[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 95 (Wednesday, July 19, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H5435-H5451]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   STEM CELL RESEARCH ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2005--VETO MESSAGE FROM THE 
          PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 109-127)

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kuhl of New York) laid before the House 
the following veto message from the President of the United States:

To the House of Representatives:
  I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 810, the ``Stem Cell 
Research Enhancement Act of 2005.''
  Like all Americans, I believe our Nation must vigorously pursue the 
tremendous possibilities that science offers to cure disease and 
improve the lives of millions. Yet, as science brings us ever closer to 
unlocking the secrets of human biology, it also offers temptations to 
manipulate human life and violate human dignity. Our conscience and 
history as a Nation demand that we resist this temptation. With the 
right scientific techniques and the right policies, we can achieve 
scientific progress while living up to our ethical responsibilities.
  In 2001, I set forth a new policy on stem cell research that struck a 
balance between the needs of science and the demands of conscience. 
When I took office, there was no Federal funding for human embryonic 
stem cell research. Under the policy I announced 5 years ago, my 
Administration became the first to make Federal funds available for 
this research, but only on embryonic stem cell lines derived from 
embryos that had already been destroyed. My Administration has made 
available more than $90 million for research of these lines. This 
policy has allowed important research to go forward and has allowed 
America to continue to lead the world in embryonic stem cell research 
without encouraging the further destruction of living human embryos.
  H.R. 810 would overturn my Administration's balanced policy on 
embryonic stem cell research. If this bill were to become law, American 
taxpayers for the first time in our history would be compelled to fund 
the deliberate destruction of human embryos. Crossing this line would 
be a grave mistake and would needlessly encourage a conflict between 
science and ethics that can only do damage to both and harm our Nation 
as a whole.
  Advances in research show that stem cell science can progress in an 
ethical way. Since I announced my policy in 2001, my Administration has 
expanded funding of research into stem cells that can be drawn from 
children, adults, and the blood in umbilical cords with no harm to the 
donor, and these stem cells are currently being used in medical 
treatments. Science also offers the hope that we may one day enjoy the 
potential benefits of embryonic stem cells without destroying human 
life. Researchers are investigating new techniques that might allow 
doctors and scientists to produce stem cells just as versatile as those 
derived from human embryos without harming life. We must continue to 
explore these hopeful alternatives, so we can advance the cause of 
scientific research while staying true to the ideals of a decent and 
humane society.
  I hold to the principle that we can harness the promise of technology 
without becoming slaves to technology and ensure that science serves 
the cause of humanity. If we are to find the right ways to advance 
ethical medical research, we must also be willing when necessary to 
reject the wrong ways. For that reason, I must veto this bill.
                                                      George W. Bush.  
                                        The White House, July 19, 2006.

                              {time}  1700

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The objections of the President will be 
spread at large upon the Journal, and the veto message and the bill 
will be printed as a House document.
  The question is, Will the House, on reconsideration, pass the bill, 
the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding?
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).


                             General Leave

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on this question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The President today used the veto authority for the first time in his 
Presidency. Yesterday Congress sent him two bills relating to emerging 
medical research involving the use of so-called stem cells. Today the 
President signed one of those bills while vetoing a second. A third 
bill was supported by a majority of House Members last night, but did 
not capture the necessary two-thirds vote to be passed under the 
suspension of the rules.
  The bill signed into law by the President today is a positive step 
forward, and I remain hopeful that we can reconsider the other measure 
at some point in the future. Our colleagues, Roscoe Bartlett, Phil 
Gingrey, Nathan Deal, and Dave Weldon, deserve great credit for their 
hard work on these two measures. Their work brings

[[Page H5436]]

new hope in the struggle to find cures that have eluded medical 
researchers for decades as they search for ways to defeat serious 
disease.
  The President's decision to veto the legislation offered by my friend 
from Delaware Mr. Castle should come as no surprise to anyone. More 
than a year ago President Bush warned the bill would take us across a 
critical ethical line by creating new incentives for the ongoing 
destruction of emerging human life. Crossing this line, the President 
said, would be a great mistake.
  As the President also noted a year ago, there really is no such thing 
as a ``spare embryo.'' Every man and woman in this Chamber began life 
as an embryo identical to those destroyed through the process known as 
embryonic stem cell research. The embryos at issue in this debate are 
fully capable of growing and being born as healthy babies with loving 
parents. The notion that embryonic stem cell research relies on ``spare 
embryos'' that have no value beyond the possibilities for medical 
research is tragically and deceptively wrong.
  Many opponents of the President's decision today are driven by a 
passion for the preservation of human life and the desire to see 
developments of cures to chronic diseases. I have great respect for 
their commitment to this goal, and I think it is a goal that we all 
share. The passion for the preservation of human life is incomplete if 
that passion does not extend to the most vulnerable form of human life.
  It is wrong to force Americans to allow their tax dollars to 
subsidize medical research that depends on this destruction of human 
embryos. The Congress sent the President a bill that would expand the 
use of Federal tax dollars for this practice, and the President rightly 
used his veto power to reject it.
  Because the vetoed bill originated in the House, the Constitution 
gives us the duty of receiving the President's veto message and 
initiating any legislative response. Having now been notified of the 
President's action, the House will now immediately consider the 
question of whether to override the President's veto, which would 
require a two-thirds vote, or to sustain it.
  For the reasons I have just articulated, I would urge my colleagues 
to join me in voting against the motion to override. No just society 
should condone the destruction of innocent life, even in the name of 
medical research. The President was right to veto this bill. It would 
be wrong for this House to overrule the President's decision by voting 
to override.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, today the President of the United States has snuffed out 
the candle of hope for 110 million Americans who suffer from 
debilitating diseases like diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, nerve 
damage and many, many more. He snuffed out this candle of hope because 
he used the first veto of his 6-year Presidency to veto H.R. 810, the 
embryonic stem cell legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the President's first veto in over 1,100 bills. 
The President issued veto warnings in nearly 150 bills, but he signed 
all of those bills. The President has signed bills to increase the 
national debt. He has signed bills to increase tax cuts for wealthy 
corporations and oil companies. He signed hundreds of post office 
naming bills, but he decided he would veto this one bill. This is not 
some minor legislation. This is legislation that would foster the only 
research that has shown hope for millions of Americans.
  He said in his veto message that he was vetoing this legislation 
because ``American taxpayers would be compelled to fund the deliberate 
destruction of human embryos.'' One might think that the President 
would read this bill, his first veto, before he said that, because if 
he had read that bill, he would know that H.R. 810 specifically does 
not allow Federal funds to be used for the destruction of embryos. 
Rather, H.R. 810 says that Federal dollars can be used for the research 
on embryonic stem cell lines which have already been created with 
private dollars.
  This policy is the same as the policy President Bush looked at in 
2001 when he issued an executive order restricting the number of stem 
cell lines used. What he said at that time was embryonic stem cell 
research was okay, but he limited it to embryonic stem cell lines in 
existence as of that day.
  So I ask the President, why is it wrong to simply expend Federal 
money for stem cell lines that have been created by private researchers 
since that date? It seems wrong, and it is certainly not what this bill 
is intended to do.
  The President wants it both ways. He wants to say that he supports 
embryonic stem cell research, but he doesn't want to do it in a way 
that will actually effect cures.
  Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the President is confused about his 
role as chief executive of this country. We don't live in a theocracy. 
We live in a constitutional democracy in this country where we form a 
consensus about ethics and medical research. There is a widespread 
consensus. The public supports this almost three-quarters. Prolife, 
prochoice, Democrat, Republican, Independent, all of them share the 
same concern that we protect lives, but that we expand research in a 
way that will benefit millions and millions of Americans.
  I urge this House to take this very seriously. Don't make a political 
vote. Think about the lives that could be saved. Think about what H.R. 
810 actually does, and vote ``yes'' to override this veto.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the sponsor of the 
underlying bill, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished majority leader 
very much for yielding.
  I would just ask everybody, be they at home or here, look to your 
left and look to your right. There is one of those three people who 
probably has some form of illness which could be helped by good medical 
research, and we believe that is embryonic stem cell research.
  It is ironic that the President is vetoing a piece of legislation 
that many of us here on this floor believe is the most significant 
piece of legislation that he could have signed in the course of time 
that he has been President of the United States of America. I am 
disappointed in that, but I would rather look at the bright side of 
things in the sense that we have advanced, I believe, the cause of 
medical research in this country.
  We have had alternative proposals in terms of embryonic stem cell 
research. We have had a focus on it. There is a greater education about 
stem cell research than we ever had in this Congress before and 
certainly across the United States of America. Hopefully this will end 
up with greater research being done as far as the NIH and Federal 
medical involvement in that research is concerned.
  The debate has sort of shifted. Back in May of 2005 when we had this 
debate, we talked about adult stem cells and how they could be better 
than embryonic stem cells. I think we all should recognize that there 
is some very good research on adult stem cells, which has been around 
for a long time, but we should realize now that the debate has turned 
to how are we going to obtain these pluripotent embryonic stem cells 
which can help research so much more than anything else we could 
possibly do. So there had been some progress as far as that is 
concerned.
  A couple of points I want to make, and one is that everybody knows 
this research is about embryos. What is an embryo? It is a 5-day-old 
blastocyst no bigger than the point of a pencil. The ones that we are 
dealing with would never be implanted in a woman and are slated for 
medical waste. That is very important to understand. The decision has 
been made by the individuals who created that embryo to have it go into 
medical waste; and then they make the decision instead of doing that, 
it will be used for medical research. So these will never become people 
because that is a decision that has already been made and is behind us 
at that particular point in time.
  It is also very important to point out that this legislation does not 
fund derivation or the so-called killing of the embryo to obtain the 
embryonic stem cells. That has nothing to do with this.

[[Page H5437]]

This simply funds the research, the potentially life-saving research, 
for the one in three, the 110 million Americans who have been referred 
to.
  We are not going to stop here. I would just like to address those 110 
million people and their families. We are not going to stop here. We 
are going to continue to advance research. We have offered alternatives 
to the White House before. They did not want those alternatives. They 
did not want this legislation. We will go back to that process. We will 
do everything in our power to help the patients nationwide who might 
need help.
  I think there is more commonality of opinion on this than there was 
before. Hopefully there will be more openings than we have had 
heretofore as well.
  I know that embryonic stem cell research will progress and eventually 
be a benefit to mankind. My concern is delay. It is going to happen at 
some point. It is a time issue. It is a temporal issue, but we are 
going to have this research. We are going to improve medical research 
opportunities for everybody.
  I just want to quote Ben Franklin at the 1787 Constitutional 
Convention: ``I have often in the course of the session looked at that 
sun behind the President without being able to tell whether it was 
rising or setting. But now at length I have the happiness to know it is 
a rising and not a setting sun.''
  That is how I feel about stem cell research: One day the sun will 
rise on it, and people will be helped.

