[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 6 (Thursday, January 11, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H349-H392]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               STEM CELL RESEARCH ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2007

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 509 of House Resolution 
6 and as the designee of the majority leader, I call up the bill (H.R. 
3) to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for human 
embryonic stem cell research, and ask for its immediate consideration.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 11, 2007--On Page H349 the following appeared: Mr. 
DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 209 of House
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: Mr. DINGELL. Mr. 
Speaker, pursuant to section 509 of House


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                 H.R. 3

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Stem Cell Research 
     Enhancement Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH.

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

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

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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 509 of House Resolution 
6, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Boehner) each will control 90 minutes.

[[Page H350]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.


                             General Leave

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to insert extraneous material into the Record on the pending bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the House passed last year, on May 24, 2005, the Stem 
Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 by a vote of 238-194. On July 18, 
2006, the Senate followed suit and passed the bill by a vote of 63-37. 
The President then vetoed this legislation on July 19, the first and 
only veto of his 6 years in office.
  President Bush's veto came in the face of bipartisan and bicameral 
Congressional backing for the legislation, as well as strong public 
support for embryonic stem cell research. The language before us today 
is identical to the language we passed on May 24. It is identical to 
the language that passed the Senate on July 18. It is identical, 
regrettably, to the language vetoed by the President.
  By considering the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 today, 
we are reasserting our commitment and dedication and devotion to the 
passing of this lifesaving legislation. The time has come for it to be 
in law and for President Bush to join us in signing this legislation 
into law.
  Stem cells are the foundation cells for every organ, tissue and cell 
in the body. Embryonic stem cells, unlike adult stem cells, possess a 
unique ability to develop into any type of cell, and their capacity to 
do this exceeds any other self which we are aware now.
  Embryonic stem cell research holds the potential for developing 
treatments for many dreaded diseases, including Lou Gehrig's disease, 
cancer, cystic fibrosis, heart disease, lupus, multiple sclerosis, 
osteoporosis and pulmonary fibrosis.
  The unique properties of embryonic stem cells were not lost on 
everyone, and I will now quote from an individual who has thought 
rather considerably on this matter. On August 1, this statement was 
made:
  ``Scientists believe further research using stem cells offers great 
promise that could help improve the lives of those who suffer from many 
terrible diseases, from juvenile diabetes to Alzheimer's, from 
Parkinson's to spinal cord injuries. And while scientists admit they 
are not yet certain, they believe stem cells derived from embryos have 
unique potential. Most scientists, at least today, believe that 
research on embryonic stem cells offer the most promise because those 
cells have the potential to develop in all of the tissues of the 
body.''
  The man who said this was our beloved President, Mr. Bush, and I 
think it is time that the House should listen to his words and 
disregard his veto.
  I urge my colleagues to pass a piece of legislation that the public 
wants, that the scientific community needs, that will benefit our 
people and that will move forward scientific research of vast help and 
importance to our people.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to yield the 
remainder of my time to the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado 
(Ms. DeGette), and that she be permitted to control the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 3, a bill to expand 
taxpayer funding of human embryonic stem cell research. I support stem 
cell research with only one exception, research that requires the 
killing of human life. Taxpayer-funded stem cell research must be 
carried out in a way that is ethical and in a way that respects the 
sanctity of human life.
  Fortunately, ethical stem cell alternatives continue to flourish in 
the scientific community. Earlier this week we learned that amniotic 
non-embryonic stem cells may offer the same research possibility as 
stem cells obtained through the destruction of human embryos. We have 
also seen stem cells from noncontroversial sources, like umbilical cord 
blood, be used to treat humans afflicted with more than 70 afflictions. 
I think we need to be funding the research that shows the most promise.
  I am deeply disappointed today that Democrat leaders have pressed 
ahead with this vote, rather than having hearings and markups where 
breakthroughs like amniotic fluid cell research could have been fully 
examined. This research offers the potential for a new consensus 
approach to the difficult issue of stem cell research, and I am 
disappointed that the Democrat majority was not willing to allow time 
for this new development to be thoroughly examined.
  We all know what is going to happen with this bill. This bill is 
going to move through the House. It will move through the Senate and go 
to the White House, where it was vetoed last year, and it will be 
vetoed again.
  We have a bill that has been introduced by Mr. Bartlett from Maryland 
and Mr. Gingrey from Georgia that says, let's put more funding into 
amniotic stem cell research. This is a bill that I think the Congress 
can support, the House, the Senate and the White House, that really 
will provide new breakthroughs in medical science.

