of Wisconsin.
       Robert D. Orr, M.D., CM, Clinical Ethicist and Professor, 
     University of Vermont College of Medicine.
       Jean D. Peduzzi-Nelson, Ph.D., Research Associate 
     Professor, Department of Visual Sciences, University of 
     Alabama at Birmingham.
       Edmund D. Pellegrino, M.D., Emeritus Professor, Medicine 
     and Medical Ethics, Center for Clinical Bioethics, Georgetown 
     University Medical Center.
       John A. Petros, M.D., Associate Professor, Urology and 
     Pathology, Emory University.
       David A. Prentice, Ph.D., Affiliated Scholar, Center for 
     Clinical Bioethics, Georgetown University Medical Center.
       Paul J. Ranalli, M.D., FRCPC, Lecturer, Division of 
     Neurology, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto.
       John F. Rebhun, Ph.D., Adjunct Scientist, Indiana 
     University School of Medicine.
       Leonard P. Rybak, M.D., Ph.D., Professor of Surgery, 
     Southern Illinois University School of Medicine.
       Dwayne D. Simmons, Ph.D., Director, Inner Ear Research Core 
     Center, Department of Otolaryngology, Washington University 
     School of Medicine.
       Joseph B. Stanford, M.D., MSPH, Associate Professor, Family 
     and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah.
       John M. Templeton, Jr., M.D., FACS, Adjunct Professor of 
     Pediatric Surgery, University of Pennsylvania School of 
     Medicine.
       Claire Thuning-Roberson, Ph.D., Vice President, Product 
     Development and Compliance, Sunol Molecular Corporation, 
     Miramar, Florida.
       Anton-Lewis Usala, M.D., Chief Executive Officer and 
     Medical Director, Clinical Trial Management Group, 
     Greenville, North Carolina.
       Richard A. Watson, M.D., Professor of Urologic Surgery, The 
     University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey Medical 
     School.
       Dennis D. Weisenburger, M.D., Director of Hematopathology, 
     Dept of Pathology and Microbiology, University of Nebraska 
     School of Medicine.
       H. Joseph Yost, PhD., Professor of Oncological Sciences, 
     University of Utah.
       Joseph R. Zanga, M.D., FAAP, FCP, President, American 
     College of Pediatricians, Professor of Pediatrics, Brody 
     School of Medicine, East Carolina University.

  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
bipartisan Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, H.R. 810, legislation 
that will dramatically expand the number of stem cell lines available 
for federally funded research. This bill will allow scientists to more 
effectively pursue cures and therapies for a wide array of life-
threatening illnesses and disabilities affecting millions of Americans.
  Earlier today, the House passed a related but very different bill: 
the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act, H.R. 2520. This legislation 
will create a new Federal program to collect and store umbilical-cord-
blood stem cells for research purposes. I support the additional 
research on adult stem cells provided for by H.R. 2250, but this 
legislation is not a substitute for H.R. 810 and its emphasis on 
embryonic stem cell research.
  Embryonic stem cells have a unique ability to develop into any type 
of cell as they mature, offering scientists tremendous insights on the 
replacement of damaged cells and organs, the mechanics of life-
threatening diseases, and the testing and development of new drugs. 
Adult stem cells, on the other hand, have not shown this ability to 
differentiate into specific types of cells, have not yet been 
identified in all vital organs, and are difficult to identify, purify, 
and grow.
  Although embryonic stem cell research promises extraordinary medical 
discoveries, the available supply of existing embryonic stem cells is 
woefully insufficient. According to the National Institutes of Health, 
NIH, only 22 of the 78 stem cell lines that were deemed eligible for 
Federal funding by President George Bush in 2001 are currently 
available to NIH investigators. Some of these 22 lines are too 
expensive or difficult to obtain, and some have been contaminated with 
non-human molecules diminishing their therapeutic value for humans. To 
make matters worse, these stem cell lines lack the genetic variation 
needed to develop therapies that will benefit the diverse population of 
the United States.
  H.R. 810 addresses the shortage of embryonic stem cell lines by 
lifting the arbitrary and