                              {time}  1715

  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank our distinguished colleague who has 
worked so hard to bring this legislation forward.
  Today, I think, is really a sad day in our country with the President 
announcing the veto, the only veto that he has used in his entire 
Presidency, to strike down what I believe is very sound legislation. I 
think he has placed the dogmatic views of some of his supporters ahead 
of sound science, ahead of public health, ahead of research, and ahead 
of our country's best interest.
  I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Stem Cell Research 
Enhancement Act. Why? Because there are millions of Americans that are 
afflicted with so many diseases. I believe that this legislation not 
only gives them hope, it spells out, as a national policy, that we can 
indeed merge ethics, morality, and sound public policy to address what 
ails them.
  We have all had constituents come to us, parents of children with 
juvenile diabetes, pleading that the research be able to go forward.
  I have always thought that America was the best idea that has ever 
been born. Today, I think that light of what America represents not 
only to her own people, but to be the hope and the beacon of light for 
people around the world, has been diminished by this veto.
  I believe that this legislation needs to move on. It should be the 
public policy and the guidepost in terms of ethics and morality for our 
country, which is the responsibility of the Congress to set forward, 
should move forward, and it will when the House of Representatives 
overrides the President's dubious veto.
  Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the President has placed the dogmatic 
views of some of his supporters ahead of sound science, ahead of public 
health, and ahead of our country's best interests.
  The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act will not merely advance 
medical science. It will almost certainly save many thousands of lives 
and provide hope to millions of Americans afflicted with terrible, 
debilitating diseases and injuries, including Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, 
spinal cord injuries, strokes, heart disease, diabetes, burns and 
arthritis.
  I'm proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill and I'm deeply 
saddened that the President has seen fit to use the first veto of his 
presidency on this crucial legislation.
  H.R. 810 will bring embryonic stem cell research under the National 
Institutes of Health, ensuring rigorous controls and ethical guidelines 
on this research that only the NIH can implement.
  Congress has a moral imperative to frame these issues and establish a 
national policy that integrates the best of science and the highest 
ethical standards.
  Without this legislation, much of the critical funding for stem-cell 
research will be available only from the States, from private sources, 
or from foreign governments who are investing billions in this field.
  If we don't override the President's veto, stem cell research will be 
curtailed in the United States, but it will not end. Researchers and 
doctors in the United Kingdom, Sweden, Israel, China, Australia, South 
Korea, the Czech Republic, and elsewhere are moving full speed ahead on 
this vital research and will continue to do so.
  If the President's veto of this bill is successful, he will only 
succeed in preventing life-saving cures from reaching American patients 
sooner, and prevent the establishment of national standards for this 
research.
  Mr. Speaker, science and ethics can and indeed should be joined, and 
this legislation sets out a comprehensive national policy for this 
vital research.
  The President's veto represents an exercise of political science over 
real science, and must not be allowed to stand.
  Vote to override this veto.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that there has been so 
much confusion about the current state of embryonic stem cell research 
in our country. The choice is not between conducting the stem cell 
research or not conducting it. That is not the choice. Embryonic stem 
cell research is legal in America, and nothing in the administration's 
current policy affects that legality; 400 lines are currently being 
used to conduct embryonic stem cell research, both in the private 
sector and by the Federal Government. Indeed, the Federal Government 
spent $41 million last year on embryonic stem cell research.
  The administration's policy simply provides that Federal taxpayer 
dollars are not used to destroy human embryos. It is false to suggest 
that medical breakthroughs come only through government research. In 
fact, the private sector has been responsible for such breakthroughs as 
the heart drug Sildenafil, Prozac and ibuprofen. Private researchers 
discovered penicillin and the polio vaccine, conducted the first kidney 
and lung transplants, and identified the role DNA plays in directing 
our biologic makeup, all without Federal dollars.
  And where is the private sector spending its dollars now? The 
overwhelming portion of nongovernment money is going to adult and germ 
cell research, because that is where the promise is. There are over 72 
known treatments using adult stem cells. A huge breakthrough with 
regard to juvenile diabetes has occurred just in the last 6 months. 
Ductal cells from the patient's own pancreas can be induced to become 
stem cells that then produce insulin-producing cells. This process was 
created in the U.S. and has cured eight people of diabetes in Europe 
using adult stem cells, not embryonic stem cells.
  But, Mr. Speaker, no one can deny that this debate involves a 
profound ethical and moral question. This is a matter of conscience for 
millions of taxpayers who are deeply troubled by the idea that their 
resources are being used to destroy human life, and it is a vote of 
conscience for me.
  The private sector can go forward, if it must, with destruction of 
embryos for questionable and ethically challenged science. But spend 
the people's money on proven blood cord, bone marrow, germ cell, and 
adult cell research.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), a leader on this issue.
  (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and 
for her exceptional leadership, along with Congressman Mike Castle's 
leadership on this exceptional and important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to express profound disappointment in the 
decision of the President to veto H.R. 810.
  This legislation passed with strong bipartisan support in both 
Chambers of Congress. It enjoys the support of upwards of 70 percent of 
the American people and, most importantly, it offers hope and the 
promise of a cure to the millions of people who are living with the 
constant challenge and burdens of chronic disease and disability.

[[Page H5438]]

  Mr. Speaker, when I was injured in an accidental shooting as a young 
police cadet almost 26 years ago, I was told that I would never walk 
again. The promise of embryonic stem cell research was at that time 
unheard of.
  While I always held out hope that I would one day walk again, it was 
not until the tremendous potential and advances in the field of stem 
cell research that I truly understood how a cure might work. Today I am 
thrilled to be able to share this hope with millions of others.
  We live in exciting times. Today, newly injured patients, many of 
them teenagers, as I was, are told about developing treatments and 
scientific progress. They face the world with many of the same 
challenges I faced in 1980, but they also face the world with the hope 
and real promise of a cure.
  Under the current policy, however, that promise is limited. Embryonic 
stem cell research has been limited to the lines derived before August 
9, 2001, the date of the President's policy announcement.
  When the President announced his policy almost 5 years ago, even he 
acknowledged the tremendous potential of embryonic stem cell research. 
In fact, that policy allows the research to proceed but only in a very 
limited way. The resources that we had in 2001 have run out. This 
research cannot truly move forward without a change in policy. That is 
why I am disheartened by the President's decision today.
  H.R. 810 was crafted according to the ethical guidelines outlined by 
the President, and it is why I will vote to override his veto today.
  It authorizes research only on excess embryos originally created for 
in vitro fertilization but which are slated for destruction.
  It requires informed, voluntary consent of the donor.
  The only change to existing policy would be the lifting of the cutoff 
date of August 9. This is, in fact, not a debate about the ethics of 
stem cell research, or a debate about when life begins. It is a debate 
about a date.
  H.R. 810 offers our nation's scientists the tools they need to 
proceed down this historic path. Stem cell research represents the most 
noble activity in which our government can engage: the protection, 
promotion, and, indeed, affirmation of the lives of our most vulnerable 
citizens.
  With millions of American patients and their families in mind, I will 
proudly cast my vote today to override the President's veto. I urge all 
my colleagues to join me in support of the override.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a 
mother, as a Member of this body, and certainly as a concerned citizen 
who fears that the untapped potential of stem cell research may be 
falling by the wayside.
  I was disheartened to learn that the President did veto H.R. 810 
today because it passed the House by a very significant majority. It is 
because of my strong respect for and commitment to life that I 
supported this bill last year.
  A sad fact of life is that many of our loved ones suffer from 
debilitating diseases such as Alzheimer's, diabetes and Parkinson's. 
But embryonic stem cell research holds promise to cure these illnesses. 
A visit to the Miami Project, where they are trying to find a cure for 
paralysis, certainly would convince anyone of the need for this 
research. They have shown very promising progress.
  The bill brings forth hope from embryos that would otherwise be 
discarded, thrown in the trash. These are embryos that can be used for 
good and for substantial medical research.
  Overriding the veto today will provide promise of hope and promise to 
millions of Americans suffering from diseases and I urge my colleagues 
to vote in favor of life by voting ``yes'' to override the President's 
veto.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee) for a unanimous consent request.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentlewoman.
  I rise strongly to support stem cell research and ask this House to 
vote ``yes'' to override the President's veto. I intend to vote ``yes'' 
to override the veto.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 810, the ``Stem Cell 
Research Enhancement Act of 2005.'' We have an opportunity, and a 
responsibility, to save lives by supporting this bill, and to help 
Americans who are suffering.
  In order to accelerate scientific progress toward the cures and 
treatments for a wide variety of diseases and debilitating health 
conditions, such as Parkinson's Disease, Diabetes, Alzheimer's Disease, 
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), cancer, and spinal cord injuries, 
it is necessary to expand the number of stem cell lines that can be 
used in federally funded research.
  Our debate today is a historical achievement for two reasons. First, 
President Bush vetoed this bill, after it passed in both the House of 
Representatives (238-194) and the Senate (63-37). This was the first 
time in five and one-half years in office that President Bush has 
vetoed a bill. This speaks volumes about the failure of our system of 
checks and balances, the short-sightedness of our executive branch, and 
the lack of Congressional leadership.
  Second, we must reassess and reaffirm the need and commitment of this 
nation to pursue medical research leadership and scientific innovation. 
We must do everything in our power to reduce human suffering and better 
understand human physiology. Today, we must make history. We must 
override this veto and pass H.R. 810 in order to preserve the ability 
of our scientists to pursue innovative research with stem cell lines 
and find effective treatments and cures for the diseases and conditions 
that plague humankind.
  The miracles capable with stem cell research are mind boggling. It 
may be possible for neurons developed from embryonic stem cells to 
restore function to paralyzed individuals; breast cancer may be 
mitigated by embryonic stem cells that mimic and then slow the growth 
of cancer cells; an embryonic stem cell-aided kidney transplant can 
help a patient accept a donor organ with minimal dose of drugs; 
embryonic stem cells can transform and regenerate damaged liver tissue, 
offering renewed hope to the 1 out of 5 patients who die before they 
receive a liver transplant.
  As a Member of the Science committee, I am dedicated to the 
advancement of science, to the exploration of creative initiatives, and 
the pursuit of sound research. When we demonize science, we only hurt 
ourselves, making it more likely that other countries will stand at the 
forefront of science and innovation.
  According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), of more than 60 
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. These NIH-approved lines lack the genetic 
diversity that researchers need in order to develop effective 
treatments for millions of Americans.
  The policy debate that we have engaged in over the last year has 
focused on both scientific and moral arguments. This bill is precisely 
the measured, balanced, rational, and progressive law that we need to 
further the scope of medicine, while simultaneously defining precise 
moral guidelines.
  At issue in particular is the use of embryonic stem cells, or 
pluripotent stem cells, versus adult stem cells. The difference is 
crucial in understanding the immense potential benefit.
  Pluripotent stem cells 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 eventually specialize in any bodily tissue. Embryonic stem 
cells are clusters of cells, and cannot develop into a fetus or a human 
being. The possibilities 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.
  It is estimated that more than 400,000 excess frozen embryos exist in 
the United States today and that tens of thousands, and perhaps as many 
as 100,000, are discarded every year.
  When President Bush declared in 2001 that federal funding to stem 
cell research would be limited, an unprecedented 80 Nobel laureates 
opposed with this action. They included such notables as James Watson, 
who co-discovered the DNA double helix, and renowned economist Milton 
Friedman. In their letter to Mr. Bush, the laureates noted that the 
embryos to be used in the research were destined for destruction 
anyway. They wrote, ``Under these circumstances, it would be tragic to 
waste this opportunity to pursue the work

[[Page H5439]]

that could potentially alleviate human suffering.''
  I ask unanimous consent to submit a copy of this letter to the 
Record.
  This bill provides a limited--yet significant--change in current 
policy that would result in making many more lines of stem cells 
available for research. If we limit the opportunities and resources our 
researchers have today, we only postpone the inevitable breakthrough. 
Our vote today may determine whether that breakthrough is made by 
Americans, or not.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill, to vote in favor 
of scientific innovation, and to vote in favor of a perfect compromise 
between the needs of science and the boundary of our principles.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), another fine leader in this 
movement.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado for 
yielding and for her leadership and, in fact, the bipartisan leadership 
that has brought us to this point today.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill to override the 
President's veto of H.R. 810.
  It is really unfortunate that this veto and other opposition of this 
bill are born out of misinformation about the issue at hand.
  Under H.R. 810, the embryos from which stem cells are extracted for 
research come from in vitro fertilization only.
  Each year thousands of embryos, no bigger than the head of a pin, are 
created in the process of in vitro fertilization, with the support of 
Congress, by the way.
  A small percentage of these embryos are implanted and will, 
hopefully, grow into children. The rest will be frozen or discarded. 
They will not be used to create life. They will never become children. 
They will be lost without purpose.
  But H.R. 810 gives them purpose, and this only with the express 
approval of the donors.
  Now, the majority of Members in both the House and Senate affirmed 
their support for enhancing our use of stem cells in research because 
they understand that purpose.
  Maybe it really isn't surprising that President Bush has vetoed this 
bill because he doesn't understand, and it is consistent with his 
signing into law other bills that have cut funding for medical 
research, denied proper funding for veterans health care, decreased our 
Nation's ability to confront true health crises.
  This administration has ignored and twisted science in a variety of 
areas, everything from global warming to abstinence-only education.
  The refusal to acknowledge the scientific value of embryonic stem 
cell research is one more tragic misstep. Let's not be the 
embarrassment of the world yet again. Let's affirm our commitment to 
saving lives by overriding this veto. Let's untie the hands of 
scientists on the verge of cures for the world's most devastating 
diseases.
  I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of sustaining the 
President's veto of H.R. 810. I strongly oppose H.R. 810, the Stem Cell 
Research Enhancement Act. An embryo is human life. H.R. 810 would use 
Federal tax dollars, our tax dollars, to fund the destruction of human 
life for scientific research. This misguided research is already 
permitted. What we are debating is who should pay for it. Should it be 
the taxpayers or private research?
  To my colleagues who support this legislation, I share your concern 
for finding future medical treatments to improve lives. But let's be 
open in the process and look for ways that do not compromise life in 
any form, at its beginning, its middle, or end. There is no 
justification for the destruction of innocent life for the sake of 
another.
  Congress has a moral obligation to protect women and the unborn, and 
I urge my colleagues to sustain the President's veto and vote ``no'' on 
this question.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the President's veto of 
embryonic stem cell legislation flies in the face of the American 
people's broad support for this bill. In vetoing this bill, the 
President has gone against more than 70 percent of Americans who 
support stem cell research using embryos that would otherwise be 
discarded.