                              {time}  1045

  But that isn't going to be allowed today, and it is not going to be 
on the floor today. Instead, we are going to go through a political 
exercise that will get us nowhere. And for that, I am deeply 
disappointed.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly 2 years since the House of 
Representatives passed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act in an 
attempt to lift the crippling ban on lifesaving research. During those 
2 years, a lot has happened. The Senate overwhelmingly passed the bill, 
President Bush issued the first veto of his 6-year Presidency to kill 
it, new elections were held, and a rash of new pro-research Members 
won, in many cases defeating incumbents who oppose this research.
  Public support has surged for stem cells. Over 71 percent of the 
public now supports this research, a stunning 20 percent increase since 
the vote in 2005.
  There are other developments that have happened in the last 2 years. 
Great progress in research is being conducted overseas, out of the 
hands and out of the oversight of our distinguished scientists here at 
home. Stem cell research is proceeding unfettered and, in some cases, 
without ethical standards in other countries. And even when these 
countries have ethical standards, our failures are allowing them to 
gain the scientific edge over the U.S.
  In Japan, scientists have used embryonic stem cell therapies to 
reduce hepatic failure in mice. In the U.K., the government has now 
committed to spending $1.3 billion on stem cell research in the next 10 
years. Singapore is spending $7.5 billion on biomedical research over 
the next 5 years and is actively courting American stem cell 
researchers.
  The first embryonic stem cell line may have been created in the 
United States, but the majority of new lines are being created 
overseas. We were once on the cutting edge of this groundbreaking 
research, but we have now effectively handed over the reins to those 
outside our borders while our own researchers remain tethered by a 
restrictive 6-year-old policy and we still have no Federal ethical 
standards over this research.
  But there is one thing that has not changed since we last considered 
this bill. Millions of people in this country and around the world are 
still stricken by disease, accidents are still leaving people 
paralyzed, too many people are becoming victims of Alzheimer's, 
Parkinson's, heart disease, sickle cell anemia, diabetes, and many 
other debilitating diseases. Cancer hasn't been cured.
  Some suggest that it is Congress' role to tell researchers what kinds 
of cells to use, adult stem cells, cord blood, so-called ANT, amniotic, 
and others. I suggest we are not the arbiters of research. Instead, we 
should foster all of these methods, and we should

[[Page H351]]

