[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 94 (Tuesday, July 18, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H5352-H5359]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      ALTERNATIVE PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL THERAPIES ENHANCEMENT ACT

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (S. 2754) to derive human pluripotent stem cell lines 
using techniques that do not knowingly harm embryos.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                S. 2754

       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 ``Alternative Pluripotent Stem 
     Cell Therapies Enhancement Act''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       It is the purpose of this Act to--
       (1) intensify research that may result in improved 
     understanding of or treatments for diseases and other adverse 
     health conditions; and
       (2) promote the derivation of pluripotent stem cell lines, 
     including from postnatal sources, without creating human 
     embryos for research purposes or discarding, destroying, or 
     knowingly harming a human embryo or fetus.

     SEC. 3. ALTERNATIVE HUMAN PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL RESEARCH.

       Part B of title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 284 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 
     498C the following:

     ``SEC. 409J. ALTERNATIVE HUMAN PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL 
                   RESEARCH.

       ``(a) In General.--In accordance with section 492, the 
     Secretary shall conduct and support basic and applied 
     research to develop techniques for the isolation, derivation, 
     production, or testing of stem cells that, like embryonic 
     stem cells, are capable of producing all or almost all of the 
     cell types of the developing body and may result in improved 
     understanding of or treatments for diseases and other adverse 
     health conditions, but are not derived from a human embryo.
       ``(b) Guidelines.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this section, the Secretary, after 
     consultation with

[[Page H5353]]

     the Director, shall issue final guidelines to implement 
     subsection (a), that--
       ``(1) provide guidance concerning the next steps required 
     for additional research, which shall include a determination 
     of the extent to which specific techniques may require 
     additional basic or animal research to ensure that any 
     research involving human cells using these techniques would 
     clearly be consistent with the standards established under 
     this section;
       ``(2) prioritize research with the greatest potential for 
     near-term clinical benefit; and
       ``(3) consistent with subsection (a), take into account 
     techniques outlined by the President's Council on Bioethics 
     and any other appropriate techniques and research.
       ``(c) Reporting Requirements.--Not later than January 1 of 
     each year, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to the 
     appropriate committees of the Congress a report describing 
     the activities carried out under this section during the 
     fiscal year, including a description of the research 
     conducted under this section.
       ``(d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed to affect any policy, guideline, or regulation 
     regarding embryonic stem cell research, human cloning by 
     somatic cell nuclear transfer, or any other research not 
     specifically authorized by this section.
       ``(e) Definition.--
       ``(1) In general.--In this section, the term `human embryo' 
     shall have the meaning given such term in the applicable 
     appropriations Act.
       ``(2) Applicable act.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the 
     term `applicable appropriations Act' means, with respect to 
     the fiscal year in which research is to be conducted or 
     supported under this section, the Act making appropriations 
     for the Department of Health and Human Services for such 
     fiscal year, except that if the Act for such fiscal year does 
     not contain the term referred to in paragraph (1), the Act 
     for the previous fiscal year shall be deemed to be the 
     applicable appropriations Act.
       ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of 
     fiscal years 2007 through 2009, to carry out this section.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.


                             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 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 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support for the alternative 
Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapy Enhancement Act. Now, that is a mouthful.
  As an advocate of increased funding for health care research, I am 
eager to support legislation that would continue funding for this 
groundbreaking research that shows great promise for translating 
research into real cures for people who suffer from debilitating 
illnesses like diabetes and Parkinson's.
  As I have said in the past on this floor, I feel strongly that 
Congress should do its best without delay to ensure that our American 
citizens benefit from the latest advancements in medical research. 
Great advancements are possible from research on adult stem cells and 
other pluripotent cells, and such research should be encouraged.
  This legislation would provide valuable dollars to promote stem cell 
research into new and promising areas. And it should be recognized as 
an important compromise measure that addresses the many ethical issues 
deeply held by many Members in this body on both sides of the issue 
that are associated with the question of Federal funding for stem cell 
research.
  With this legislation, the important research can continue to expand. 
With time, I am hopeful that we will see some of the miracle cures that 
all of us have been so fervently praying for for many years.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues will seize the opportunity to 
advance scientific and medical research in a morally ethical way by 
voting in favor of S. 2754.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to myself.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 2754, the so-called 
Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act.
  This bill may seem innocuous on its face. It just tells the Secretary 
of HHS to research these alternative therapies. But, in fact, it has 
several key problems. The first one is it sets a disturbing precedent. 
The bill requires the Secretary of HHS to conduct research into so-
called alternative therapies. These therapies, however, do not exist. 
And they would shift precious resources from the NIH into this fake 
research that doesn't really exist.
  Secondly, as a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, I 
am very concerned when we direct the NIH to pursue one type of research 
over another. Congress never directs the course of research.
  Imagine if we told the NIH, Congress, I guess because we are the uber 
researchers now, to pursue one type of cancer research over another 
type of cancer research.
  Thirdly, alternative methods for creating pluripotent stem cells are 
not a real scientific prospect at this time.
  As I mentioned during the debate on the last piece of legislation, 
these types of research have been hypothesized from time to time, but 
no one has actually had any clinical application. The only promise has 
been shown in embryonic stem cell research.
  Frankly, this bill does worse than nothing. This bill diverts 
attention and resources away from embryonic stem cell research, which 
is the research that really shows promise for diseases that affect tens 
of millions of people, diseases like nerve damage, Alzheimer's, 
Parkinson's and so many others.
  I support all legitimate research, but Congress and the White House 
should not be giving false hope to patients across America who just 
want to have cures for their diseases.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I rise in support of this legislation, which will allow funding for 
research that is already showing some real promise and, at the same 
time, avoids the moral and ethical perils of research involving the 
destruction of human embryos.
  Pluripotent cells have the ability to grow into any cell in the body. 
Like other stem cells, pluripotent cells are used in the treatment of 
debilitating conditions where the replacement of damaged or 
malfunctioning cells is needed. Using adult stem cells drawn from bone 
marrow and umbilical cord blood system cells, scientists have 
discovered new treatments for scores of diseases and conditions such as 
Parkinson's disease, juvenile diabetes, and spinal cord injuries. 
Thousands of people have already benefited from these advances; and 
with continued research, thousands more stand to benefit in the near 
future.