[[Page H3849]]

indefensible August 9, 2001 cut-off date for stem cell eligibility. 
Since 2001, 128 embryonic stem cell lines have been developed, 
including disease-specific stem cell lines that allow researchers to 
understand the basic cause of some rare diseases. This legislation also 
provides stricter ethical guidelines to ensure that only the best and 
most ethical stem cell research will be federally funded.
  The State of California has already taken steps to ensure that human 
embryonic stem cell research will be allowed to develop by establishing 
the Institute for Regenerative Medicine, which will devote $3 billion 
to California universities and research institutions over the next 10 
years. The passage of H.R. 810 will further empower and equip 
California scientific institutions to undertake cutting-edge research 
on the most pressing medical challenges of our day.
  Let us make no mistake, the development of lifesaving medical 
procedures has been slowed by an unwarranted restriction on stem cell 
research. I believe that, as policymakers, we have a moral imperative 
to pursue innovative medical research that can improve the quality of 
life and prevent harmful illnesses and diseases for generations to 
come. I urge my colleagues to join the innumerable scientists, 
university leaders, patient groups, and medical research groups that 
support H.R. 810.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 810, the Stem 
Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005. Stem-cell research holds 
tremendous promise for advances in health care for all Americans. Stem-
cell research may one day lead to treatments for Parkinson's, 
Alzheimer's, arthritis, cancer, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, spinal-
cord injuries, Lou Gehrig's disease, strokes, severe burns and many 
more diseases and injuries.
  However, Mr. Speaker, nearly 4 years ago, the President made an 
arbitrary and shortsighted decision to limit federally funded embryonic 
stem-cell research to stem-cell lines that already existed. At that 
time, on August 9, 2001, the President promised 78 stem-cell lines 
would be available to Federal researchers, yet almost 4 years later, 
there are at most, only 22 lines available. Even worse, many of these 
lines are contaminated with animal cells that make them unusable for 
human therapeutic study. Mr. Speaker, the time has arrived for Congress 
to unshackle our researchers and scientists and allow them to expand 
the number of stem cell lines that are eligible for federally funded 
research.
  Indeed, Mr. Speaker, our own top scientists and officials at the 
National Institutes of Health, NIH, have stated that the President's 
2001 limitations have caused us to fall behind in this research field. 
The NIH should be leading this cutting-edge research, yet it is in 
jeopardy of failing in this role should the President's policy be 
allowed to continue.
  Some States, such as California, are attempting to fill the void left 
by the lack of Federal funding. However, Mr. Speaker, as the Director 
of the NIH has warned, this could lead to a patchwork of stem-cell 
policies, with different laws and regulations which could defeat the 
type of collaborative research NIH is chartered to carry out.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 810 would simply allow Federal funding for research 
on embryonic stem-cell lines regardless of the date on which they were 
derived. This means researchers and scientists would be eligible to 
utilize their Federal funds for research on a new stem-cell line as 
long as it met the strict ethical guidelines contained in the bill. 
Those rules restrict stem cell lines to embryos that have been created 
originally for fertility purposes, and that are no longer needed for 
fertility. Second, the bill requires that the embryo have no further 
other use and be intended for destruction. Also, there must be written 
consent for donation of the embryo from the individuals for whom the 
embryo was created. Finally, the bill calls for the Director of NIH to 
issue guidelines to ensure that federally funded researchers adhere to 
ethical standards.
  Mr. Speaker, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 is needed 
to ensure that the full promise of embryonic stem-cell research is 
fulfilled. H.R. 810 allows research to take place in a safe, 
structured, and ethical manner. While all stem-cell research is 
important, the unique ability of embryonic stem cells to give rise to 
any tissue or cell in the body that makes these stem cells critically 
important to medical research. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation and lift the President's restrictions that now 
obstruct effective federally funded embryonic stem-cell research.
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, as a proud cosponsor of H.R. 810, the Stem 
Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, I rise in support of this 
legislation. Those of us who have long supported the increased 
accessibility and possibilities of ethical stem cell research 