adequately fund and have ethical oversight over all ethical stem cell 
research. Embryonic stem cell research has shown the most promise of 
almost any current research today for potentially curing these and 
hundreds of other diseases and injuries.
  The distinguished minority leader is wrong when he says amniotic stem 
cells are a substitute for embryonic stem cells. The researcher at Wake 
Forest University in fact says specifically that these cells are not a 
substitute, and we need to have both types of research, as well as all 
of the other kinds to have the maximum potential to cure disease.
  The minority leader said we need to foster the kind of research that 
has the most promise. And there is the one place we will agree today, 
because the most promise, all researchers agree, is held by embryonic 
stem cell research.
  Well, here we are again, and here we are going to come time after 
time until this bill passes. This bill will become law, and we will not 
tire in our efforts until it does for the millions of Americans who 
suffer from diseases.
  Mr. President, today, we want to give you another chance to do the 
right thing. Today, the House will vote to give hope to millions of 
Americans. I urge my colleagues to vote for life, to vote for hope, to 
vote ``yes'' on H.R. 3.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members that remarks 
are to be addressed to the Chair and not to the President.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton) and the remainder of my time to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Burgess) and I ask unanimous consent that they be allowed to 
control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) on 
the floor?
  Mr. BOEHNER. Not as yet.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman wish to yield first to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess)?
  Mr. BOEHNER. I will.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has yielded the remainder of 
his time to Mr. Burgess, and then 15 minutes of Mr. Burgess' time to 
Mr. Barton; is that correct?
  Mr. BOEHNER. That is correct.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas 
is recognized as the controller of the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the distinguished Republican leader for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, here we are back again, not quite two years from when we 
had this debate the last time, and a good deal has changed in the world 
of science over that 2-year time interval. Unfortunately, the bill that 
we have before us has not significantly changed.
  We have already heard mention of the amniotic fluid stem cells that 
are now available to open a broad new area of research. Have we had one 
hearing in our committee, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, of 
which the distinguished chairman spoke to us this morning? I think the 
American people would welcome us having a hearing to understand more 
about this promising new area of science. As it stands today, we will 
simply have to debate the bill on the merits of information that is 
well over 2 years old, and I think that is unfortunate.
  Mr. Speaker, regenerative medicine, the words themselves, speaks to 
great hope among the healer and patient alike that some of the most 
tragic of human afflictions may one day find relief. This concept is 
powerful. It is a powerful lure to participants on both sides of this 
debate. And I would stress, Mr. Speaker, that on both sides of this 
debate are people of good character and good will. We simply disagree 
about a single point. As we proceed with today's debate on H.R. 3, I 
would like to ask my colleagues whether there is any common ground by 
which the two sides may seek resolution of this conflict.
  The recent findings of the pleuripotent epithelial cells, an 
undifferentiated mesenchymal cell that is present in all amniotic fluid 
at all stages of fetal development, demonstrates how quickly the world 
has changed since we last held this debate less than a year ago. Mr. 
Speaker, we don't know, we don't know what the mesenchymal cell will do 
if it is extracted at 11 weeks versus 40 weeks. Wouldn't it be nice to 
have the researcher before our committee and be able to ask those 
questions so we may make the best possible judgment for the American 
people?
  Well, those individuals, the researchers at the Institute for 
Regenerative Medicine at Wake Forest, have determined these cells they 
have extracted from amniotic fluid can adapt and form other types of 
tissue, such as brain, muscle, and skeletal cells, and remain stable 
for years and not form tumors into those in whom they are implanted.
  That is a pretty powerful piece of information, Mr. Speaker. If I 
were given the choice of a stem cell that might cure an affliction but 
one might cause a tumor and the other wouldn't, I think that is 
information I would like to have before I made that decision.
  Clearly, this new technology, as it is further developed, may well 
prove a way toward that path of regenerative medicine without 
sacrificing nascent human life and in fact sacrificing human dignity.
  For almost a decade, clinicians have used what is called 
preimplantation genetics, where a single cell is taken from an early 
gestation, the 8-cell blastocyst, a single cell is taken through 
micromanipulative techniques without causing harm to the donor embryo. 
This single cell is then used for genetic studies.
  I have had patients in my practice who have undergone preimplantation 
genetics. But this same procedure could be used to create new embryonic 
stem cell lines without sacrificing human life and without endangering 
fundamental human dignity. This technique was proposed by Mr. Bartlett 
in the last Congress. It was brought up under suspension, and, 
unfortunately, did not pass. But I believe this Congress should be 
considering this again as a means towards achieving that elusive common 
ground between the two sides.
  As we have witnessed, science moves faster than we do here in the 
United States Congress. At the very least we should strive to defend 
life and attempt to establish the ethical boundaries of this 
potentially lifesaving research.
  Consider the words spoken by President Kennedy at his inaugural 
almost half a century ago: ``Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders 
of science instead of its terrors.'' H.R. 3 does not strike this 
balance and does not allow us to invoke the wonders of science. 
Instead, it offers a very vague outline posing as ethical guidelines 
but is in no such way an ethical guideline; and, unfortunately, as a 
consequence, human dignity is discarded by the wayside.
  We can do better, and we should do better. Instead, we offer false 
promises to those that suffer from some of the most debilitating 
chronic conditions and we fail to protect what is human life and erode 
the concept of humanity.
  Mr. Speaker, again, let me express my regret that we are not holding 
hearings in arguably what is the most powerful committee in this United 
States Congress, and that is the Committee on Energy and Commerce, so 
that we may fully evaluate this area of science.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman, for his information, has 
consumed 5\1/2\ minutes. If there is any uncertainty, the Chair wants 
to clarify it.
  Pursuant to the unanimous consent request of the gentleman from Ohio, 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) will control 15 minutes of the 
remaining time, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) will control 
the rest of that time. So those two gentlemen, pursuant to the request 
of the gentleman from Ohio, were recognized to control the time on that 
side; 15 minutes for Mr. Barton, the remainder of the time is left to 
Mr. Burgess.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am honored now to yield to the 
distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) 3 minutes.
  (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding and also in particular thank and recognize the gentlewoman 
from Colorado