                              {time}  1730

  The success of these treatments shows the merit of adult stem cell 
research and demonstrates the need for further research.
  Last year Congress took action in this area by passing the Stem Cell 
Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005. As a cosponsor of that 
legislation, it was a bill which expanded the number of stem cell 
options available to Americans suffering from life-threatening 
diseases.
  Today's legislation will allow us to take another step forward and 
open up even more avenues for promising research for individuals and 
families.
  The concerns with embryonic stem cell research are real and deeply 
held by many Americans. But Americans are not the only ones who have 
reservations about moving forward with research that destroys human 
embryos. In fact, many nations currently refuse to support embryonic 
stem cell research of any kind. And last year the United Nations 
adopted a resolution declaring a prohibition on ``all forms of human 
cloning inasmuch as they are incompatible with human dignity and the 
protection of human life.'' Voting along with the United States on this 
strong declaration were 84 nations, including Germany, Austria, 
Australia, Italy, and Portugal.
  The legislation before us today upholds these principles and will 
help to further establish our Nation's leadership in ethical and 
effective scientific research.

[[Page H5354]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the prime cosponsor of H.R. 
810.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I do rise in opposition to S. 2754, which is the Alternative 
Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act. This is authored by 
good friends and people I respect greatly, Senator Santorum and Senator 
Specter and particularly the gentleman in this House who is here on the 
floor, Mr. Bartlett, for whom I have great admiration. But I have 
looked at it considerably, and after many discussions with him and 
others, I disagree this is the way to go about this, and I must oppose 
it.
  Put simply, the legislation mandates the National Institutes of 
Health to support highly speculative research, some of which has been 
deemed unethical by the President's own Bioethics Council, and this 
mandated research may violate current law because embryos will be 
destroyed with Federal dollars.
  While I appreciate the fact that this legislation acknowledges the 
very real fact that embryonic stem cells have more potential for 
treatments and cures than adult stem cell research, and I think that is 
a very important point, I might add, this legislation is a delay to 
cures. Why is it a delay? It requires researchers to develop new ways 
to create or isolate embryonic stem cells before the research with 
embryonic stem cells can even begin. So you add a whole additional step 
to the process. And in speaking with Dr. Leon Kass, the former director 
of the President's Bioethics Council, it could take years to develop 
these isolation techniques, which means the research is being held up 
even further.
  Why not go with the tried and true method of isolating embryonic stem 
cells from 5-day-old blastocysts created for the purposes of IVF, no 
bigger than the tip of a pencil, that would never be implanted in a 
woman and are slated for medical waste. And then let the research begin 
immediately.
  It would be one thing if these methods were scientifically proven, 
but they are not. And if they are not, they may never be. My friend 
from Maryland may talk about single-cell biopsy and its promise in 
mouse stem cell research, but the Bioethics Council deemed that 
particular procedure unethical as well because it may very well lead to 
the destruction of the embryos.
  Why not leave the current law alone? The National Institutes of 
Health can already fund research grants examining alternative methods 
of derivation. In other words, most of this can be done without being 
mandated. There is absolutely no reason to mandate this research.
  I ask my friends who support embryonic stem cell research to vote 
against this legislation. It is a distraction for the NIH. It is a 
distraction for our researchers. And it is a delay to cures, which is 
most important. The only legislation which provides a direct path to 
potential cures is H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. 
Put together, this bill would mandate research, some of which the 
President's own Bioethics Council has concluded is unethical. And for 
those who have raised this issue repeatedly, it permits the possibility 
of destroying embryos as part of the mandated research.
  I would encourage all in the House to oppose this legislation.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
  (Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I participated 
in a news conference with about a dozen Snowflake babies who were 
adopted as embryos, along with five colleagues who are medical doctors. 
Very few media came to see these children and record their smiles, 
squirms, dancing, and other delightful antics. How can anyone look at 
them and say that it would have been okay to kill them to produce stem 
cell lines? I can state unequivocally that it is morally reprehensible 
and scientifically unnecessary to kill human embryos to provide raw 
fodder for scientific research.
  For the vast majority of scientists and medial researchers, 
pluripotent stem cells hold the most promise for understanding human 
diseases and treating devastating conditions. That is why they are 
coveted.
  To some, the manner in which these pluripotent stem cells would be 
obtained under the Castle-DeGette bill, by using taxpayers' dollars to 
kill a human embryo, is secondary to the hope for cures that they 
represent to sick patients.
  To me and millions of other Americans, deliberately taking the lives 
of innocent human embryos is an unacceptable trade-off. A number of 
scientists have now proven what I have argued for the past 5 years. It 
is scientifically unnecessary to destroy human embryos to obtain 
pluripotent stem cells. Indeed, at least one procedure is almost 
immediately ready for human clinical application.
  The Bartlett-Santorum bill represents common ground into promising 
ways the Federal Government can support pluripotent stem cell research 
without sacrificing life for medicine.
  The Bartlett-Santorum bill will amend the Public Health Service Act 
to require NIH to conduct and support basic and applied research to 
develop techniques for the isolation, derivation, production, or 
testing of stem cells that have pluripotent or embryonic-like 
qualities. It was approved by the Senate earlier today by a unanimous 
recorded vote of 100-0.
  ``It's surprising what you can accomplish when no one is concerned 
about who gets the credit.'' Ronald Reagan, 1989.
  President Bush will sign the Bartlett-Santorum bill into law because 
it meets his ethical standards for promoting pluripotent stem cell 
research without the creation of human embryos for research purposes or 
discarding, destroying, or knowingly harming a human embryo or fetus. I 
am proud of President Bush's unwavering defense of the sanctity of 
life. I am grateful for his support and the support of my colleagues 
for ethical pluripotent stem cell research.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure I am actually speaking 
on the right bill, and I am speaking to the Alternative Pluripotent 
Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, and I thank my colleague from 
Colorado for yielding.
  I do rise in opposition to a politically motivated bill brought to 
this House today to provide cover for certain Members who have tough 
elections ahead of them. It seems really simple: Vote for one type of 
stem cell research and then you can oppose another. This way you can 
appeal to voters on both sides of the issue.
  But this bill is rather meaningless because there is nothing 
preventing researchers now from conducting research on stem cells 
derived from sources other than embryos.
  I wish to enter into the Record a letter from the American Society 
for Cell Biology, which contains 27 signatories including Nobel Prize 
winners, chancellors of universities, researchers from across this 
country who are opposing this legislation not because it is evil but 
because it is a waste of resources.
  The truth is there exists no way to extract embryonic stem cells 
without then having to discard those embryos, which, by the design of 
the underlying legislation, would have been discarded anyway. This 
would not be done without the expressed approval of the donating 
parent.
  If you truly support giving hope to the millions of Americans who 
suffer today from diseases like ALS, cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, 
then you support feasible embryonic stem cell research that can be done 
today.
  And those of you who claim that there is no hope for stem cell 
research are wrong. NIH-funded research, limited as it currently is, 
has already shown definite progress in this area. In the case of heart 
disease, scientists have been able to successfully use stem cells to 
create and transplant living heart cells in rats. The promise of these 
advancements for the human heart is incredible. This is surely a pro-
life piece of legislation if there ever was one.
  And there are so many more examples of the lifesaving potential of 
the