                              {time}  1730

  Even worse, he has thumbed his nose at the millions of Americans 
suffering from incurable diseases. Americans have kept their hopes 
alive while this administration has played political games and thrown 
up roadblocks to the promising research that would offer them a cure.
  As opposed to legislation we have passed to encourage research on 
cord blood and adult stem cells, only this bill, the Castle-DeGette 
bill, would expand research on the embryonic stem cells that have the 
unique ability to reproduce indefinitely and evolve into any cell type 
in our bodies.
  I have personally seen the potential that this research holds and how 
it works. Last summer I visited the stem cell labs at the Baylor 
College of Medicine in my hometown of Houston, where researchers are 
looking at treatments for heart disease with just a few Federal lines. 
The message from the researchers I met with was clear. The current 
policy not only slows medical progress, but will force the world's 
brightest researchers to abandon the U.S. for countries without this 
restriction on lifesaving research.
  My colleagues opposed to this bill have argued this on moral and 
religious grounds. They are absolutely right. Regardless of whether one 
practices Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, every religion in the world 
tells us to alleviate human suffering.
  History has shown, however, that even the most devout have often 
strayed from this common religious and moral duty. According to the New 
Testament, religious leaders in Biblical times attacked Jesus for 
healing the sick on the Sabbath. History has apparently repeated 
itself, as we have religious leaders today casting similar judgments on 
the healers of our time. Just like the sick in Biblical times, American 
families suffering from incurable diseases do not have time for the 
Federal Government to restrict those who could heal them. To alleviate 
human suffering, that is the purpose of this bill, and that should be 
our purpose today.
  Let us override this veto.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).
  Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for allowing 
me some time to speak in favor of sustaining the President's veto.
  It has been a year since this House passed the Castle-DeGette bill, 
and in that year science, not Hollywood, has helped us to debunk the 
myth of a promise for embryonic stem cell research. Hollywood supports 
it. Science created fraudulent experiments. Before last year's vote, 
they made arguments supporting embryonic stem cell research. They were 
coming fast and furious from our colleagues.
  During the debate in the Senate, the same arguments came. They cited 
Dr. Hwang Wook Suk of South Korea and his research. Supporters of his 
research said that he had cloned a human embryo, that he had found a 
way to produce embryonic stem cell lines that could be done routinely 
and efficiently. What happened later? All of his research was debunked. 
The ethics of his research were called into question. It was revealed 
that his publications were faked, his experiments were unsuccessful, 
and the treatment of their egg donors was ethically grossly appalling.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge us to reject embryonic stem cell research as the 
science is not there. Science is very successful in treating patients 
using adult stem cells and cord blood stem cells, which we agreed to 
fund and the President signed, and I believe we should support that.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, of course, the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania refers to the South Korea experiment which was not 
embryonic stem cell research. Rather, it was somatic cell nuclear 
transfer, not at issue today. And, furthermore, it only points out why 
we need Federal oversight and ethics in the United States.

[[Page H5440]]

  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, no single action this Congress could take 
would have a more profound impact on life than increasing Federal funds 
for biomedical research, biomedical scientists to conduct that research 
with human embryonic stem cells. Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, brain and 
spinal cord disorders, diabetes, cancer, at least 58 diseases could 
potentially be cured through stem cell research, diseases that touch 
every family in America and in the world.
  I stand here as someone who understands the promise of biomedical 
research all too well. Having been diagnosed with ovarian cancer by 
chance on a doctor's visit two decades ago, I know firsthand how 
medical research can save lives. It saved mine. It can quite literally 
mean the difference between life and death, between hope and despair.
  Are there moral issues to consider with respect to stem cell 
research? Absolutely. But let us not confuse them with the ethical 
safeguards that this legislation does put in place, allowing research 
only on embryos that were originally created for fertility treatment 
purposes and that are in excess of clinical need. By permitting peer-
reviewed Federal funds to be used with public oversight, we can have no 
doubt that this research will be performed with the utmost dignity and 
ethical responsibility.
  The moral issue here is whether the United States Congress is going 
to stand in the way of science and preclude scientists from doing 
lifesaving research. We do not live in the Dark Ages. With this vote 
this Congress has an opportunity to tell the world that we are a 
country that believes science has the power to advance life. I believe 
we are. By allowing the President to stop this research from going 
forward, we risk something very precious.
  Mr. Speaker, the world has always looked to America as a beacon of 
hope precisely because of our capacity to combine the best ideas in the 
world with abundant resources. Let us continue that tradition. Let us 
lead the way. Support the veto override.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, this House should override the President's 
veto of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.
  With regard to medical research, science should triumph over 
politics. Stem cell research offers the best promise of ending 
diabetes, Parkinson's, and cancer. Americans strongly support the 
treatment of disease, but we are passionate about finding cures.
  America has won more Nobel Prizes in medicine than all European 
countries combined. This legislation is needed to maintain U.S. 
leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, the leading candidates for President in our country of 
both the Republican and Democratic Parties support this bill. In the 
House the Republican chairmen of our most powerful committees, Rules, 
Ways and Means, Appropriations, and Energy, all support this bill. In 
the Senate the Republican majority leader and the Chairs of Armed 
Services, Commerce, Appropriations, Foreign Relations, and Rules all 
supported this bill.
  At worst, the President's stem cell policy will last only 30 more 
months and be reversed on January 20, 2009, regardless of who wins the 
Presidency.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield for the purpose of 
making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Rhode Island 
(Mr. Kennedy).
  (Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
effort to override this Presidential veto, of people's right to live a 
life where they can be free from the illness that they are suffering 
today, and of my colleague Jim Langevin's right to be able to get out 
of that wheelchair within his lifetime thanks to stem cell research.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Engel.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Today President Bush has cast the first veto of his Presidency on 
legislation approved overwhelmingly by the House and Senate: the Stem 
Cell Research Enhancement Act. Frankly, to veto a bill that has the 
support of 72 percent of the American public is simply unconscionable 
and indefensible. The President speaks about ethics. I think it is 
totally unethical not to save lives.
  Despite what the critics may say, H.R. 810 does not end life. It 
honors life. As anyone who suffers from diabetes, Parkinson's disease, 
ALS, or a whole host of other debilitating health conditions knows, 
scientists believe embryonic stems cells provide a real opportunity for 
devising unique treatments for these serious diseases.
  Let me be absolutely clear. This is not about cloning. I oppose 
cloning of human beings. This is about the use of stem cells which 
would have been discarded anyway. It has been estimated that there are 
currently 400,000 frozen embryos created during fertility treatments 
which would be destroyed if they are not donated for research. I would 
never condone the donation of embryos to science without the informed 
written consent of donors and strict regulations prohibiting financial 
compensation for potential donors. Our Nation's scientific research 
must adhere to the highest critical and ethical standards, and H.R. 810 
protects this.
  The National Institutes of Health has admitted that U.S. scientists 
have fallen behind Europe and Asia in stem cell research because of 
President Bush's policy. While five States have committed significant 
funding, NIH Director Zerhouni has noted that a patchwork collection of 
different stem cell policies in States could inhibit critical 
collaborations. We need a national commitment, and the current stem 
cells that the President alludes to have been contaminated and are no 
longer useful.
  We must not allow those standing in the way of health and science to 
compromise the future well-being of our families and loved ones. Simply 
put, that would not be ethical. Over 200 patient groups, universities, 
and scientific societies have urged the President to expand the Federal 
policy on stem cell research.
  We must honor life by overriding President Bush's veto.
  Mr. BOEHNER. 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 proud to stand with our 
President to ensure that our society remains a people that values life. 
The President is a man of his word, and today he made good on his 
promise and he issued his first Presidential veto against H.R. 810, a 
move to protect the sanctity of human life.
  Mr. Speaker, over the last few days, I have had the privilege to meet 
and visit with the families of the so-called ``snowflake babies.'' 
These are children who started out life at frozen embryos, indeed no 
larger than the point of a pen, whose parents, instead of discarding 
these precious little lives, allowed them to be adopted.
  Each of these families has their own unique story. They are families 
who have longed for and prayed for children. They are families who now 
enjoy the blessings of these little ones' smiles and tears, laughter 
and heartbreak. These children represent what advocates of this bill 
see as unwanted leftovers, collateral damage on society's path to 
medical research called for in the Castle-DeGette bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the interesting aspect of this debate is that embryonic 
stem cell research does not have to divide this House of 
Representatives. I am here today to tell the American people that 
science has delivered the solution to this ethical divide. Scientists 
have made extraordinary advances in research that now allow them access 
to embryoniclike stem cells without destroying the human embryo. The 
answer that science has given us is that our government can have both, 
and, most importantly, so can the American people.
  Yesterday Members of this House, those who claim to be supporters of 
all types of embryonic stem cell research, stood in the way of a bill 
that would have funded these ethical and exciting new breakthroughs.

[[Page H5441]]

  Mr. Speaker, we need to sustain the President's veto, and I call for 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do just that.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished Democratic whip, Mr. Hoyer.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the 
time.
  The choices before the Members of this House today are clear and 
straightforward. Will the Members of the Republican majority choose to 
stand with George W. Bush, who just minutes ago vetoed this 
legislation, ironically the very first veto of his Presidency, and, as 
a result, impede medical research into diseases that afflict millions 
of Americans? Or will the Members of this Republican majority choose to 
stand with more than 70 percent of the American people; the most 
respected members of America's medical research community; and 238 
Members of this House and 63 United States Senators, including, of 
course, majority leader Bill Frist, all of whom support embryonic stem 
cell research?
  There is little question, Mr. Speaker, about the utility of such 
research. Scientists, including 80 Nobel Laureates, believe that 
embryonic stem cell research could lead to treatments and cures for 
diabetes; Parkinson's; Alzheimer's; multiple sclerosis; cancer; and, as 
the gentleman from Rhode Island indicated, the rehabilitation of 
nerves.
  Dr. Zerhouni, director of the National Institutes of Health, chosen 
by George Bush, has stated: ``Embryonic stem cell research holds great 
promise for treating, curing, and improving our understanding and 
treatment of disease.''