appreciate the opportunity the leadership has granted us by allowing a 
vote on this legislation today. I would also like to thank 
Representatives Castle and DeGette for their continued persistence to 
bring this bill to the floor.
  We have all known someone who has suffered from Lou Gehrig's disease, 
Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, Multiple Sclerosis, Rett 
Syndrome, lupus, pulmonary fibrosis, juvenile diabetes, autism, cystic 
fibrosis, osteoporosis, spinal cord injuries, heart disease or cancer. 
By passing H.R. 810, we have the opportunity to help all of those 
individuals who are living with these and many other illnesses and 
injuries. Embryonic stem cell research holds the key to decreasing the 
pain and suffering of so many of our friends and family members. 
Furthermore, we have a moral obligation to do everything we can to help 
the millions of Americans, whose lives we hold in our hands, by 
allowing Federal funding to be used for this promising research.
  The authors of H.R. 810 have gone to great lengths to guarantee that 
safeguards are in place to ensure the ethical use of embryonic stem 
cells. Embryos used for stem cell research under H.R. 810, will come 
from donor participation in in vitro fertilization, IVF, so embryos 
will not be created or cloned for research. This legislation also 
directs the experts at the National Institutes of Health to define the 
boundaries of this research. NIH has stated that they are prepared to 
institute these parameters. Such restrictions will ensure that rogue 
scientists are not performing dangerous and unethical experiments.
  The United States has long been the leader of groundbreaking health 
research. Today we have the opportunity to ensure that the rest of the 
world does not continue to take the lead in health care advances. I 
urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 810, not only 
because U.S. based researchers deserve to be at the forefront of the 
development of promising new treatments, but also for all of our 
constituents, friends, and family members who are counting on us to 
support the effort to find cures for so many different diseases and 
illnesses.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand on the House floor 
today to speak in favor of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, 
legislation which will bring hope to millions of people suffering from 
disease in this nation. I want to thank Congresswoman DeGette and 
Congressman Castle for their tireless work in bringing this bill to the 
House floor for a vote.
  The discovery of embryonic stem cells is a major scientific 
breakthrough. Embryonic stem cells have the potential to form any cell 
type in the human body. This could have profound implications for 
diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, various forms of brain and 
spinal cord disorders, diabetes, and many types of cancer. According to 
the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, there are at 
least 58 diseases which could potentially be cured through stem cell 
research.
  That is why more than 200 major patient groups, scientists, and 
medical research groups and 80 Nobel Laureates support the Stem Cell 
Research Enhancement Act. They know that this legislation will give us 
a chance to find cures to diseases affecting 100 million Americans.
  I want to make clear that I oppose reproductive cloning, as we all 
do. I have voted against it in the past. However, that is vastly 
different from stem cell research and as an ovarian cancer survivor, I 
am not going to stand in the way of science.
  Permitting peer-reviewed Federal funds to be used for this research, 
combined with public oversight of these activities, is our best 
assurance that research will be of the highest quality and performed 
with the greatest dignity and moral responsibility. The policy 
President Bush announced in August 2001 has limited access to stem cell 
lines and has stalled scientific progress.
  As a cancer survivor, I know the desperation these families feel as 
they wait for a cure. This Congress must not stand in the way of that 
progress. We have an opportunity to change the lives of millions, and I 
hope we take it. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this 
important bill.
  I have met with constituents with afflictions such as Alzheimer's 
disease, Parkinson's disease, childhood leukemia, heart disease, Lou 
Gehrig's disease, diabetes, several cancers, spinal cord injuries, and 
other diseases, disorders and injuries. Embryonic stem cell research 
offers them hope.
  I have also met with an amazing young woman named Brooke Ellison from 
Long Island. In 1990, when she was eleven years old, Brooke was hit by 
a car, which left her paralyzed from the neck down. Even with this 
hardship, she graduated from Harvard University in 2000, Harvard's 
Kennedy School of Government in 2004, and she is currently a Ph.D. 
candidate in political science at Stony Brook University. Her inspiring 
story was made into a movie on A&E and was directed by the late 
Christopher Reeves.