[[Page H5355]]

stem cell research we already know about, but our scientific 
researchers only need the resources to do this.
  So I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on this bill as a 
show of support for enactment into law of H.R. 810, voted for in a 
bipartisan way in this House, today voted for in the Senate. This is 
what the American people want. This is what we have supported. This is 
the only vehicle by which we can ensure expanded stem cell research and 
the ability to save lives.

                                              The American Society


                                             for Cell Biology,

                                      Bethesda, MD, July 17, 2006.
     Hon. Orrin Hatch,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatch: The Senate will shortly be considering 
     legislation to permit the National Institutes of Health (NIH) 
     to fund research with additional and new and existing human 
     embryonic stem cell (hESC) lines. As staunch supporters of 
     biomedical research and particularly research with hESCs, we 
     trust that you will exert your influence to ensure passage of 
     H.R. 810. Scientists engaged in ESC research are counting on 
     you and like-minded Senate colleagues to assure its passage.
       The President must also be persuaded not to veto this 
     legislation, for if we continue on the path he set 5 years 
     ago, United States investigators will be out of the running 
     in converting embryonic stem cells into important new 
     therapies. It is especially frustrating and demeaning that 
     American scientists are prohibited from using their NIH grant 
     funds for research with the hundreds of hESC lines generated 
     outside the United States or generated in this country with 
     private funding.
       Also, S. 2754, the ``Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell 
     Therapies Enhancement Act,'' sponsored by Senators Specter 
     and Santorum, seems to us, superfluous. Ostensibly, it is 
     intended to authorize research ``to derive human pluripotent 
     stem cell lines using techniques that do not harm embryos.'' 
     However, at present, such research is currently permissible 
     and, therefore, does not require congressional legislation; 
     indeed, the National Institutes of Health may currently be 
     funding such efforts.
       Moreover, all the alternative procedures advanced in the 
     report by the President's Council on Bioethics and other 
     alternative methods that have been suggested encounter 
     equally vexing ethical concerns. Hence, S. 2754 is unneeded 
     and if passed would deflect from the current urgent need for 
     generating new stem cell lines from excess IVF-derived 
     blastocysts.
           Sincerely,
       Peter Agre, M.D., Vice Chancellor for Science and 
     Technology, James B. Duke Professor of Cell Biology, Duke 
     University School of Medicine, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 
     2003; Bruce Alberts, Professor of Biochemistry and 
     Biophysics, University of California, San Francisco, 
     President Emeritus, National Academy of Sciences; Mary C. 
     Beckerle, Ph.D., Ralph E. and Willia T. Main, Presidential 
     Professor, University of Utah, President, American Society 
     for Cell Biology; David Baltimore, President, California 
     Institute of Technology, Nobel Prize in Physiology or 
     Medicine, 1975; Paul Berg, Cahill Professor of Biochemistry, 
     Emeritus, Stanford University, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 
     1980; J. Michael Bishop, Nobel Prize in Physiology or 
     Medicine, 1989; Helen M. Blau, Ph.D., Donald E. and Delia B. 
     Baxter, Professor, Director, Baxter Laboratory in Genetic 
     Pharmacology, Stanford University School of Medicine.
       Michael S. Brown, MD, Nobel Prize in Physiology or 
     Medicine, 1985; Linda Buck, Ph.D., Howard Hughes Medical 
     Institute, Division of Basic Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer 
     Research Center, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 2004; 
     Johann Deisenhofer, Regental Professor, Investigator, Howard 
     Hughes Medical Institute, The University of Texas 
     Southwestern Medical Center, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1988; 
     Joseph L. Goldstein, M.D., Regental Professor of Molecular 
     Genetics and Internal Medicine, University of Texas 
     Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Nobel Prize in 
     Physiology or Medicine, 1985; Larry Goldstein, Investigator, 
     Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Department of Cellular and 
     Molecular Medicine, University of California, San Diego 
     School of Medicine; Alfred G. Gilman, M.D., Ph.D., Dallas, 
     Texas, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1994; Paul 
     Greengard, Professor, The Rockefeller University, Nobel Prize 
     in Physiology or Medicine, 2000; Lee Hartwell, Ph.D., 
     President & Director, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, 
     Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 2001; Dudley 
     Herschbach, Baird Research Professor of Science, Harvard 
     University, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1986.
       H. Robert Horvitz, Professor of Biology, Massachusetts 
     Institute of Technology, Nobel Prize in Physiology or 
     Medicine, 2002; Douglas Koshland, Carnegie Institution, 
     Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute; Paul C. 
     Lauterbur, Center for Advanced Study Professor of Chemistry & 
     Distinguished Professor of Medical Information Sciences, 
     University of Illinois, Nobel Prize for Physiology or 
     Medicine, 2003; Sean J. Morrison, Investigator, Howard Hughes 
     Medical Institute, Director, Center for Stem Cell Biology, 
     University of Michigan; Eric N. Olson, Department of 
     Molecular Biology, University of Texas, Southwestern Medical 
     Center at Dallas; Thomas D. Pollard, MD, Sterling Professor 
     and Chair, Molecular Cellular and Developmental Biology, Yale 
     University; Randy Schekman, HHMI Investigator, Dept. of 
     Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, 
     Berkeley; Phillip A. Sharp, Institute Professor and Center 
     for Cancer Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 
     Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1993; Maxine F. 
     Singer, A.B., Ph.D., D.Sc., President Emerita, Carnegie 
     Institution of Washington; Harold Varmus, MD, President, 
     Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Chair, Joint Steering 
     Committee for Public Policy, Former Director, National 
     Institutes of Health, Nobel Laureate in Medicine or 
     Physiology, 1989; Eric Wieschaus, Department of Molecular 
     Biology, Princeton University, Nobel Prize in Physiology or 
     Medicine, 1995.

  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, many of us have been impacted, directly or 
indirectly, by diseases like juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, 
Alzheimer's, Lou Gehrig's disease, and so on. I have friends, as many 
people here do, who have had these diseases, and my heart goes out to 
these families. And on the other hand, many oppose embryonic stem cell 
research because they see the embryo as a human life, which I do as 
well.
  So where do we go with this? I mean on the one hand we are going to 
create a huge problem for those who believe in life beginning at 
conception, and we have a desire to also help people who need the stem 
cell research that think that these are the solutions. So I would 
differ with some of my friends here, in that the British have done more 
than 2,000 replications where they have extracted stem cells without 
destroying the embryo. It has been done. This is not something that has 
never occurred before. This is not pie in the sky. This is a very real 
possibility to resolve this dilemma: Are you going to try to preserve 
human life, as many of us who are pro-life see it, and also have stem 
cell research? The Senate saw it 100-0. So why over here now, in order 
to pass a particular bill, are we trying to destroy this bill? It makes 
no sense to me.
  So with that, I certainly urge passage of Senate 2754.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I would just correct the gentleman from 
Nebraska. I was in England over the Memorial Day recess, meeting with 
all of the major researchers. None of them have found clinical 
application in just taking cells out of embryos. They all agree that 
embryonic stem cell research shows the most promise.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for 
her great work on this issue.
  The real debate here today in Congress is about whether or not the 
President is going to veto the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.
  What the Republicans have done is to bring out so many red herrings 
that we might as well put an aquarium out here in the well of the 
House. It is to distract. It is to divert.
  The central issue is whether or not this body this week is going to 
vote for a victory for science, a victory for progress, a victory for 
millions of Americans who are struggling to survive in the face of a 
devastating disease. This bill, as it passes the House and has already 
passed the Senate and we vote on it later on this week, is a 
magnificent milestone in our journey to realizing the life-giving 
potential of stem cells. Twenty-one million Americans have diabetes; 
4.5 million Americans have Alzheimer's; 1.5 million Americans suffer 
from Parkinson's disease; and more than 1 million people in our country 
have muscular dystrophy. You can go down the list: spinal cord, heart 
disease. You can go through all of those diseases. Just take one, 
Alzheimer's. By the time all of the baby boomers have retired, 15 
million Americans will have had Alzheimer's, 15 million baby boomers.
  Embryonic stem cell research is one of the most promising paths to 
the treatment and cure of all of these devastating diseases.