[[Page H352]]

(Ms. DeGette) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for their 
exceptional leadership, and that of many others on the stem cell 
research bill who have fought so hard to bring us to where we are 
today. I am proud to be a partner with them in this effort.
  Mr. Speaker, America has waited a long time for the Stem Cell 
Research Enhancement Act, and I am proud to rise in support of H.R. 3 
and be a part of a Congress that has made this a top priority. This 
legislation has strong bipartisan support in both Chambers of Congress 
and enjoys the support of up to 70 percent of the American people. Most 
importantly, it offers hope and the promise of a cure to millions of 
people who are living with the constant challenges and burdens of 
chronic disease and disability.
  Mr. Speaker, when I was injured in an accidental shooting almost 26 
years ago, I was told that I would never walk again. Now, I always held 
out hope that someday that would change, that through the miracles of 
science and prayer, someday there would be a cure for spinal cord 
injuries.

                              {time}  1100

  It is only until now that that possibility of a cure has become truly 
real.
  I am the first to admit that my understanding of stem cell research 
has involved ongoing education, thought and prayer. As a pro-life 
Member of Congress, I have not taken my decision to support this 
legislation lightly. But I have come to the conclusion that being pro-
life also has to be about caring about those people who are living 
among us with some of life's most challenging conditions and diseases 
and caring about the possibility of both extending and improving the 
quality of life itself. That is what the promise of stem cell research 
offers.
  Over the years, I have had the good fortune to learn about stem cell 
research from some of America's most renowned scientists as well as 
pro-life leaders like Senator Orrin Hatch and a dear friend of mine who 
is certainly on my mind today, Christopher Reeve.
  My education on this issue has filled me with tremendous hope not 
only that stem cell research might lead one day to a cure for spinal 
cord injuries, but that one day a child with diabetes will no longer 
have to endure a lifetime of painful shots and tests. I truly believe 
that families will no longer one day have to watch in agony as loved 
ones with Parkinson's or Alzheimer's disease gradually decline. I am 
thrilled to be able to share this hope with millions of others.
  We live in exciting times, truly at the threshold of a new generation 
in medicine. Today, newly spinal-cord-injured patients, many of them 
teenagers as I was, are told about developing treatments and scientific 
progress. They face a world, very much the same challenges that I faced 
in 1980. But they also face a time with real hope and the real promise 
of a cure.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3. It is the right thing to do.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I don't disagree with a word that was just 
said.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Frank of Massachusetts). How much time 
does the gentleman yield himself?
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question? May I yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) before he begins the 15 
minutes?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. You may. Let me explain once again. Pursuant 
to the request of the gentleman from Ohio, the gentleman from Texas 
controls, as a matter of right, 15 minutes of the debate time. The 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) controls the remainder. Either may 
yield to anyone, including each other. So if the gentleman wishes, at 
this point, to yield to the gentleman from Texas, he may do that, or 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) may proceed under his own time. 
It is the gentleman's choice.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that we withdraw 
the unanimous consent request of the gentleman from Ohio.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman have a new unanimous 
consent request?
  Let me clarify where we stand. Both gentlemen from Texas have a right 
under the previous request to control time. The gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Barton) has 15 minutes. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) has 
the remainder of the time. They may be recognized at either time. 