                              {time}  1745

  The American Medical Association and 92 other organizations stated 
last week in a letter that ``only H.R. 810 will move stem cell research 
forward.''
  Senate Majority Leader Frist, a heart surgeon, has stated, 
``Embryonic stem cells uniquely hold specific promise that adult stem 
cells cannot provide.''
  Nor is there doubt about the need for more stem cell lines, since the 
lines designated by President Bush in 2001 have proven much less useful 
than hoped. Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of 
Allergy And Infectious Diseases, has stated, ``Our institute believes 
that embryonic stem cell research could be advanced by the availability 
of additional cell lines. We may be limiting our ability to achieve the 
full range of potential therapeutic application of embryonic stem cells 
by restricting research to a relatively small number of lines currently 
available.'' This legislation seeks to do just what Dr. Fauci says 
ought to be done.
  Mr. Speaker, the Castle-DeGette bill quite simply would authorize 
Federal funds for research on embryonic stem cell lines derived from 
surplus embryos at in vitro fertilization clinics that would otherwise 
be discarded. That would otherwise be discarded. That seems to me to be 
critical to every Member's decision.
  Equally important, the bill would allow Federal funding of embryonic 
stem cell research only if strict ethical guidelines are followed. We 
do not pursue this irresponsibly.
  Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most important votes that Members 
will cast in this Congress, and it will be long remembered by the 
American people. I implore my colleagues, vote to advance ethical 
embryonic stem cell research, not impede it. Vote to override the 
President's misguided veto, which will be looked upon years from now as 
a momentary victory for ideology over medical research and progress.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ 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 attended the 
President's news conference with snowflake babies and their families at 
which the President announced his veto of H.R. 810. Snowflake babies 
were adopted as excess embryos. Excess embryos would be destroyed with 
taxpayers' dollars under H.R. 810 to produce pluripotent stem cells for 
science.
  How can anyone look at these snowflake babies and hear their voices 
and say that it would be okay to kill them to provide materials for 
medical research?
  President Bush transformed what could have been a day of tragedy into 
a day of triumph by vetoing H.R. 810 and by taking additional steps to 
support pluripotent stem cell research that does not destroy embryos.
  To the proponents of H.R. 810, scientists, doctors and the public, 
pluripotent stem cells hold the most promise for understanding human 
diseases and treating devastating conditions. That is why pluripotent 
stem cells are coveted.
  Yesterday, knowing that the President would veto H.R. 810, this body 
had the opportunity to approve a bill the President said he would sign 
to use taxpayer dollars to obtain pluripotent stem cells without 
destroying embryos. This opportunity is not lost to this Congress.
  I urge everyone in this Chamber to sustain President Bush's veto and 
support bringing back for a vote the Bartlett-Santorum bill, S. 2754, 
which represents common ground into promising ways the Federal 
Government can support pluripotent stem cell research without 
sacrificing life for medicine.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, and especially 
appreciate the good work that she and Mr. Castle have done.
  With the President's action today, and he always keeps his word, he 
condemned tens of millions of Americans and their families and 
everybody who loves them to suffer needlessly, and all the while they 
know their government, when given the opportunity to help, decided to 
do nothing.
  I remember this kind of mugwumpery before. I remember when organ 
transplants came about. Everybody said, oh, no, we can't do that. If 
God didn't want you to have a good liver, you can't get one from 
somebody else. The same thing with blood transfusions, all the way 
through. Why in the world do we always have such a know-nothing, 
antiscientific government body that tells our scientists what they can 
do and can't do?
  As one of the scientists in this House, I am appalled at the fact 
that my country is falling behind in scientific research. I am 
astonished that we are telling scientists what they can and cannot 
study. It bothers me that scientists in other countries don't want to 
come here to study anymore because of the way that this has happened.
  If we fail to override this veto tonight, we are putting this country 
back another 200 years. Perhaps not that much. But any of you who 
believe that voting for that one bill yesterday and wanting to vote for 
the second will cover you at home, let me tell you that is not true. 
Science knows better. Science will bear out that we do not have the 
lines we need for research, and you will pay the price, I hope, in 
November.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for the purpose of a unanimous 
consent request.
  (Mr. SHAYS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of overriding the veto.
  I urge my colleagues to join in voting to override the Presidential 
veto of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.
  I am disappointed the President used his first veto on legislation 
that has the potential to help millions of Americans affected by 
debilitating illnesses. I do not believe history will judge his 
decision kindly.
  When the President first allowed this research to go forward in 2001, 
he could argue that he was setting up reasonable restrictions. I think 
today it is clear those restrictions are burdensome, ideologically 
driven and threaten our status as the preeminent country for medical 
research.
  I appreciate that my Leadership has allowed fair debate on this bill 
and an up-or-down vote, and hope that in the future we will be 
successful in helping this research to advance.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

[[Page H5442]]

  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
overriding the President's veto of the embryonic stem cell research 
bill.
  Every time I go to a classroom in my district, I tell those kids, 
knowledge is power, and one of the reasons America is such a great 
Nation is because knowledge and freedom couple to drive the frontiers 
of knowledge forward, as they have in science and medicine. And here is 
another frontier. Yes, we will push forward. The President cannot fence 
in knowledge, the pursuit of knowledge, in a free society.
  But as we push forward, that research will not be covered and guided 
by the ethical code developed by NIH. As we push forward, millions of 
dollars will be wasted on building a parallel infrastructure of 
expensive equipment so the State and Federal dollars and the private 
and Federal dollars can be kept separate.
  It is a tragedy that our President has vetoed this important bill, 
and I will vote to override.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).
  Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this 
landmark stem cell bill and in opposition to President Bush's 
unbelievable first-ever veto.
  We reached an historic crossroad today in Washington. With the stroke 
of his pen, the President could have signed stem cell hope and ethical 
standards into law. But, sadly, the President has delayed medical 
advances for years.
  H.R. 810 will provide the Federal resources necessary to unlock the 
door to lifesaving cures for millions. It was passed after 
extraordinary debate and historic bipartisan cooperation. It holds the 
promise of major advancements in science.
  I am deeply disappointed by the President's veto, as are millions of 
Americans and thousands of my fellow Missourians that have been 
working, hoping and praying for the approval of this bill. We will not 
soon forget what happened today. We will not give up. This issue has 
united Americans into action with a powerful voice.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to override the President's veto, to 
continue the work of embryonic stem cell research and to provide hope 
for those who need it most.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Schwarz).
  Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, medical research in the United 
States has for decades been the envy of the world. That embryonic stem 
cell research holds the key to potential treatment for all manner of 
disease is already well documented in this debate.
  As a physician, I am dismayed at the claims that adult stem cells and 
umbilical cord cells hold the true pluripotentiality of embryonic stem 
cells. This is simply not true.
  I ask my colleagues to vote to override the veto of this bill. 
Embryonic stem cell research will continue apace in other parts of the 
world. It is sad that the great progress and potential in this field 
won't happen in the United States with our superb academic scientific 
facilities. It is sadder yet that those who oppose this bill don't 
recognize that embryonic stem cells represent the epitome, the 
ultimate, in those things prolife, that is, to save the lives of our 
fellow members of the human race.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, at issue here is the fundamental value of 
saving lives, a value that we all share regardless of race, culture or 
religion. Embryonic stem cells have the potential not just to treat 
some of the most devastating diseases and conditions, but to actually 
cure them.
  The President's veto of this lifesaving legislation is a slap in the 
face of the millions of Americans suffering from diseases like 
Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, or debilitating physical injuries, who found 
new hope for treatment and cures with the passage of H.R. 810. This 
hope will remain 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.
  The 67 percent of the American public that supports embryonic stem 
cell research understands this. Why doesn't the President?
  There is no question that scientific advancement often comes with 
moral dilemmas. That is why we have examined and debated difficult 
ethical and social questions before passing this legislation.
  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.
  H.R. 810 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.
  So today I ask my colleagues to be as determined to find a cure as 
science allows us to be. We are closer than ever to remarkable 
discoveries and on the brink of providing hope to millions of 
individuals who otherwise have none. Congress must not allow the 
President to once again put ideology before science.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to override of the President's veto of 
the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to override the 
Presidential veto of H.R. 810. The Senate's 63-37 vote yesterday to 
loosen the stranglehold on federally conducted stem cell research and 
set strict ethical standards for performing that research and the 
strong showing of support by the House in May of last year marked a 
triumph of science over politics.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the override of 
this veto.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for yielding 
me time, and thank you for your continued support on this issue.
  I do rise today to voice my support for the President's veto of H.R. 
810. With today's vote, the House will place itself alongside the 
millions of Americans who believe that all life is precious, even at 
its earliest stages.
  This bill, H.R. 810, would make taxpayer dollars available for 
embryonic stem cell research using embryos remaining from in vitro 
fertilization procedures.
  Mr. Speaker, that is the issue. Taxpayers should not be forced to 
fund what some consider morally wrong.
  It is still questionable whether embryonic stem cell research will 
even yield results. I believe we should focus our resources on the 
proven, the successful adult stem cell research that is working to 
produce real, meaningful results. That we can all agree on.
  Proponents of embryonic stem cell research point to their hope of 
potential lifesaving benefits from such research. I support the goal, 
but destroying a life to try to save another is not the way to 
accomplish it.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to join many of my colleagues today in opposing 
the President's veto of H.R. 810. I do so reluctantly. I think the 
overriding of a veto of any President should be undertaken with 
caution, but in this case I believe it is necessary.
  When the House considered this bill last year, our debate focused on 
the ethical dilemmas of embryonic stem cell research. Those dilemmas 
are real, and they've been thoroughly addressed in the bill we passed.
  What hasn't been noted enough, however, is the importance this bill 
has for American innovation. The President himself has written--quote--
``Through America's investments in science and technology, we have 
revolutionized our economy and changed the world for the better. 
Groundbreaking ideas generated by innovative minds in the private and 
public sectors have paid enormous dividends--improving the lives and 
livelihoods of generations of Americans.''

[[Page H5443]]