                              {time}  1745

  Nevertheless, President Bush is now threatening to use his very first 
veto to prevent scientists from using Federal funds to search for these 
cures. He is threatening to use his very first veto to dash the hopes 
of patients and their families.

[[Page H5356]]

  Research is medicine's field of dreams from which we harvest the 
findings that give new knowledge to the causes, the treatment and 
prevention of disease and the development of cures. Hope is what this 
debate is all about. Hope is the most powerful four-letter word in the 
English language, and I have no doubt that, in the end, hope is going 
to win.
  But if we don't, if President Bush is successful, we will be snuffing 
out that flickering candle for medical cures that has just been lit. We 
will be condemning the afflicted to another generation of darkness. We 
will be ending the hope for a child with muscular dystrophy, who can't 
understand why his body is getting weaker while his friends are getting 
stronger, a veteran with spinal cord injury, a spouse who watches her 
husband lose his memory.
  Let us not let President Bush veto hope. Let us not let President 
Bush veto hope. We must not let President Bush veto hope.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  (Mr. GINGREY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
Santorum-Bartlett pluripotent stem cell bill, and I want to take this 
opportunity to say on the floor of the House of Representatives that I 
am proudly both pro-life and pro-science.
  Today is a great day for the American people. Today they get to see 
their Members of Congress stand up for the sanctity of human life as 
well as the hope of medical research. No longer as a society do our 
hands need to be tied to choose one or another; nor are we forced to 
trade one person's life for the chance to improve another's. No. Today, 
Mr. Speaker, I am here to say that technology has advanced and research 
has shown that there are methods to obtain embryonic-like stem cells 
ethically. It is because of the potential of these advances that the 
Federal Government should invest their financial resources in the 
promise of pluripotent stem cell research.
  My good friend from Delaware, Mr. Castle, said earlier, you know, why 
go through another step? We have already got this proven technique that 
the Castle-DeGette bill calls for of obtaining stem cells, embryonic 
stem cells, from human embryos by just simply putting them in a 
blender, churning them up and easily getting those embryonic stem cells 
out.
  I am saying to you and my colleagues, that is too much collateral 
damage. The collateral damage is destruction of human life. This is a 
better way. We can utilize embryonic stem cells from what Mr. Bartlett 
has described in his bill and Senator Santorum, and I think that is the 
way to go. I commend him for this bill, and I commend it to my 
colleagues.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).
  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues and fellow 
citizens across the country, my family, too, has been touched by the 
scourge of disease. I have seen firsthand the devastating effect that 
disease can have on a loved one and on a family. That is why I am a 
strong supporter of stem cell research, research on adult stem cells 
and stem cells derived from umbilical cord and placenta blood.
  Adult stem cell research has already proven successful and worthy of 
our investment of taxpayer money. It has proven so useful in fact that 
therapies derived from adult stem cells are treating patients today 
throughout the country.
  Before the House today we have a bill that supports new and even 
broader horizons in stem cell technology, H.R. 5526, the Pluripotent 
Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act.
  To be sure, positions on embryonic stem cell research are deeply held 
by every Member. This legislation focuses on what scientists at many of 
our country's most esteemed research universities have developed, 
embryonic stem cells that do not require the destruction of the embryo. 
Scientists seeking the same compassionate cures to many of our most 
debilitating diseases have recognized that science and ethics need not 
be divorced to produce positive results for patients.
  Adult stem cell therapies and pluripotent stem cell therapy present 
exciting and hopeful new possibilities and treatments and even cures to 
families with loved ones facing the scourge of disease. This is good 
news worth repeating. We can do worthwhile and groundbreaking stem cell 
research to benefit patients without destroying human life.
  Mr. Speaker, science and technology must always serve humanity, not 
the other way around. H.R. 5526 is faithful to that principle. We can 
both conform to the highest bioethical standards and provide the 
potential for hopeful medical advances. I urge its passage.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of our Nation's scientists and 
medical research. Today the Senate passed three bills. Now, I believe 
that it is important to pursue all types of research, and the bill that 
we are debating presently is something that NIH and our researchers can 
already do.
  But let me be very clear: only H.R. 810, which this Chamber passed 
over a year ago, H.R. 810 is the only bill that holds the tremendous 
potential to cure some of life's most challenging conditions and 
diseases.
  Mr. Speaker, we stand at the threshold of a new generation in medical 
research. I believe firmly that H.R. 810 and stem cell research will 
fundamentally change the course of medicine within the next decade and 
well into the future in so many ways.
  We are limited only by the bounds of our own imagination. As long as 
our Nation's scientists and medical researchers have the tools and 
resources that they need, I believe that there is no limit to what they 
can cure. H.R. 810 and stem cell research offers the hope to cure 
Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, juvenile diabetes, and even spinal 
cord injuries.
  Mr. Speaker, I remember a time more than 25 years ago when I stood in 
the locker room of the police station as a young police cadet. A police 
officer's gun accidentally went off. That bullet went through my neck 
and severed my spinal cord. I have been paralyzed ever since. I was 
told that I would never walk again.
  But, Mr. Speaker, today is an exciting time in medical research. I 
firmly believe in a day in the very near future when a child with 
juvenile diabetes will not have to endure a lifetime of painful shots 
and tests; that families will not have to watch in agony as a loved one 
with Alzheimer's gradually declines; and, Mr. Speaker, I believe in a 
day when I will walk again.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity to move research forward. 
H.R. 810 removes the restrictions that have been placed on it and 
offers hope to millions of Americans and people around the world.
  This is an important time. I ask the President not to veto this bill, 
but to join with us in passing H.R. 810 and changing the world for the 
better.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of S. 2754.
  Make no mistake about it, Congress is not debating banning stem cell 
research. It is legal. It is a question, though, of whether or not we 
will use the public's money to fund research that many Americans find 
morally and ethically reprehensible.
  I support this bill because, without destroying innocent human life, 
it prioritizes additional research with the greatest potential for 
near-term clinical benefit, like umbilical cord blood and adult stem 
cells. That research is already yielding treatment to fight diseases 
like leukemia and lymphoma.
  Mr. Speaker, our sacred Declaration of Independence states that every 
American has the right to life, and I am personally opposed to any 
measure that would create life just to destroy it.
  This it is not the first nor the last time that I believe Congress 
will debate this important question, but