Whichever one seeks recognition will be granted that recognition.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that patient clarification. In 
that case, I will reserve my time. And I am going to yield to Mr. 
Barton the 15 minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Well, you needn't do that. He already has 15 
minutes. So the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) is now recognized. 
And Mr. Burgess's time will be reserved.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is good to see you in the Chair. 
To have one of our distinguished parliamentarians is a positive on the 
body.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the Republican sponsor of the bill, 
Mr. Castle, at this time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3, the Stem 
Cell Research Enhancement Act, legislation I have authored with the 
distinguished lady from Colorado, Ms. DeGette, to ethically expand the 
current Federal embryonic stem cell research policy.
  We have a real opportunity to make history, to pass legislation that 
will jump start research and may lead to treatments and cures for 
countless diseases, including diabetes, HIV/AIDS, Parkinson's Disease, 
Alzheimer's, ALS, multiple sclerosis and cancer. There is overwhelming 
support for this research, with 70 percent of the American people 
backing it.
  There are also 500 universities, medical societies and advocacy 
groups backing this research, ranging from the American Medical 
Association and the Academy of Physicians to universities like the 
University of California and Harvard University and advocacy groups 
like the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation and the Michael J. Fox 
Foundation.
  This research may also provide a better understanding of the 
biological origins of certain diseases, as well as an opportunity for 
pharmaceutical testing.
  However, this Nation and, more importantly, our scientists are being 
held back by a policy that is out of date, short-sighted, arbitrary 
and, most of all, based on politics and not science.
  When the decision was made by President Bush in 2001 to allow Federal 
funding for stem cell research on lines that had already been created, 
it seemed that a compromise may have been struck. However, the number 
of lines has shrunk from 78 to 22, and all of the lines have been 
compromised.
  Since that time, over 150 new and improved stem cell lines have been 
created in the United States and throughout the world. Despite the fact 
that these lines are much easier for scientists to use and, in some 
cases, are disease specific, they are off limits to Federal 
researchers.
  Throughout this debate, you will hear many mistruths, and I think it 
is important to set the stage early about what this bill does and 
doesn't do. First, you will hear that this bill expands Federal 
funding. To the contrary, this bill has nothing to do with funding. It 
has to do with the source of the embryos and the quality of stem cell 
lines.
  Second, you will hear this bill discourages destruction of human 
life, or that it uses taxpayer dollars to destroy human life. To the 
contrary, this bill has nothing to do with destroying lives and 
everything to do with saving lives.
  It is important to understand we are only talking about embryos that 
are going to be thrown away otherwise as medical waste. We support all 
options for couples, including embryo adoption, but if the couple 
decides to discard their embryos as medical waste, we would like them 
to be available to research.
  You will hear this legislation will encourage the creation of embryos 
for the sake of research. Again, not true. Our bill specifically states 
that the embryos must have been created for the purpose of fertility 
treatment, and no money may have exchanged hands.
  Even worse, you will hear mistruths spread by a physician hired by 
the pro-life movement. Specifically, he says cures and treatments have 
been found using adult stem cells for 65 to 72 diseases. However, if 
you look at the science and not the hype, you will see a scientific 
research study published by three leading researchers in the Science 
Magazine this past summer who found that, in truth, the number is 9, 
far less than 65.

[[Page H353]]

  Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter this study into the Record.

                Adult Stem Cell Treatments for Diseases?

          (By Shane Smith, William Neaves, Steven Teitelbaum)