  These words are true--and to his credit, the President has backed 
them up with his American Competitiveness Initiative, a set of 
proposals that every Member in this House has embraced.
  So I ask my colleagues: what field will prove more crucial to 
American competitiveness, to human well-being, to economic growth, than 
the biological sciences? And what area of research holds more promise 
in the biological sciences than stem cells?
  Over the past two decades, three-quarters of the researchers who have 
won the Nobel Prize in medicine have studied or taught in the United 
States. Can we really expect to retain the global leadership if we 
can't even pass a bill, a thoughtful, bipartisan bill, that assures the 
moral study of embryonic stem cells? ``Assures.'' I use the word 
deliberately, because no other nation will meet, let alone exceed, the 
ethical guidelines and constraints embodied in Castle-DeGette. Each of 
us knows that.
  The sooner we pass this bill into law, the sooner America becomes the 
hub for this research, the sooner our ethical standards become the de 
facto standards governing stem cell science around the world.
  So Castle-DeGette isn't just about taking the scientific lead on 
embryonic stem cells, it is about taking the moral lead, setting an 
ethical standard for research that will take place whether this bill 
becomes law or not. I urge my colleagues to override this veto.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, last May I voted in support 
of H.R. 810. I rise again today to override the veto of this 
legislation.
  I want to take this opportunity to reiterate why I believe that 
expanded Federal funding of stem cell research is good public policy. 
We are aware of the potential embryonic stem cells hold. They could 
hold the key to the greatest mysteries of medical science, offering 
cures for those afflicted with Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, juvenile 
diabetes, spinal cord injuries and others. I hope they do.
  On the other hand, they can be nothing but a source of false hope, 
another disappointment for those who wish for a return to health either 
for themselves or their loved ones. The only certainty is that we will 
never know the answer if our scientists are overly constrained in their 
efforts. Without the wherewithal of the National Institutes of Health, 
we face the prospect of numerous State agencies attempting to set up 
research protocols, something they are not well equipped to do.
  Good science takes time. We must not throw caution to the wind at the 
hint of miraculous cures. Indeed, left unconstrained, this type of 
research could lead to dangerous outcomes.
  H.R. 810 provides ethical guidelines by which federally funded 
researchers must comply. I believe it would be far preferable to have 
the Federal Government setting standards in this field rather than a 
hodgepodge of States and private entities. The Federal Government 
should lead the way.
  I supported President Bush when he announced his plan to allow 
federally funded research on 60 preexisting lines. Now, though, we only 
have 22 lines with significant shortcomings that make them of dubious 
value.
  Federally funded U.S. researchers are at a technical disadvantage as 
they lack access to newer stem cell lines. Our top stem cell biologists 
are moving into non-federally funded research or even going overseas to 
pursue their work. We should not allow this to happen.
  There is no question that many difficult questions attend this 
debate, and many feel strongly that there are ethical reasons not to 
pursue embryonic stem cell research. But I strongly feel there are 
ethical reasons why we should. I cannot look at a couple whose child is 
suffering from a debilitating disease in the eye and tell them I am not 
doing everything as their elected official; I came to find a cure. I 
cannot look a researcher in the eyes and tell him I will not let him 
explore the promise.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to override this veto.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for yielding. In 
her opening remarks, the chief Democratic sponsor of this bill told us 
that embryonic stem cell research will cure Alzheimer's. This is yet 
another example of the misinformation the bill's proponents have been 
spreading for the past year.
  Let me read from a Washington Post article by Rick Weiss: ``Given the 
lack of any serious suggestion that stem cells themselves have 
practical potential to treat Alzheimer's, the Reagan-inspired tidal 
wave of enthusiasm stands as an example of how easily a modest line of 
scientific inquiry can grow in the public mind to mythological 
proportions. It is a distortion that some admit is not being 
aggressively corrected by scientists.''
  Said Ronald D.G. McKay, stem cell researcher at the National 
Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, ``Embryonic stem cell 
research may never cure any disease.''
  However, ethical adult stem cell research has already resulted in 
nine FDA-approved therapies for major diseases. We should support 
ethical research that works.
  In this binder I have information from established medical journals 
for over 70, 72 to be exact, successful treatments that have been 
discovered using ethical research of adult stem cells; not a single 
embryo has been destroyed in the process.
  In this binder I have the successful treatments derived from embryo-
destroying stem cell research. Not a single cure. The score is 72-0. 
All it has to show for itself are failed experiments, disgraced 
researchers, tumors and dead laboratory rats.
  Mr. Speaker, I applaud the President for doing the right thing and 
vetoing this unethical and unnecessary legislation. I urge all of my 
colleagues to sustain the President's veto. Reject H.R. 810.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, President Bush made history today by adding 
a major black mark to a Presidency that began on the comforting note of 
compassionate conservatism, but is ending with a jarring jab to the 
sick and the ill.
  There have been 1,484 previous formal vetoes of legislation enacted 
by Congress in the history of this country, but this one may be the 
most damaging veto ever issued by any President. If the Congress does 
not override this veto of this bipartisan stem cell research act, this 
will be remembered as a Luddite moment in American history, when 
scientific progress was brought to a halt by those who put fear ahead 
of hope, and ideology ahead of science.
  Research is medicine's field of dreams from which we harvest cures, 
cures which offer hope to millions of American families struggling with 
Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, heart disease, juvenile diabetes and cancer. 
Hope is the most powerful four-letter word in the English language. But 
if we allow this Bush veto to stand, we will snuff out this flickering 
candle of hope just as the candle was lit.
  Vote for the override of this historic veto of scientific progress. 
Vote to give the American people a reason to believe.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I have heard it 
said that the President's veto is a political game. There are no 
political games being played here, except yesterday when the authors of 
this bill that is before us argued that people should vote against H.R. 
5526, the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act. 
Why would they do that? A bill that would allow a neutral, that is 
neutral with respect to ethics, opportunity to develop pluripotent stem 
cell therapies. And yet we are told here that we are allowing ideology 
to get in the way of science.
  What was yesterday's request by those who authored this bill? You 
know, we have to consider ethics. Science cannot tell us what to do. It 
tells us what we can do, but it does not tell us what it is ethically 
appropriate to do.

[[Page H5444]]

  This country leads the world in medical research, but it also leads 
the world in ethical action. We should not be losers in either side. 
Support the President's veto.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, like millions of Americans, I, too, am 
disappointed with the President's veto. In Kansas City, Missouri, a man 
by the name of Jim and his wife Virginia Stowers started a company 
called American Centuries. It became one of the most successful 
companies in this country. A few years ago they decided that they would 
give back. Both of them are cancer survivors, and so they founded the 
Stowers Institute. It is an institution in Kansas City, Missouri, 
designed and funded by this great couple to research all kinds of 
medical cures. I will tell them later today that no Federal funds can 
be used.
  Behind all of the opposition to stem cell research, there seems to be 
a subliminal religious tone. I am a fundamentalist in that I believe 
that the Holy Bible is the inspired and interminable word of God. But I 
am baffled by my fellow fundamentalists who seem to be utterly opposed 
to and terror-stricken by the advancement of science, including stem 
cell research.
  The propagation of knowledge by some in our faith seems to be a 
foreboding foray toward undermining or diminishing the glory of the 
Creator. However, the opposite is true. When the human intellect makes 
strides that sets the world agog, it is God from whom all knowledge 
stems who is honored.
  And keep in mind that scientific advancement is not an enemy of 
faith, but rather a bold statement that God is still active in this 
universe.
  Mr. Speaker, I conclude by just saying that it is a great testament 
to God if we are able to advance science. It means that His power is 
supreme.
  Because I accept the Bible as the inspired and interminable Word of 
God, I consider myself to be a Christian fundamentalist. I accept, as 
an inseparable component of my faith, the omnipotence, omnipresence, 
and omniscience of God. Therefore, I am baffled by my fellow 
fundamentalists who seem to be utterly opposed to and terror-stricken 
by the advancement of science, including stem cell research. The 
propagation of knowledge and the dismantling of the boundless awe-
inspiring mysteries of God's world are viewed by some in our faith as a 
foreboding foray toward undermining and diminishing the glory of the 
Creator. However, the opposite is true. When the human intellect makes 
strides that sets the world agog, it is God, from whom all knowledge 
stems, who is honored. Let us keep in mind that scientific advancement 
is not an enemy of faith, but rather a bold statement of Praise.
  Contemporary men and women of faith, as always, stand at the 
crossroads. In a real sense, religion has always been impelled to wage 
war in some area or another. The pressing question is shall we march 
across the battlefields of faith with open arms toward the magnificent 
revelations of God's great truths, or, do we use our inherent power and 
influence to signal a retreat from the bright and simmering sunshine of 
expanding scientific scholarship. The potential life-saving issue of 
stem cell research is before us. The scepter is in the hands of the 
enlightened community of believers. Our failure to speak out on the 
medical need for stem cell research will allow earnest but erroneous or 
misguided souls who wish to constrain such study to force us back to a 
time when the faithful waged its fiery finger of scorn at the 
irreverence of scientific inquiry. Like the majority of people of 
faith, I totally reject the notion that today's community of believers 
are as troglodytic as our ancestors who refused to peer through the 
lens of Galileo's telescope. Nonetheless, this is a testing time.
  Doctor Harry Emerson Fosdick, the legendary Baptist clergyman of the 
first half of the 20th century, profoundly addresses the issue of 
flowering faith in his wonderfully inspiring book, The Modern Use of 
the Bible: ``If there are fresh things to learn concerning the physical 
universe, let us have them, that we may find deeper meaning when we 
say, `The heavens declare the glory of God.' ''
  If there is a great possibility to uncover new cures for the beastly 
diseases which besiege the human body, the community of faith must 
implore the researchers to explore, seize, and use them. After all, the 
One we claim as the Imminent Source and Guide of the Universe is 
befitting of our very best.
  Sure, the scientific research on stem cells must be moral. The 
institutions of scientific research must understand that there are 
moral mandates that cannot be infringed or ignored with impunity. When 
the sway of the intellect becomes extreme, the religious must repudiate 
and guide it back to equilibrium and reason. Additionally, when the 
community of faith clings to the debilitating conventionalism of a 
petrified past, some among us must push against that as well.
  Should science succeed in fulfilling the much vaunted optimism 
expressed by advocates of stem cell therapy, much of the credit should 
go to the community of faith. Every experiment that leads to greater 
medical breakthroughs is a discernible display of the earthly presence 
of God and of the presence of particles of his divinity in us.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for 
yielding me time, and for his leadership today and every day.
  Mr. Speaker, never in my 26 years as a Member of Congress have I seen 
so much hyperbole, misinformation and misattribution of success as in 
the embryonic stem cell debate.
  Dispute recent revelations of massive fraud by prominent stem cell 
researchers in South Korea, despite the fact that there hasn't been 
anything even close to success of any kind in treating any human being 
anywhere in the world with embryonic stem cells, despite all of this 
and so much more, embryonic stem cell proponents demand that tens of 
thousands of perfectly healthy human embryos be destroyed for taxpayer-
funded research.
  This is especially troubling in light of the stunning breakthroughs 
and successes announced almost daily of adult and cord blood stem cell 
therapies that are today helping men and women with leukemia, sickle 
cell anemia, and a myriad of other diseases. Ethical stem cell 
research, Mr. Speaker, has given not only hope, but it has given us 
real, durable therapies that work.
  Arguments were made on this floor, Mr. Speaker, that we are just 
using spare or leftover embryos as if they exist as a subclass of 
surplus human beings that can be experimented on or slaughtered at 
will.
  A few hours ago at the White House, several of us met with some of 
those snowflake children, all of whom were adopted while they were 
still in their embryonic stage and frozen in what we like to call 
frozen orphanages. Believe me, watching snowflakes children laugh, 
smile and act, well, like kids underscored the fact that they are every 
bit as human and alive and precious as any other child. Under the 
Castle bill, these so-called surplus humans are throwaways. Adopt them, 
don't destroy them.
  Mr. Speaker, finally, make no mistake about it, those of us who 
oppose the Castle bill support aggressive stem cell research and 
judicious application of stem cells to mitigate and cure diseases. That 
is why I sponsored the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005. 
It provides $265 million for comprehensive cord blood, bone marrow. 
That is why we support the $609 million in FY 2006 currently been 
expended under the NIH for ethical stem cells.
  Yesterday, Hannah Strege, the first known snowflake embryo adoption, 
told a small group of us: ``Don't kill the embryos, we are kids and we 
want to grow up too.'' How come a 7-year-old gets it and we don't. 
Sustain the veto.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
Democratic leader (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time. I salute her for her outstanding leadership and stewardship of 
this bill and her leadership on this issue so important to America's 
families. I also commend Congressman Castle of Delaware for his courage 
and his leadership as well.
  Mr. Speaker, every family in America, indeed every person in this 
room and in this gallery, is just one diagnosis or one phone call away 
from needing the benefits of the embryonic stem cell research. Today 
with his veto, President Bush dashed the hopes of so many Americans who 
were praying for this legislation and the cures that it can bring. 
Imagine, the first veto of this President, and it is for a bill vetoing 
a bill that has the miraculous power to cure.
  The Latin root of veto, the Latin translation of veto means ``I 
forbid.'' President Bush has said today, I forbid allowing the best and 
brightest minds

[[Page H5445]]

to pursue the science that they believe has the most promise and 
potential to cure.