[[Page H5357]]

whenever doubt or conflict arises, I hope that Congress will always, 
always, Mr. Speaker, err on the side of life.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation does not advance potentially lifesaving 
stem cell research. Despite its nice sounding, albeit hard to 
pronounce, name, the bill simply tells the National Institutes of 
Health to continue doing what they are already doing. This bill really 
is here to serve as political cover so that opponents of H.R. 810, the 
Castle-DeGette bill, can claim that they did something. It is really 
both useless and superfluous.
  Instead of spending our time debating bills that would not advance 
the science of stem cell research, we should be looking for real ways 
to promote this vital research. We should be empowering our scientists 
by opening up new resources and new opportunities for them to expand 
their research. We should be providing patients and families with real 
hope for the future, not passing empty bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I am fortunate to represent the University of Wisconsin-
Madison, where Dr. Jamie Thomson and his team were the first to derive 
and culture human embryonic stem cells in a laboratory. 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 by the administration's restrictions on Federal research 
dollars for stem cells.
  We need to end these irrational restrictions. We need to enact H.R. 
810 into law. H.R. 810 is real progress, and it provides our scientists 
with the tools that they need to continue their life-saving research.
  Please vote against the distraction before us right now.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).
  (Mrs. SCHMIDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I just want to give this audience here 
three reasons to support this bill: first, it funds groundbreaking stem 
cell research. The types of stem cells promoted by S. 2754 possess 
similar potential to differentiate into any cell in the human body as 
embryonic stem cells. This bill authorizes funding for pluripotent stem 
cell techniques that do not involve the derivation from a human embryo.
  Two, it is noncontroversial. It does not authorize Federal funding 
for research that would create, discard, destroy, knowingly harm human 
embryos or fetuses, avoiding this sensitive and controversial issue. 
Pluripotent stem cells derived from methods that do not result in the 
destruction of human embryos possess the ability to differentiate into 
all human cells, just like embryonic stem cells. This bill does not 
mandate any techniques or methods for deriving or creating alternative 
pluripotent stem cells. It simply establishes the guidelines for the 
type of research authorized for funding.
  Finally, it supports scientific research. Researchers exploring 
alternative methods of deriving stem cells will benefit from Federal 
funding.
  Mr. Speaker, no one in this room is untouched by the need to have 
good quality research. In my own family, my cousin has Lou Gehrig's 
disease. We need responsible research. This is responsible research.
  Background: Scientists believe that stem cell therapies may be used 
to treat a wide variety of illnesses, from degenerative neurological 
diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and Lou Gehrig's, to other 
conditions like diabetes and heart disease.
  Pluripotent stem cells, of which embryonic stem cells are one type, 
can produce all of the cell types of the developing body. However, they 
need not be derived from human embryos.
  A May 2005 White Paper published by the President's Council on 
Bioethics described, in depth, various methods of deriving pluripotent 
stem cells without destroying embryos.
  In keeping with the recommendations of the President's 2001 policy on 
Federal stem cell research and the Dickey amendment, S. 2754 would 
authorize appropriations for the Secretary of HHS to conduct research 
into developing techniques ``for the isolation, derivation, production, 
or testing'' of pluripotent stem cells that do not involve the 
destruction of human embryos.
  Bottom Line: S. 2754 will allow federal funding for stem cell 
research that is ethically sound because embryos will neither be 
created, harmed, nor destroyed.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Schwarz).
  Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, this bill, while well-
intentioned, raises obfuscation and disingenuousness to an art form. It 
says nothing that truly supports embryonic stem cell research. It 
promotes technology which does not exist in a form which will help cure 
human disease.
  Only the central cell mass of the blastocyst, in this case those 
which would be used in in vitro fertilization but instead will be 
tossed in the trash, are pluripotent.