[[Page H3850]]

  I have worked with her to raise public awareness of the importance of 
stem cell research, and under the Unanimous Consent agreement, I am 
including an essay that Brooke wrote on the issue in the Congressional 
Record.
  As everyone here knows, on August 9, 2001, President Bush announced 
that embryonic stem cell research would be limited; he limited federal 
funds by limiting eligible lines for research.
  Although scientists were expecting a big number of available lines, 
less than one third of the allowed 78 lines are available for 
distribution.
  The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act would expand research on 
embryonic stem cells by increasing the number of lines stem cells that 
would be eligible for federally funded research.
  This bill should not be controversial. The bill ensures that strict 
ethical guidelines would be met: the embryos would have been donated 
with informed written consent and without any financial payment or 
other inducement to make the donation. These are embryos that will be 
discarded. Finally, the bill would not use any federal funds to derive 
the stem cells.
  It is a good bill, but I wish this bill went further. There is still 
a need for other funding, because state or private funding would be 
needed to fund deriving the stem cells.
  California and New Jersey have already set up funding sources for 
embryonic stem cell research, and a number of other states have 
announced intentions to fund this research. We must ensure that all 
entities can work together. Scientists still need funding for the 
aspects of research that the Federal government will not cover.
  Today, I am introducing a resolution that expresses the sense of 
Congress that the Federal government should not infringe on states or 
private organizations that fund embryonic stem cell research. I hope 
that my colleagues will show support for all embryonic research, by 
supporting my resolution.
  Many of us have family members suffering from devastating illnesses, 
and the prospect of helping them to be healthy and free of pain is a 
worthy goal. Make no mistake; this goal is what we are debating today.

                Enticingly Close . . . Yet Painfully Far

                          (By Brooke Ellison)