                              {time}  1815

  President Bush says, I forbid bringing embryonic stem cell research 
under NIH, ensuring the strict controls and stringent ethical 
guidelines that only NIH can ensure and impose. President Bush says, I 
forbid giving our scientists the opportunities they need to ensure that 
our Nation remains preeminent in science.
  Today, I am hoping that the people's House will reflect the American 
people's will and overturn this short-sighted action, and instead of 
saying ``I forbid,'' say ``yes'' to the American people.
  The opponents of this legislation believe that this is a struggle 
between faith and science. I believe that faith and science have at 
least one thing in common: Both are searches for truth. America has 
room for both faith and science, and thank God for that.
  The Episcopal Church, in its letter in support of this legislation 
says, ``As stewards of creation, we are called to help mend and renew 
the world in many ways. The Episcopal Church celebrates medical 
research, and this research expands our knowledge of God's creation and 
empowers us to bring potential healing to those who suffer from disease 
and disability.'' It is our duty here in Congress to bring hope to the 
sick and the disabled, not to bind the hands of those who can bring 
them hope.
  I believe, as Representative Emanuel Cleaver has said, I believe that 
God guided our researchers to discover the stem cell's power to heal. 
Overturning the President's cruel veto will enable science to live up 
to its potential to answer the prayers of America's families.
  According to many scientists, including 80 Nobel Laureates, embryonic 
stem cell research has the potential to unlock the doors to treatments 
and cures to numerous diseases, and we have spoken about them all day, 
including diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, Lou Gehrig's 
disease, multiple sclerosis, cancer and spinal cord injuries, to name a 
few.
  Many of our colleagues both here on the floor and other venues, have 
shared their personal stories, whether it is a condition of their 
children or an affliction of their parents. Their generosity of spirit 
and generosity to share those stories gives us testimony as to the need 
for this embryonic stem cell research, and it fills a void in science 
that we know can be filled. I believe that if we know a scientific 
opportunity for cure, we have a moral responsibility to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill will save lives and help us find the cures for 
diseases in a shorter time span. It is all about time, after all, how 
much time people have, the quality of their lives in that time frame.
  This bill will enable science to live up to the biblical power to 
cure. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the override and 
override the President's cruel veto.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the majority leader for yielding time. 
I rise in support of the President's veto. I applaud President Bush's 
courage in doing this, and I encourage all of my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to sustain this veto.
  This is not about whether we are going to fund more embryonic stem 
cell research. We are funding embryonic stem cell research. We funded 
$38 million of human embryonic stem cell research last year. This is 
not about whether it is legal or not. It is legal in the United States 
to do embryonic stem cell research. Indeed, this is really not about 
whether the United States is going to fall behind in this area of 
research.
  The United States leads the world because of the President's program, 
publishing 85 percent of the published research articles on human 
embryonic stem cell research.
  So what is this about, what are we debating today? We lead the world. 
We are funding it. What are we debating?
  What we are debating today in this Chamber is whether or not we are 
going to use taxpayer dollars to kill more human embryos. That is 
really what this debate is all about. This business about cures being 
around the corner, jeepers, I have said this, and nobody has refuted 
it, they don't have an animal model that shows that embryonic stem 
cells work and they are safe.
  Nobody has gotten an FDA approval to use human embryonic stem cells 
in a human trial. But we have each year 10, 15 or more clinical trials 
published in the literature showing adult stem cells and core blood 
stem cells work.
  This is a debate about whether or not we are going to have the 
imprimatur of the United States Government to say that certain forms of 
human life can be discarded.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, this is a sad day for 
America. But what is so sad is that our opponents would so distort the 
facts to stop research that would benefit so many. Many have talked 
today about the so-called snowflake babies, embryos which are donated 
to other couples. I don't oppose that. I think that is great.
  But right now couples undergoing IVF treatment have three options for 
the spare embryos that are necessarily created. They can freeze them 
for future use by themselves. They can donate them to other couples, as 
several hundred have done, or they can say that the embryos that are 
left over should be destroyed as medical waste, and tens of thousands 
of those embryos have been destroyed.
  All we say today, give those couples a fourth choice. Let those 
embryos that would thrown away as medical waste be donated for ethical 
embryonic stem cell research. The opponents of this bill also continue 
to claim that adult stem cell and core blood cells are just as good as 
embryonic stem cells. Shame on them. This is a bald lie.
  Harold Varmus, the former director of the NIH, said just this week, 
compared to adult stem cells, embryonic stem cells have a much greater 
potential according to all existing scientific literature. Let's not 
distort the facts just for a political argument.
  This Congress has been politicizing science in a way that the 
American public disagrees with. Earlier this year, we tried to assert 
our jurisdiction over end-of-life decisions with the terrible vote that 
we took in the Terry Schiavo case. Now, today, we are trying to stop 
ethical scientific research that could help tens of millions of people.
  Many on the other side say, well, the taxpayers shouldn't fund this 
research. Excuse me, I thought we had a national consensus, 72 percent 
of Americans agree with this precept, people who are Democrats, 
Republicans, independents, prolife, prochoice. I don't know who decided 
that they were God and that Congress could not fund this research, 
because their religious thinking trumps the national consensus.
  A majority of my constituents don't think we should fund the war. 
Does that mean we shouldn't fund the war? Of course not.
  We need this ethical research. We need it for our colleague, Jim 
Langevin, so he can walk again. We need it for our colleague, Lane 
Evans, whose Parkinson's has made him so sick that he cannot be here 
today to vote to override this bill.
  Let's give hope to millions of Americans. Let's give hope for ethical 
research. Let us override this veto.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Murphy) for a unanimous-consent request.
  (Mr. MURPHY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MURPHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of sustaining the President's veto. 
This is not a vote for or against stem cell research. Many U.S. 
companies and universities are engaged in a great deal of embryonic 
stem cell research.
  In fact, the President and the U.S. Congress have supported this 
research with over $90 million for embryonic stem cell lines derived 
from embryos that had already been destroyed with more than 700 
shipments to researchers since 2001.
  The question is whether to use federal money or U.S. taxpayer dollars 
to destroy human embryos for research?
  The research bears out that several types of stem cell research have 
been successful. These are adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood 
stem cells.
  However, no research has shown embryonic stem cell research to be 
fruitful. A year ago

[[Page H5446]]

when we debated this issue, a study at Seoul National University in 
Korea was brought up as an example of success to create the world's 
first embryonic stem cells from a cloned human embryo. Since then, 
we've learned that study was filled with erroneous data. The DNA 
studies on the two preserved stem cells did not match those from the 
published study and were not cloned human embryonic stem cells.
  But, beyond this, we must keep in mind how we use human life and 
think about where we should draw the line.
  Those who support destroying embryos for this research have stated 
these will be embryos that will be discarded. This is not true.
  Many parents would love to adopt these embryos and raise these 
children as their own. According to the non-partisan RAND Corporation 
the ``vast majority'' or 88 percent of the 400,000 embryos that have 
been frozen since the late 1970s are not going to be discarded but are 
held for family building and not for medical research. In fact, over 21 
families who visited the White House last year adopted these embryos in 
order to fulfill their own dreams of having a family.
  Even to refer to these embryos as ones that are unwanted and will be 
destroyed raises the ultimate question: where do we and where will we 
draw the line?
  If we say a human embryo is unwanted and discardable, we head down 
the road of asking ``what next?''
  Do we view seriously disabled newborns as unwanted? Will it be 
acceptable to discard them?
  This is a road down which we cannot afford to turn.
  The research does not support it, morality does not condone it. U.S. 
taxpayer dollars must not support destroying a life to save a life.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, for a 
unanimous-consent request.
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as a 22-year Congressman with a 100 
percent prolife voting record, minus two votes, I rise in opposition of 
the Presidential veto and support the effort to override it.
  Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of H.R. 810 and overriding the 
President's earlier veto of this legislation. H.R. 810 would expand the 
number of sources of embryonic stem cell lines that may be used in 
federally funded scientific research. The bill would allow the limited 
use of human embryonic stem cells that are derived from embryos that 
would otherwise be discarded from fertility clinics.
  This is not an issue where everyone agrees. There are deeply held 
views on both sides of the difficult question before us, and I want to 
emphasize that every one of my colleagues should vote in accordance 
with their own conscience. I support the bill, and I want to say why.
  Stem cells are cells that can differentiate into many different kinds 
of cells used in the body. They can come from several sources, such as 
adult stem cells, but many scientists believe that the most potential 
for productive research lies in embryonic stem cells, which could have 
the capacity to differentiate into any cell in the body. If researchers 
can find such a perfect stem cell that can differentiate into any other 
cell type, we may be able to unlock the cures to hundreds of diseases 
that afflict us today.
  This is more than a sterile, academic matter to me. Diseases like 
Parkinson's, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, have stricken millions of 
Americans and continue to take a heavy toll on all of us. I can tell 
you that it is a living nightmare to watch a loved one suffer from a 
terrible illness and know that there is nothing that you can do but be 
by their side. That was the experience I had when my father died of 
complications of diabetes at the age of 71. It was also the experience 
I had when my younger brother, Jon Kevin Barton, died of liver cancer 
at the age of 44.
  When my brother was diagnosed, we tried everything. They found his 
liver cancer when he was just 41 years old. He and his wife, Jennifer, 
had two children, Jack and Jace. He was a state district judge in 
Texas. After they told Jon he had liver cancer, we did everything we 
could, and, in fact, his cancer went into remission for a year. But it 
came back, and Jon died just three months short of his 44th birthday. 
That was 6 years ago. Every time I see Jace and Jack and their Mom, I 
think of Jon and wonder if stem cell research could have allowed him to 
be alive today.
  I do not know for sure, but my heart tells me that stem cell research 
might have led to treatments that could have helped my brother and my 
father. We cannot be certain, but maybe the answers for finding cures 
for many of the diseases that afflict us lie in stem cell research. 
Many scientists believe that once we can identify a perfect, 
undifferentiated stem cell line, it will lead to significant scientific 
breakthroughs and the discovery of cures for many diseases.
  It is the hope of a cure for people suffering today and their 
families that led me to decide to support this legislation. I believe 
hope is what led President Bush to take the steps he did in August, 
2001, when he permitted for the first time Federal taxpayer dollars to 
be spent on embryonic stem cell research. He recognized the profound 
benefits that were possible through embryonic research, and he wanted 
to let the research go forward in a way that respected life and the 
moral and ethical views of millions of Americans. The President's 
decision struck a delicate balance between respecting the life of human 
embryos and giving hope to the American families who are enduring the 
suffering and loss of debilitating diseases like diabetes and cancer.
  But when the President made his announcement in 2001, 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, this has turned out 
not to be the case; not all of these potential lines are now available 
for research. Currently, there are approximately 22 lines of embryonic 
stem cells that are available for federally funded research. None of 
those lines that are currently allowed for Federal research purposes 
have been shown to have that breakthrough stem cell--the one cell that 
can differentiate into all 220 cell types in the body.
  The President's initial decision reflects the difficulty of this 
issue. However, when new facts arise on the one hand that tell us the 
embryonic stem cell lines already used for federal research do not hold 
the promise we once thought, it should require us to reevaluate that 
initial decision in light of the facts.
  I continue to support the expansion of cord blood and bone marrow 
stem cell research, and perhaps the breakthrough we are all hoping for 
will come from adult stem cells. But at this point, we cannot know for 
sure where the breakthrough will come from, and it is my belief that we 
need to keep all of our options open while continuing to go forward in 
a moral and ethical way.
  I fully understand that there are people of good conscience that will 
disagree with me. I completely respect their views and differences of 
opinion. Like many on the other side of this legislation, I am also 
strongly pro-life. For over two decades in the United States Congress, 
I have had a strong pro-life voting record. I remain pro-life, but for 
the reasons I have given, I intend to vote in favor of this 
legislation.
  As my colleagues continue to debate the merits of this bill, I only 
ask that we try to respect one another's various points of view and 
that no one is ridiculed for their beliefs on either side of this 
complex and difficult issue.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  My colleagues, we have had a very good debate. This is an issue that 
has been very divisive in this House for the last year or so, and the 
President has made his position very clear.
  But let me make the position very clear that embryonic research with 
regard to stem cells is occurring and is going to continue to occur. 
The issue here is whether Federal funds, taxpayer dollars ought to be 
used to destroy human life in the search for cures for other diseases. 
That is what the issue is, pure and simple. We all know that this 
research is going to continue in the private sector with private 
moneys.
  But the debate that we have had is whether it is appropriate to take 
taxpayer funds to destroy human life to find embryonic stem cells. I 
believe that my colleagues, enough of my colleagues will stand up today 
to sustain the President's veto.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues, to vote ``no'' on 
overriding the President's veto.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, it is a momentous event when a president 
vetoes a bill. It is a pronouncement that the lawmaking body of our 
federal government is in error and that the difficult lawmaking process 
has produced legislation not worthy of enactment. For the Stem Cell 
Research Enhancement Act of 2005, nothing could be further from the 
truth. I was proud to have voted for H.R. 810 when it first came to the 
House Floor for a vote in May 2005, and I am proud today to vote to 
override the President's veto--the first veto of his Administration.
  A broad spectrum of lawmakers from both parties and all regions of 
the country recognize the extraordinary opportunity that stem cell 
research presents to treat and cure tragic diseases afflicting millions 
of Americans. Some of these potential treatments were only dreamt about 
a generation ago. Alzheimer's, paralysis, Parkinson's, diabetes--the 
list of possible applications for stem cell research