       Opponents of research with embryonic stem (ES) cells often 
     claim that adult stem cells provide treatments for 65 human 
     illnesses. The apparent origin of those claims is a list 
     created by David A. Prentice, an employee of the Family 
     Research Council who advises U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-
     KS) and other opponents of ES cell research (1).
       Prentice has said, ``Adult stem cells have now helped 
     patients with at least 65 different human diseases. It's real 
     help for real patients'' (2). On 4 May, Senator Brownback 
     stated, ``I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
     Record the listing of 69 different human illnesses being 
     treated by adult and cord blood stem cells'' (3).
       In fact, adult stem cell treatments fully tested in all 
     required phases of clinical trials and approved by the U.S. 
     Food and Drug Administration are available to treat only nine 
     of the conditions on the Prentice list, not 65 [or 72 (4)]. 
     In particular, allogeneic stem cell therapy has proven useful 
     in treating hematological malignancies and in ameliorating 
     the side effects of chemotherapy and radiation. Contrary to 
     what Prentice implies, however, most of his cited treatments 
     remain unproven and await clinical validation. Other claims, 
     such as those for Parkinson's or spinal cord injury, are 
     simply untenable.
       The references Prentice cites as the basis for his list 
     include various case reports, a meeting abstract, a newspaper 
     article, and anecdotal testimony before a Congressional 
     committee. A review of those references reveals that Prentice 
     not only misrepresents existing adult stem cell treatments 
     but also frequently distorts the nature and content of the 
     references he cites (5).
       For example, to support the inclusion of Parkinson's 
     disease on his list, Prentice cites Congressional testimony 
     by a patient (6) and a physician (7), a meeting abstract by 
     the same physician (8), and two publications that have 
     nothing to do with stem cell therapy for Parkinson's (9, 10). 
     In fact, there is currently no FDA-approved adult stem cell 
     treatment-and no cure of any kind-for Parkinson's disease.
       For spinal cord injury, Prentice cites personal opinions 
     expressed in Congressional testimony by one physician and two 
     patients (11). There is currently no FDA-approved adult stem 
     cell treatment or cure for spinal cord injury.
       The reference Prentice cites for testicular cancer on his 
     list does not report patient response to adult stem cell 
     therapy (12); it simply evaluates different methods of adult 
     stem cell isolation.
       The reference Prentice cites on non-Hodgkin's lymphoma does 
     not assess the treatment value of adult stem cell 
     transplantation (13); rather, it describes culture conditions 
     for the laboratory growth of stem cells from lymphoma 
     patients.
       Prentice's listing of Sandhoff disease, a rare disease that 
     affects the central nervous system, is based on a layperson's 
     statement in a newspaper article (14). There is currently no 
     cure of any kind for Sandhoff disease.
       By promoting the falsehood that adult stem cell treatments 
     are already in general use for 65 diseases and injuries, 
     Prentice and those who repeat his claims mislead laypeople 
     and cruelly deceive patients.


                               References

     1. Posted at the Web site of DoNoHarm, The Coalition of 
     Americans for Research Ethics (accessed 8 May 2006 at http://
www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm).
     2. D. Prentice, Christianity Today 49 (no. 10), 71 (17 Oct. 
     2005) (accessed 8 May 2006 at www.christianitytoday.com/ct/
2005/010/24.71.html).
     3. S. Brownback, ``Stem cells,'' Congressional Record, 4 May 
     2006 (Senate) (Page S4005-S4006) (accessed 8 May 2006 at 
     http://frwebgate6.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/
waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=122359256098+2+2+0 &WAI 
     Saction=retrieve).
     4. According the latest version of the list, accessed 12 July 
     2006.
     5. See chart compiling and analyzing Prentice's list of 65 
     diseases allegedly treated by adult stem cells at the 
     supplemental data repository available as Supporting Online 
     Material on Science Online at www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/
 full/1129987/DC1.
     6. D. Turner, Testimony before Senator Sam Brownback's 
     Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee on 14 July 2004 
     (accessed 8 May 2006 at http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/
testimony.cfm?id=1268&wit_id=3676).
     7. M. Levesque, Testimony before Senator Sam Brownback's 
     Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee on 14 July 2004 
     (accessed 8 May 2006 at http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/
testimony.cfm?id=1268&wit_id=3670).
     8. M. Levesque, T. Neuman, Abstract #702, Annual Meeting of 
     the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, 8 April 
     2002.
     9. S. Gill et al., Nat. Med. 9, 589 (2003).
     10. S. Love et al., Nat. Med. 11, 703 (2005).
     11. M. Levesque, Testimony before Senator Sam Brownback's 
     Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee on 14 July 2004 
     (accessed 8 May 2006 at http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/
testimony.cfm?id=1268&wit_id=3670); L. Dominguez, Testimony 
     before Senator Sam Brownback's Science, Technology and Space 
     Subcommittee on 14 July 2004 (accessed 8 May 2006 at http://
commerce.senate.gov/hearings/
testimony.cfm?id=1268&wit_id=3673); S. Fajt, Testimony before 
     Senator Sam Brownback's Science, Technology and Space 
     Subcommittee on 14 July 2004 (accessed 8 May 2006 at http://
commerce.senate.gov/hearings/
testimony.cfm?id=1268&wit_id=3674).
     12. K. Hanazawa et al., Int. J. Urol. 7, 77 (2000).
     13. M Yao et al., Bone Marrow Transpl. 26, 497 (2000).
     14. K Auge, ``Stem cells infuse kin with hope,'' Denver Post, 
     24 Aug. 2004.