                              {time}  1800

  While I strongly support adult and umbilical cord stem cell research, 
and there are clinical uses for both now, and they should be supported 
and research continued.
  The true stem cell bill is H.R. 810, the Castle-DeGette bill. It is 
the bill endorsed by the legitimate scientific community, and the bill 
which holds the most promise for cures for diseases which today have no 
cure. It is the bill which is truly pro-life.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfortunate that 
Mrs. Capps, Mr. Markey, Ms. Baldwin and others have attacked our 
motives on this floor. I think it degrades the debate. This is not 
about political cover, but how we can support stem cell research that 
is ethical and works, and promote research on pluripotent cells that do 
not destroy human embryos.
  Let me remind my colleagues that way back on September 11, 2001, Dave 
Weldon and a group of us began working on the umbilical cord blood bill 
that was finally, several years later, signed into law by the 
President. That legislation, signed on December 20, 2005 provides $265 
million over 5 years to create a new, aggressive, robust, cord blood 
and bone marrow transplantation program.
  That is not cover. That is all about trying to find cures. We take a 
back seat to no one. We have all had sicknesses in our families, every 
one of us. We just believe that we need to promote research that is 
both ethical and not embryo destroying.
  Let me also remind my colleagues, and this may come as a pleasant 
surprise, this year we will spend $609 million on stem cell research. 
Is that cover too? Of course not. We want to find cures. And we want to 
do it in an efficacious manner as well as an ethical manner. I support 
Roscoe Bartlett's legislation which he has brought to the floor today.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Sterns).
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I come down in this short amount of time, 
Mr. Speaker, to say the claim and the facts. The claim that these folks 
make is the bill takes focus away from advancing cures through 
federally funded embryonic stem cell research from excess IVF embryos. 
Fact. In other words, it is another way to advance those cures which 
all supporters of embryonic stem cell research claim to support as well 
until now.
  This is a very strange argument, when all supporters of this research 
and the Senate just voted to support this bill.
  Claim. Alternative methods described in legislation are highly 
speculative, and are either simply ideas or unproven in a human model. 
We all know that the Federal money is going to cost the taxpayers a 
lot. But privately, you can go out and do what you folks want to do. So 
if there are so many cures for this, why not have the

[[Page H5358]]

private sector provide them for you? And all of these baby boomers that 
you talk about who will not get these, of course, will in fact get 
them, because the private sector can solve it.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida says this is a strange 
argument, and he has got that right, because this is a very strange 
bill. What it does is it says the Secretary shall conduct research into 
these so-called alternatives. But these are alternatives not specified 
in the legislation. But what is worse is it will take resources away 
from the already minuscule amount of resources that are being put in at 
the NIH to enforce the little stem cell research that is going on in 
this country.
  Frankly, some of the kind of research techniques that have been 
discussed on the floor today, including those by my friend Mr. Bartlett 
from Maryland, are techniques for alternative derivation of cells and 
so on that would, in fact, involve destruction of embryos.
  And Dr. Leon Cass, who is the President's own chairman of his 
bioethics committee, said that it remains to be seen, in his view, 
whether any of those proposals for alternate sources of stem cells will 
succeed, and more discussion is surely required of some of the ethical 
issues.
  So even their own expert thinks this bill may be unethical. Why would 
we do this when we have so many scientific advances that are just 
outside of our grasp? Why would we do this when there are thousands of 
embryos that are thrown away as medical waste? It would be as if your 
child was in a car crash, and you decided that the ethical thing to do 
would be to donate that child's organs so that someone else could live.
  Why should we not allow people who have these embryos created for in 
vitro fertilization to donate those embryos which are slated to be 
thrown away as medical waste, in order that others may live?
  We have heard the President intends to veto H.R. 810 and sign this 
bill. No one will be fooled by this fig leaf. The patients of America, 
the tens of millions of people who suffer from diseases like 
Parkinson's, diabetes, paralysis, cancer, heart disease, they know, 
they know that this research holds hope and they know that 72 percent 
of Americans support this.
  And I would urge the President to think hard about whether this is 
where he wants to take the stand for his first veto. I would urge this 
House to think very, very hard about what they will do in that tragic 
incidence.
  Mr. Castle and I asked the President to meet with us, so that we 
could look him in the eye and explain the bill, and explain the ethical 
controls that are in the bill, and explain how we too want ethical 
science but that we want science that is meaningful. He refused to meet 
with us. I have time tonight. If the President would like to meet with 
me and Mr. Castle, we would be delighted to explain the tremendous 