[[Page H5447]]

goes on and on. For some of the victims of these diseases, stem cell 
research provides the only present hope for a cure. To use the 
President's first and only veto to effectively deny these citizens of 
their best hope is as tragic as it is wrongheaded. H.R. 810 carefully 
ensures that this research is conducted in a manner consistent with the 
highest ethical standards.
  There have been numerous times in history when a chief executive has 
denied the progress of science. We mark these times as setbacks for 
humanity, and we also recognize that in many cases, progress was only 
delayed, not curtailed. Despite the setback of this veto, the struggle 
will continue--both the struggle for Americans seeking to overcome 
disability and disease, and the struggle to support the scientific 
community in its quest to find the effective cures and treatments. I am 
confident that the American people will not allow this veto to forever 
impede the progress of science.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 810, the ``Stem Cell 
Research and Enhancement Act'', and urge my colleagues to reject 
President Bush's regrettable veto.
  We are here to decide once again 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. 
These diseases include Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, spinal 
cord injuries or spinal dysfunction, and diabetes. Embryonic stem cell 
research holds the potential for treating these diseases, and many 
more.
  H.R. 810 is a sensible and targeted path forward. It 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.
  President Bush's rejection of this narrow and commonsense measure 
should be overridden by the people's House.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, every American has a very personal stake 
in today's discussion on stem cell research. Everyone knows people who 
would benefit from breakthrough research using stem cells. Indeed, with 
a hundred million Americans at risk from a variety of diseases ranging 
from Lou Gehrig's disease, to Alzheimer's, to Parkinson's, to cancer, 
to juvenile diabetes, it's almost impossible to not know somebody who 
could potentially be helped by stem cell research. For me, the most 
important beneficiaries are our children and grandchildren who have not 
yet shown any symptoms, but who may fall victim to one of these 
devastating diseases.
  H.R. 810 is an opportunity for Congress to clarify the issues and 
exert leadership in a way that the federal government has in the past. 
Instead the President vetoed the bill after having passed through the 
House and Senate. This administration is out of touch with the 70% of 
the American public who supports stem cell research. We have inadequate 
access to stem cell lines for research purposes and we are putting 
forth neither money nor encouragement while we construct artificial 
boundaries. These misguided policies by the administration will not 
stop progress from stem cell research, but will delay the day we have 
these very important therapies to transform people's lives. Americans 
are losing ground on this vital research to other countries while 
relinquishing leadership to the states here in our country.
  Stem cell research is not about cloning a human being or creating 
embryos for research purposes. We can maintain prohibitions against 
cloning of humans while supplying stem cells in an ethical manner from 
400,000 embryos already accessible that will otherwise be destroyed.
  Every American needs to watch this closely. The stakes in this debate 
are high both for the potential benefit to the physical condition of 
all humankind, as well as the establishment of the boundaries between 
public policy and personal theology.
  For me the choice is clear. American families deserve an opportunity 
for embryonic stem cell research to be conducted in a reasonable, 
controlled manner, to hasten the day of vital life-saving, life-
enriching therapy.
  Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I am outraged that President Bush has single 
handedly stifled the advancement of medical research that could provide 
cures for millions of Americans who are suffering needlessly from a 
wide range of debilitating diseases. President Bush's decision to use 
his veto power for the first time in his Presidency on this historic 
piece of legislation is unconscionable and a misguided attempt to 
pander to the extreme base in his party. The tireless efforts made by 
the scientific community, stem cell advocates and supportive Members of 
Congress finally came to fruition when this body passed the Stem Cell 
Research Enhancement Act (H.R. 810). This legislation, supported by a 
majority of Americans, expands the embryonic stem cell lines available 
for conducting research and allows the federal government to fund this 
type of undertaking.
  Stem cell research (including embryonic stem cell research) offers 
incredible hope to the sufferers of diseases like Parkinson's, 
Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, cancer and diabetes. Embryonic stem 
cells are derived from donated embryos that are not used during the 
process of in-vitro fertilization and would otherwise be discarded. 
Many scientists believe that embryonic stem cells have greater 
potential than adult stem cells because they can differentiate into any 
specialized cell in the body. Additionally, they can be administered to 
patients without fear of rejection or the need for expensive 
immunosuppressive drugs.
  Unfortunately, in one fell swoop, President Bush has preemptively 
thwarted medical progress, destroying the hope of millions of Americans 
desperately waiting for a cure. Medical science is at a crossroads with 
incredible potential to save and improve the lives of chronic and fatal 
disease sufferers. At this time, our government should be doing 
everything possible to advance and explore all avenues of medical 
research. With polls showing 60 percent of the country supporting 
embryonic stem cell research, it is indefensible that President Bush 
chose to ignore the will of the American people by striking down this 
monumental measure.
  Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the 
veto override of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. This 
bipartisan legislation would expand Federal funding for embryonic stem 
cell research.
  The House approved this bill last year and it won U.S. Senate 
approval yesterday. However, despite the measure passing both chambers 
of Congress, the President has vetoed the legislation, the first of his 
presidency. I am disappointed the President chose this bill to be his 
first veto.
  The American Medical Association and 92 other organizations, 
including scientists and researchers support H.R. 810. Federal funding 
would enable further research to examine many new lines of stem cells--
increasing the potential for cures. Each year 8,000 to 10,000 embryos 
created for in-vitro fertilization are destroyed. H.R. 810 would allow 
Federally funded research of stem cells, which scientists believe can 
yield cures for diseases and injuries, to be harvested from surplus 
frozen embryos that are stored at fertility clinics and slated for 
destruction.
  Human embryonic stem cells are prized because they can replicate 
themselves and become almost any type of human tissue. We all know 
someone who can benefit from the research. Science should prevail over 
politics.
  President Bush's veto is standing in the way of hope and progress in 
curing many diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's 
disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, some cancers, and spinal cord injuries. 
This veto has ignored our country's healthcare needs and has slowed the 
potential to eradicate life threatening and chronic diseases.
  The President did not make the right choice. This critical life 
saving bill is greatly needed. I urge my colleagues to support the veto 
override and reaffirm Congress's support of life saving medical 
research.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, President Bush unfortunately vetoed funding 
for life-saving research on stem cells from donated, surplus embryos 
because he maintains it's 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've met with medical researchers from the University of Minnesota 
Stem Cell Institute, the Mayo Clinic, the National Institutes of Health 
and Johns Hopkins University.
  As one prominent researcher told me, ``The real irony of the 
President's policy is that at least 400,000 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.''

[[Page H5448]]

  Only 22 of the 78 stem cell lines approved by the President in 2001 
remain today. This limit on research has stunted progress on finding 
cures for a number of debilitating and fatal diseases according to 
scientists and patient advocacy groups.
  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 
20s.
  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 make it clear that abortion politics should not determine 
this critical medical research.
  Embryonic stem cell research will prolong life, improve life and give 
hope for life to millions of people.
  I urge members to override the President's veto of funding for life-
saving and life-enhancing embryonic stem cell research.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this institution is often called the people's 
House and today I ask my colleagues to stand in the shoes of the 
millions of people dealing with incurable or debilitating diseases. 
Diseases such as juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, multiple 
sclerosis, or cancer. Diseases that impact them every day . . . their 
plans for the future.
  Let us stand with them today and vote to override the President's 
veto of the medical research that holds the potential to find a 
treatment to improve their lives, or, over time, a cure.
  The U.S. House has approved this legislation. The Senate has approved 
this legislation. The reason the American people--72 percent of them in 
public surveys--support the Federal Government proceeding with this 
legislation is because in virtually every family there is a life 
experience with the need for medical breakthroughs.
  We can never guarantee the results of scientific research, but 
without it we guarantee there can be no results.
  The President's stem cell policy is not working. Of the 78 existing 
stem cell lines permitted for use in federally funded research, only 22 
of these lines are currently used for research, and many have raised 
concerns that these lines are genetically unstable, contaminated, and 
harder to work with than newer lines. Research is practically at a 
standstill in this country.
  The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act is a well-crafted, bipartisan 
approach. It is opposed with false arguments that divide Americans when 
what is involved is an expansion of research on embryonic stem cell 
lines derived from surplus embryos that were originally created for 
fertility treatments purposes, are in excess of clinical need and would 
otherwise be discarded, and have been donated by the individuals 
seeking fertility treatment through written consent and without any 
financial involvement.
  Let us override the President's veto and take these vitals steps to 
tap into the promise of research that has the potential to change the 
face of modern medicine as we know it today. That is a human value that 
should not be undermined by the people's representatives.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, last year, I was proud to 
cosponsor and vote in favor 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 to discover the causes of a 
myriad of genetic diseases, to test 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, and 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, which passed the House on May 
25, 2005, 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, were in excess of clinical need, would have 
otherwise been 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.
  This measure makes it 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 on any 
embryos that had been created solely for research purposes.
  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 its professional judgment in extending 
and enhancing human life.
  I urge the Senate to pass the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act with 
overwhelming support, and for President Bush to sign it into law when 
it reaches his desk.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the argument that embryonic stem cell 
research can contribute to life-saving research is emotionally 
persuasive, but it is never justifiable to deliberately end one life, 
even to save others. There are alternative sources of stem cells 
without engaging in research that purposefully takes a life. We debated 
an alternative stem cell bill on this floor yesterday, and it is 
unfortunate it did not get the support of those Members here today 
crying aloud how we are denying vital lifesaving research.
  Furthermore, we are already funding such research. In 2001, President 
Bush announced federal funding for the embryonic stem cell lines that 
had already been created. There are 78 of these approved lines and only 
22 of them are currently being used in federally funded research. These 
lines are so useful that they are used in 85 percent of the published 
embryonic stem cell studies in the world.
  In fact, President Bush's policy is generous. In 2005 NIH spent $38 
million, up $13 million from 2004. Most importantly, the current ban on 
embryonic research does not prevent private funding for embryonic stem 
cell research. Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates and Newport Beach bond 
trader Bill Gross are among several private donors who have provided 
millions of dollars toward embryonic stem cell research.
  Proponents also claim that the U.S. is lagging behind the rest of the 
world in embryonic stem cell research and that increased federal 
funding would close the gap. The fact is the United States leads the 
world in embryonic stem cell research. A recent Nature Journal 
publication states that U.S. scientists contributed 46 percent of all 
stem cell publications since 1998. Germany comes far second 
representing 10 percent of studies, and the remaining 44 percent derive 
from between 16 other countries.
  It is unnecessary and morally offensive to use taxpayer money to 
expand embryonic stem cell research. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting President Bush's veto.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong 
support of this effort to override the President's veto of H.R. 810, 
the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. I am proud to be a cosponsor of 
this important legislation, which expands stem cell research and 
ensures that the federal government can implement ethical guidelines.
  This bill will provide hope and opportunity for millions of Americans 
suffering from chronic and life threatening health conditions. This 
legislation will also ensure that the federal government can implement 
ethical guidelines over federally-funded research, which will help to 
set high standards for all research. To be clear, H.R. 810 only allows 
federal funding for embryonic stem cell research in cases where the 
cells were created for fertility treatment and will otherwise be 
discarded.
  The expansion of funding to stem cell research has the power to make 
a real difference in the lives of Americans. Stem cells offer 
remarkable potential contributions to medical science and improve the 
lives of millions of people who suffer from incurable diseases such as 
juvenile diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, AIDS, and spinal cord 
injuries. It may also help us to understand abnormal cell