       The ability to view the world through another's eyes is the 
     essence of altruism. When putting their pens to the paper of 
     policy, those who legislate ought to take into keen 
     consideration the world as it is seen through others' eyes, 
     wrought with the problems they face and conditions they 
     endure. This is the basic tenet of a representative 
     democracy, the basic belief upon which the United States was 
     founded. Yet, despite this underlying and widely accepted 
     notion of several voices speaking on behalf of many, this 
     does not always appear to be the case and, in fact, those 
     making collective decisions can become inextricably linked to 
     their own, myopic ideology, failing to understand the 
     situations of others or hear their voices.
       In September of 1990, when I was eleven years old, I was 
     hit by a car while walking home from my first day of 7th 
     grade. That accident left me paralyzed from my neck down and 
     dependent on a ventilator for every breath I take. Living as 
     a person with a physical disability or debilitating disease, 
     each day is a struggle. Tasks that, to others, might seem 
     mundane or be taken for granted are strenuous challenges, 
     sometimes taking long hours instead of mere minutes, causing 
     frustration both from what cannot be at present and potential 
     being lost in the future. When we place our hopes and visions 
     for our world into the hands of those making broad decisions, 
     we do it with the belief that they will act on behalf of our 
     best interest and not on an isolated viewpoint. To do 
     otherwise is bad policy. To undermine the interests of a 
     majority of citizens is bad policy. To ignore the voices and 
     dash the hopes of those most in need is bad policy. In the 
     context of stem cell research legislation, these are bad 
     policies, yet policies that are being upheld. This forces 
     millions to wonder things like, ``If I could be freed from 
     the confines of my physical condition, what a miracle it 
     would be.'' Or, ``If, for an entire day, I could once again 
     be completely whole and my body was somehow irrelevant, what 
     a renewed gift that would be.'' Or, maybe, ``If, for a single 
     moment, I could wrap my arms around those I love, what a 
     treasure that would be.'' And even, ``If, by some chance, 
     those making policy decisions might heed some of my recurrent 
     thoughts and change their stance on stem cell research, what 
     a potentially groundbreaking step it would be.'' The reality 
     is that, based on current federal legislation, these ``ifs'' 
     likely won't change into ``thens''.
       On August 9th, 2001, from his ranch in Crawford, Texas, 
     President Bush announced that he would significantly limit 
     federal funds to stem cell research, only agreeing to fund 
     research conducted on to stem cell lines already in existence 
     at the time. According to this limitation, federally 
     supported research could be done on no more than 78 existing 
     genetic cell lines, although even the most optimistic 
     estimates of viable cells were estimated to be far fewer, 
     less than two dozen. To the delight of some and the grief of 
     others, Mr. Bush indicated that the use of embryonic cells 
     for medical research was a violation of the sanctity of life, 
     analogous to abortion or euthanasia. In the President's own 
     words, ``I worry about a culture that devalues life, and 
     believe as your President I have an important obligation to 
     foster and encourage respect for life in America and 
     throughout the world. . . . Embryonic stem cell research 
     offers both great promise and great peril. So I have decided 
     we must proceed with great care''. Despite millions of 
     testimonies and pleas to the contrary since that day, over 
     three years ago, the opinion of the administration has 
     remained constant and has not eased any restrictions. Despite 
     strides being made in other countries around the world in the 
     field of stem cell research, the U.S. government has remained 
     resolute in its opposition to it.
       Research that holds so much promise for so many now remains 
     unsupported by the federal government. Similar to other 
     issues facing our nation today, the decision of whether or 
     not to fund embryonic stem cell research is now left in the 
     hands of the States, with the Legislatures and Governors 
     picking up where the U.S. Congress and President have left 
     off. California, with its Proposition 71, has been the most 
     recent State to make substantive progress on the issue, 
     passing a referendum to support research conducted in the 
     state. California joins New Jersey in leading the charge for 
     state-funded stem cell research. But the cause should not and 
     must not stop there, as two States out of our fifty is simply 
     not enough. With researchers, scientists, and human lives 
     waiting in the wings for advances, opportunity wasted is 
     opportunity lost.
       Therapeutic stem cell research, also known as somatic cell 
     nuclear transfer, has the potential to provide cures for a 
     considerable number of neurological and degenerative 
     conditions, including Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's 
     disease, childhood leukemia, heart disease, ALS, several 
     different types of cancer, and spinal cord injuries. In its 
     most basic description, stem cells are the undifferentiated, 
     unspecialized cells that can be extracted from embryos in 
     their earliest stages of development, three to five days 
     after fertilization. The embryos, known in this initial 
     developmental form as blastocysts, contain only about 30 
     cells. Importantly, the cells taken from the blastocysts can 
     be placed in different conditions to become other types of 
     cells, such as heart muscle or nerve tissue, which can be 
     used to repair similar damaged tissue in children and 
     adults. The procedure has the potential to affect directly 
     the lives of nearly 100 million Americans who face 
     different conditions, equaling over one-third of the U.S. 
     population and more than the entire populations of New 
     York, California, Texas, and Florida, combined. As complex 
     as embryonic stem cell research is in its design, it is 
     equally so in its moral debate. Therapeutic stem cell 
     research can sometimes be confused with reproductive stem 
     cell procedures, such as genetic engineering, which have 
     sparked controversy in some political camps. The two types 
     of research differ considerably, though, both in terms of 
     procedure and intent, and represent two diverse ends on a 
     very long, complex spectrum--an understanding which often 
     goes ignored.
       Well, some have argued, isn't using stem cells just the 
     destruction of one life for the sake of another? Aren't we 
     simply judging some lives as more important than others? To 
     hold such a belief is to view the world in black and white 
     terms, thereby ignoring the much more complex gray areas. 
     Yes, it is possible that, if a blastocyst, from where stems 
     cells are derived, were to be inserted into a womb and 
     allowed to grow for nine months there is the potential a life 
     could be born. However, that is not the case for any of the 
     blastocysts that yield stem cells that are used for research. 
     These blastocysts are those that will go unused after in 
     vitro fertilization procedures and will never be used to 
     bring about life. These blastocysts, which some proclaim 
     represent the sanctity of life, will only be kept in freezers 
     at fertility clinics until they have expired and then will be 
     discarded completely. Under current federal legislation, they 
     are of no use to anybody.
       To rob the stem cells of their other potential of life, 
     which is to cure diseases or to help regenerate parts of the 
     body that are not regenerating on their own, is really to 
     devalue life in another, otherwise avoidable way.
       Well, others have argued, isn't the work done on stem cells 
     just the same as cloning? Aren't these cells essentially 
     promoting the creation of another person? The once almost 
     incomprehensible, futuristic ideas of ``cloning'' and ``body-
     doubles'' are now considered feasible and fearsome 
     possibilities, and therapeutic stem cell research has been 
     the unwitting victim of the prevalent fears. Orwell's 1984 
     has somehow come to life in 2004, with the speculations made 
     by some of about unintended, science-fiction consequences. 
     But, the connection between human reproduction and human 
     therapy is a foggy one at best. The real fear, though, is not 
     the potential of mad scientists reproducing people but the 
     lost potential of sound scientists curing people.
       Fourteen years ago, I could have never imagined having to 
     advocate for something that could potentially restore for me 
     the very basic aspects of life and humanity. But, that is 
     something that no one should have to imagine. Science has 
     given medicine more promise than ever before, with the 
     potential