potential of embryonic stem cell research.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, to conclude the debate, I would 
yield the remaining time to Dr. Weldon from Florida.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank Chairman Deal for yielding.
  I want to commend Dr. Roscoe Bartlett. Many of you don't know him as 
a doctor, but he is a doctor of physiology. He led the charge on this 
issue beginning over a year ago now. Frankly, I am really surprised 
anybody would get up and oppose this legislation. It has been claimed 
that the Congress never directs research like this. We have had a line 
item directing NIH on diabetes for years. As a matter of fact, I think 
it passed as a separate authorization through the Commerce Committee.
  Then we have obviously had the directed research on AIDS for years 
and years and years. So there is plenty of precedent for this. As was 
stated earlier, this passed the Senate unanimously. You know, the 
embryonic stem cells that the opponents of this bill prefer to use, the 
embryonic stem cells from the fertility clinics, if they were ever used 
in a human clinical trial, first of all, you have to get over the issue 
that I have been saying for years and years, that they become tumors 
when you put them in animals, they become teratomas.
  That is a feature of embryonic stem cells that nobody has published a 
study showing the ability to turn that feature off. So they have never 
been shown to be safe. But then you are going to have the genetic 
mismatch issue.
  And, you know, Senator Specter recently held a hearing. And he asked 
Dr. Beatty, he runs the stem cell program at the NIH, and he asked him 
this question. He said, would you say, then, that embryonic stem cells 
are the best available, although all others ought to be pursued? I 
think he was expecting this researcher to say, yes, like so many other 
scientists are saying. The embryonic stem cells have the most promise.
  But, no, he did not say that. He said nuclear reprogramming, where 
you take a mature adult cell type, and you effectively dedifferentiate 
it back to a pluripotent state, that is one of the most exciting areas 
of research. And that is what this bill calls for putting more money 
into.
  Let me see, I think I had one other quote here. This is really 
interesting. Like I have said before, I am a doctor, I have treated 
Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, it has affected my family. I have also 
said I read the medical journals, indeed I even hired a Ph.D. 
researcher out of MIT to help me keep track of all of this.
  And here it is. This is Nature Magazine, published on line: 
``Reprogramming Adult Human Cells to Repair Damaged Tissue May Not be 
Quite as Tough as Thought.''
  Researchers have devised a chemical cocktail that makes adult mouse 
cells behave like embryonic stem cells, and the recipe is surprisingly 
simple.
  What is really exciting are a bunch of German researchers have 
published this. They have taken testicular cells in a mouse model, 
gotten them to behave just like embryonic stem cells, and indeed, if 
you do not think this is worth pursuing and you do not want to vote for 
this, I can tell you there are venture capitalists funding a company in 
California devoted to doing just this very thing. And that is where 
this is going.
  The embryonic stem cells are going to go away, no matter how we vote 
on this. Now, I personally believe this is a very, very good piece of 
legislation nonetheless, and that is because you are going to learn a 
lot about cell biology and embryology by studying these things. I am 
morally and ethically against it, but what I have opposed are these 
false claims that you are going to have all of these cures.
  I mean, there is no evidence to that. Now, I have never disputed the 
fact that you will gain knowledge by doing embryonic stem cell 
research. And we now have the potential to do that in a very ethically 
acceptable way to, I think, everybody. And this is a very, very modest 
piece of legislation.
  To oppose it, I don't know how else to interpret it other than to 
say, you really want to kill embryos. Because we now have abundant 
scientific evidence coming forward that you can create embryonic stem 
cells using other methods. And there are several different pathways to 
do that. And this bill is a very, very good bill.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I resent being dragged into Rick Santorum's 
hapless re-election campaign by having to vote on bills designed to 
provide him and other extremist Republicans with cover for their 
opposition to productive embryonic stem cell research.
  S. 2754, the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement 
Act, directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to pour money 
into far less promising methods of deriving stem cells from adult 
cells. S. 3504, the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act, bans unethical forms 
of research that are already prohibited by law. I sincerely doubt that 
these worthless bills will convince any voter that their Senator 
supports stem cell research.
  I will vote for the Fetus Farming bill simply because this practice 
is already against the law. Therefore, this bill is meaningless, but 
also harmless.
  However, I will vote against the Alternative Pluripotent bill because 
it sets a dangerous precedent in choosing one form of research over the 
other. Much as Congress would never instruct the NIH to cure cancer, 
but only in a certain manner, we shouldn't dictate the kind of stem 
cell research scientists should and should not practice. This bill 
requires the Secretary of HHS to conduct research into so-