[[Page H5449]]

growth that occurs in cancer, as well as change the way we develop 
drugs and test them for safety and potential efficacy.
  It is Imperative that we move our health care policy in a new 
direction and support efforts to improve the quality of life. This 
research is supported by 72 percent of Americans and the majority of 
the Congress. H.R. 810 is supported by over 200 patient groups, 
universities, and scientific societies, and has been endorsed by more 
than 75 national and local newspapers and 80 Nobel Laureates.
  For President Bush to use his first veto to ignore this overwhelming 
support for stem cell research and at the same time extinguish the 
hopes of millions for cures to chronic and dangerous diseases is an 
outrage. This veto has made it clear that President Bush has chosen 
radical ideology over American lives. I urge my colleagues to join me 
in voting to override this misguided veto.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of overriding 
the President's veto of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005.
  I am extremely disappointed that the President exercised his first 
veto on a piece of bipartisan legislation that will provide countless 
number of Americans hope of finding cures for many life-threatening 
diseases. This Congress has passed many pieces of irresponsible 
legislation that benefit narrow special interests at the expense of the 
public good. The President did not veto any of those bills. Now the 
Congress has finally passed a bipartisan bill that will help find cures 
to diseases that strike virtually every American family. Yet the 
President has chosen to veto this landmark bill. In doing so, the 
President is playing to the extreme right of his own political party. 
Shame on the President for putting politics over the health of the 
American people.
  We should allow the expansion of federally supported research of 
human embryonic stem cell lines. The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act 
of 2005 would provide federal funding for a wider range of stem cell 
research while establishing ethical guidelines. The bill also provides 
that embryos that are otherwise likely to be discarded can be used to 
develop treatments for debilitating diseases and life-saving cures.
  I believe stem cell research holds the promise of scientific 
breakthroughs that could improve the lives of millions of Americans 
afflicted with a debilitating disease--such as Parkinson's, diabetes, 
spinal cord injuries, autoimmune diseases, cardiovascular disease, and 
cancer--for which there is currently no cure. While it is too late for 
those who have passed from these terrible diseases, it still not too 
late for the millions of other Americans hoping that the Congress will 
override the President's veto and support federally funded research of 
this potentially life-saving resource. For these patients and their 
families, stem cell research is the last hope for a cure.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that affects every family in America. I 
strongly urge my House colleagues to vote to override the President's 
veto on this bipartisan legislation.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, ethical, embryonic stem cell research is a 
reality. The federal government has two options. We can engage, by 
participating in the research and influencing the ethical debate within 
the global community. Or, we ignore the issue and let others lead.
  America is the world leader in medical research and development. We 
cannot cede this ground.
  That is why we must be unyielding in our support for the embryonic 
stem cell research made possible under H.R. 810. And why I would 
caution my colleagues against accepting any of the weak alternatives 
being debated.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the great equalizers is disease. It ignores age, 
income and education level. Embryonic stem cell research has the 
potential to cure and maybe even prevent many debilitating conditions 
affecting the old and the young, the rich and the poor. Like Diabetes. 
Parkinson's disease. Alzheimer's. Spinal cord damage. And maybe even 
bone marrow failure. Families from all walks of life have first-hand 
experience with these tragedies.
  Make no mistake, these potential breakthroughs lie at the end of a 
long and difficult road. But the research community is committed to 
this task. Just last week in my hometown of Sacramento, the UC Davis 
Medical Center hired a top national expert in regenerative medicine to 
direct the Center's new stem cell research facility.
  But every stem cell researcher agrees that this research must use 
embryonic stem cells. These are the only cells with the flexibility and 
the potential to fix spinal cord injuries, or cure diabetes. And using 
the unused embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics gives us an 
ethical way to obtain them.
  Mr. Speaker, it is true that this is a debate about what science 
tells about stem cell research. And equally, it is about the ethical 
constraints our democracy rightly agrees to impose on that science. But 
there is broad consensus on these two points. That consensus is 
enshrined in H.R. 810.
  So the federal government must decide whether it will lend its 
tremendous weight to embryonic stem cell research. Or whether it will 
simply remain on the sidelines, pretending that ethical solutions don't 
exist.
  Earlier today, President Bush chose the sidelines. He chose to ignore 
the issue and allow others to lead. Worse still, he is stifling the 
hopes of millions of Americans.
  And fundamentally, this is a debate about hope. Hope is the light 
that keeps us going through a dark and torturous tunnel.
  I urge my colleagues to think very hard before denying that hope to 
millions of people across America by supporting anything less than 
federally-funded embryonic stem cell research. I hope my colleagues 
will vote to override the President's veto. It is time to go in a new 
direction.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, This debate on H.R. 810, the Stem Cell 
Research Enhancement Act, is really one of the most fundamentally 
important debates that this body can undertake.
  H.R. 810 addresses the most basic, essential ethical issues--life, 
when does it begin, and when should life, including human embryos, be 
open to experimentation and scientific research.
  It is society's ethical obligation to draw boundaries around the 
possibilities of science. I believe we must draw a boundary that says 
``no'' to embryonic stem cell research that requires the killing of 
embryos that if left to grow would become children. Children who would 
grow up to become police officers, factory workers, soldiers, 
government employees, lawyers, doctors, and scientists.
  I believe that embryos, as life, should be treated with as much 
respect as you and I, and I reject the view that embryos are mere 
medical waste, as some have suggested.
  Where do we draw the line as a Nation, and say, we will not cross 
that line? These proponents of H.R. 810 would not have us draw a line. 
This legislation leaves too many questions unanswered.
  When do embryos become human life? After 40 hours? After 2 days? H.R. 
810 is silent on when embryos become human life--it doesn't 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 a subsection that 
directs the secretary to create guidelines in 60 days or less.
  As elected leaders, we should set basic guidelines, not leave the 
guidelines to an unelected and unnamed administration official.
  This legislation is unethical and unnecessary. Human embryonic stem 
cell research is completely legal today in the private sector and 
eligible for state funding in several states, including California and 
New Jersey. Since August 2001, over 128 stem cell lines have been 
created.
  Furthermore, human embryonic stem cell research is funded by the 
federal government today. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) spent 
an estimated $38 million on Embryonic Stem Cell research in Fiscal Year 
2006. 22 human embryonic stem cell lines are currently receiving 
federal funds. These lines are sufficient for basic research according 
to NIH director, Dr. Zerhouni.
  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.
  While the promise of embryonic stem cells is questionable, 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 72 diseases including, Parkinson's disease, 
spinal cord injury, juvenile diabetes, brain cancer, breast cancer, 
lymphoma, heart damage, rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile arthritis, 
stroke, and sickle cell anemia.
  Let me be clear, I am committed to funding ethical scientific 
research that will unlock the origins of diseases and develop cures 
that can help my constituents.
  But we cannot let science leap-frog our ethics, our morals, and our 
legal system.
  This is not a partisan issue, and it's bigger than a right to life 
issue.
  I urge Members to vote against H.R. 810 and sustain the President's 
veto.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, the possibility is real that embryonic stem-
cell research represents the greatest breakthrough in the history of 
science. It is, therefore, important that we understand the medical and 
moral issues at stake.
  In 1998, University of Wisconsin scientists for the first time 
isolated embryonic stem cells in a laboratory. These cells, 30 to 34 in 
number, are derived from a blastocyst, which is a

[[Page H5450]]

group of 150 to 200 cells smaller than the dot at the end of this 
sentence. A blastocyst, in turn, is derived from a single cell known as 
a zygote, which comes into being after a sperm and an egg combine.
  Blastocysts have been created outside of the body in cell cultures 
for decades in fertility clinics. More than 400,000 are known to exist 
in frozen form. Thousands are discarded as medical waste and millions 
are eliminated naturally every year.
  The reason the scientific community is so excited about embryonic 
stem cells is that they are pluripotent. Unlike other stem cells, they 
are capable of continuously dividing and being coaxed into forming 
virtually any of several hundred types of body cells. Health research 
is conducted in stages--mice before people. At the moment, scientists 
are encouraged by the results they have obtained from the animal 
kingdom. Research on mice, pigs and monkeys is so promising that 
scientists can envision the possibility of creating ``cellular repair 
kits'' for the human body. If research is supported the regenerative 
power of embryonic stem cells may soon be harnessed to treat ailments 
as diverse as spinal-cord injury, diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, 
multiple sclerosis and heart disease.
  Profound moral questions encompass embryonic stem-cell research. A 
blastocyst, which is subject to scientific engineering on a Petri dish, 
could, if implanted in a uterus, cause a life to form. ``Excess'' 
blastocysts also could be adopted. As the father of adopted children, I 
confess to personal enthusiasm for this option.
  Nevertheless, the ethical question must be addressed: Is it more 
moral to throw away as medical waste blastocysts that exceed demand for 
implanting, or to allow them to be used by scientists to extract 
therapies for saving life?
  More precisely, which is more pro-life: throwing a blastocyst away in 
a dumpster or placing it on a Petri dish to develop a remedy for heart 
disease?
  The question today is about science and its promise. Tomorrow, a 
different set of questions may have to be addressed. Could a mother 
deny a child dying of cancer access to embryonic stem-cell therapy? 
Could a son or daughter deny a parent suffering from Alzheimer's or 
Parkinson's disease access to such therapies? Is it not pro-life to 
save and prolong life?
  On most political issues compromise is possible. On ethics, it is not 
so easy. Indeed, uncompromising approaches to ethics are generally 
considered admirable. The problem comes when values, as in this case, 
are in conflict.
  Morality is about means as well as ends. For citizens who believe 
nothing is more important than to protect life at conception, embryonic 
stem-cell research may be intolerable. For citizens who believe that 
the prospect of meaningful life begins in a mother, not a Petri dish, 
the moral imperative of attending the sick and alleviating illness is 
compelling.
  When one group of Americans considers embryonic stem-cell research 
immoral and another finds it ethically problematic to refuse to seek 
credible cures for life-threatening disease, the public goal can never 
be full agreement. But it can be mutual respect.
  One approach which this legislation advances is the notion of 
authorizing federal support for stem cell research involving only those 
lines derived from blastocysts that would otherwise be thrown away and 
that were not initially created for the purpose of research.
  I recognized that for some even this restrained approach amounts to 
hubris, to man tampering with nature. But this is what modern science 
is about: Care, to be sure, must be taken, particularly at this stage 
of scientific development, not to attempt to clone human life or toy 
with human reproduction. But careful, moral exploration into disease 
control is morally defendable. Indeed, for many of us it would be 
morally derelect to turn our backs on our ailing parents and sick 
children.
  Hence, I am compelled to vote to override this veto.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House, on 
reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the President to the 
contrary notwithstanding?
  Under the Constitution, this vote must be by the yeas and nays.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235, 
nays 193, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 388]

                               YEAS--235

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     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
     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
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     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)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     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
     Reichert
     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
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                               NAYS--193

     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 (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costello
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     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
     Hastings (WA)
     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
     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
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     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)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Evans
     Gutierrez
     Lewis (GA)
     McKinney
     Northup

[[Page H5451]]



                              {time}  1851

  Mr. SULLIVAN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. SHERMAN and Mr. MORAN of Virginia changed their vote from ``nay'' 
to ``yea.''
  So, two-thirds not having voted in favor thereof, the veto of the 
President was sustained and the bill was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________