[[Page H3851]]

     to heal and restore people in ways once unfathomable. Stem 
     cells, which would otherwise serve no other purpose, hold the 
     promise of life, not just for the newly born but now for the 
     already living and this opportunity must be seized. The time 
     is now. If the federal government chooses not to do it, then 
     the States must tend to it, themselves. The time has come 
     when we can change the lives of so many, giving to them the 
     fundamental parts of life and dignity.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 810, the Stem 
Cell Research Enhancement Act.
  Scientific and biomedical research and innovation has made our Nation 
and our world a safer and healthier place. Advances in medicine have 
made virtually obsolete killer diseases like smallpox and polio, have 
increased life expectancy and improved the quality of life for people 
around the globe. From Roman times around 2000 years ago to 1900 life 
expectancy increased from 25 to 47 years of age. However, because of 
important discoveries and advances in medicine and medical treatments, 
by the year 2000 life expectancy had increased to over 76 years of age.
  The advances in medicine that resulted in this dramatic increase in 
life expectancy did not happen by accident. They occurred as a result 
of visionary leadership in both the public and private sectors. They 
occurred as a result of political will and public capital. They 
occurred because of the private sector's ability to convert government 
funded basic research into life-saving applications. Government funded 
basic research has and continues to serve as the foundation for the 
medical advances that have improved the health and quality of life for 
millions of people.
  While the advances we have made in medicine in the last century have 
been both impressive and historic, we have a long way to go. Far too 
many people in our society suffer from debilitating diseases like 
Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and diabetes for which there are no cures. The 
scientific community overwhelmingly believes that embryonic stem cell 
research holds the potential for medical advances and therapies that 
could make these and other diseases as obsolete as polio and small pox, 
and the National Institutes of Health have proposed an ethically sound 
policy to further this research. I support Federal funding for 
embryonic stem cell research because without it we run the risk of 
missing an historic opportunity to improve the lives of millions of 
North Carolinians, Americans and people around the world. Without 
Federal funding for this basic research we could condemn millions of 
human beings to the pain, misery and suffering of debilitating and 
degenerative diseases that otherwise might be cured.
  I understand that many of the opponents of this legislation have 
moral qualms about using embryos for research. But the embryos covered 
under this legislation would otherwise be discarded, so defeat of this 
legislation would do nothing to assuage moral difficulties surrounding 
destruction of embryos. And defeat of this legislation would deny 
innocent victims of terrible diseases the opportunity of relief from 
their suffering and healing of their afflictions. I support funding for 
this research because of the bright promise it holds to make life 
better and more productive for generations to come.
  Our North Carolina values guide us to expand scientific and medical 
knowledge to enhance the health and well being of our families, 
neighbors and fellow citizens, and this research is key to that effort.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Stem Cell Research 
Enhancement Act.
  The American people need and want a carefully crafted stem cell 
research policy that allows us to seek scientific breakthroughs.
  We do not have such a policy today. The stem cell policy established 
by President Bush is severely restrictive and arbitrary. The National 
Institutes of Health has reported that of the 78 stem cell lines 
promised by President Bush, only 22 lines meet the President's criteria 
for use. A number of those lines have developed genetic mutations which 
will make research on them useless. The vast majority of the remaining 
usable lines are in other countries that have shown little interest in 
making them available to U.S. researchers. As a result, our researchers 
are falling behind their counterparts in other countries, and our 
citizens are watching their hopes for cures within their lifetimes slip 
away.
  What is at stake are potential cures for diseases such as 
Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes and cancer.
  The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act expands the number of stem 
cell lines that are available for federally funded research. The bill 
also implements strong ethical requirements on stem cell lines that 
would be eligible for federally funded research.
  This is an issue that can impact families across America, crossing 
all lines of income, political persuasion or religious affiliation. 
Furthermore, delay in effectively resolving this issue could for 
countless Americans be a matter of basic health or indeed life. Keeping 
in mind the essential federal role in critical basic health research, I 
believe that it is essential that we support this bill so our country 
can continue in the lead in exploring the frontiers of science and 
medicine.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, May 23, 2005, the bill 
is considered read for amendment and the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on passage of H.R. 810 will be followed by 5-minute votes 
on:
  suspending the rules and passing H.R. 2520; and
  suspending the rules and passing H.R. 1224, as amended.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 238, 
nays 194, not voting 2, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 204]

                               YEAS--238

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bono
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--194

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Beauprez
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costello
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)

[[Page H3852]]


     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Hastings (WA)
     Millender-McDonald
       

                              {time}  1807

  Ms. CARSON and Mr. BUTTERFIELD changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________