[[Page H5359]]

called alternative therapies. But these therapies do not currently 
exist and their development would shift scarce research dollars away 
from embryonic research.
  If Senator Santorum and President Bush truly believe that it's 
morally superior to discard single cells in a freezer rather than to 
use them to help millions of Americans with Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, 
and diabetes, then they should have the guts to say so without another 
sham bill for political cover.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support S. 
2754, the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act. 
I am under no illusion that this bill will contribute significantly to 
the advancement of stem cell research.
  As a Member of the Science committee, I am committed to the 
advancement of science. I believe we should explore creative 
initiatives and pursue sound research. By demonizing science, we only 
hurt ourselves and make it more likely that our country will fall 
behind other countries in the critically important fields of science, 
technology, and innovation.
  The type of stem cells that this bill refers to are the most 
adaptable and unique of all of the stem cell varieties. As opposed to 
adult stem cells, which are limited to a genre, such as blood cells or 
bone cells, pluripotent stem cells can be eventually developed into any 
bodily tissue. But they cannot themselves develop into a human being. 
The possibilities, and medical miracles, are literally limitless, and 
only restricted by time and by funding.
  The pluripotent stem cells were derived using non-Federal funds from 
early-stage embryos donated voluntarily by couples undergoing fertility 
treatment in an in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinic or from non-living 
fetuses obtained from terminated first trimester pregnancies. Informed 
consent was obtained from the donors in both cases. Women voluntarily 
donating fetal tissue for research did so only after making the 
decision to terminate the pregnancy.
  Those who would argue against pluripotent stem cells usually approach 
the topic through one of the following three questions:
  1. Do the pluripotent cells have a moral status on their own? In 
other words, are they considered entities that must be protected?
  2. Is it unethical to derive pluripotent cells from fetal tissue?
  3. Is it unethical to create human embryonic blastocysts in order to 
create these pluripotent cells?
  Unfortunately, however, this simple little bill and its companion, 
which we are also discussing today, do not weigh the consequences of 
any of these valid policy discussions. Instead, it does little to 
advance the very serious and promising area of scientific research that 
is reflected in H.R. 810; this research is supported by a majority of 
this House, and hopefully will be reaffirmed by this House later this 
week.
  This bill only encourages research that does not discard, destroy, or 
knowingly harm a human fetus, which is consistent with current 
scientific research practices anyway. By designating this moral 
boundary, this bill requires researchers to find a way to make stem 
cells reap the potential benefits while skirting a politically divisive 
issue.
  I am not opposed to this bill, although it does not further 
scientific research. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of 
science, scientific research, and the promise of scientific advancement 
later this week.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rehberg). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) that the House suspend 
the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 2754.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Ms. DeGETTE. 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 and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will 
be postponed.

                          ____________________