     11 May 2006; accepted 13 July 2006.
     Published online 13 July 2006; 10.1126/science. 1129987.
     Include this information when citing this paper.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. There was a general permission granted under 
the request of the gentleman from Michigan so that any extraneous 
material may be entered under a unanimous consent request already 
granted.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out that adult 
stem cells were discovered in 1960, and embryonic stem cells were only 
isolated in 1998. And since 1998, there have been great advances in 
animal models in the areas of diabetes, spinal cord injury and macular 
degeneration.
  Finally, you will hear about the research concerning amniotic fluid 
stem cells conducted by Dr. Atala at Wake Forest University. While 
exciting, this is nothing new, nor do these stem cells have the same 
capacity to divide into all cell types in the body, as embryonic stem 
cells do. Yet you will hear opponents say they do.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter the letter in the Record on that 
as well.

                                         Wake Forest Institute for


                                        Regenerative Medicine,

                               Winston-Salem, NC, January 8, 2007.
     Hon. Diana DeGette,
     Hon. Michael Castle,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representatives DeGette and Castle: I am writing in 
     regard to my research that was published in Nature 
     Biotechnology that found that stem celts obtained from 
     amniotic fluid have been able to differendate into several 
     cell types. This research has the potential to open up an 
     important field of inquiry that could be critically important 
     to the development of treatments within the field of 
     regenerative medicine.
       I understand that some may be interpreting my research as a 
     substitute for the need to pursue other forms of regenerative 
     medicine therapies, such asthose involving embryonic stem 
     cells. I disagree with that assertion. It is very possible 
     that research involving embryonic stem cells will have 
     critical implications for advancing research into amniotic 
     fluid stem cells. It is essential that National Institute of 
     Health-funded researchers are able to fully pursue embryonic 
     stem cell research as a complement to research into other 
     forms of stem cells.
       Your legislation, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 
     2007, H.R. 3, would update the current federal embryonic stem 
     cell policy and allow federally funded researchers to conduct 
     research on an expanded set of embryonic stem cells within an 
     ethical framework. I believe this legislation would speed 
     science in the regenerative medicine field, and I support its 
     passage.
           Sincerely,
                                                Anthony Atala, MD.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair just would repeat that under a 
unanimous consent request from the gentleman from Michigan, Members 
already have permission to insert extraneous material into the Record.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, if it is appropriate, I would like to yield 
2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. To clarify, the gentleman has 67 minutes, 
these two would then come out of that, and may at any time rise to be 
recognized and yield to whomever he wishes.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 3, a 
bill that compels taxpayers to support the destruction of early human 
life.
  This legislation, which calls for taxpayer funding of embryonic stem 
cell research, is unnecessary.
  First, it is already legal to conduct research on human embryos with 
private or State funds. It is also legal to conduct research on 
embryonic stem cell lines that come from human embryos already 
destroyed prior to August 9 of 2001. Thus, the debate today is not 
aimed at stopping embryonic stem cell research; it is aimed at 
prohibiting the Federal funding of it because it is so controversial.
  Second, plenty of more successful alternatives of non-embryonic stem 
cell research already exist and are treating

[[Page H354]]

patients every day. Despite a quarter-century's research in mouse 
embryonic stem cells and 7 years in human variety, embryonic stem cells 
have yet to yield any successful clinical trials in humans. Adult stem 
cells, however, have treated patients suffering from 72 different 
diseases in published clinical applications. Researchers have also 
achieved similar results with stem cells derived from umbilical cord 
blood, treating more than 70 different types of diseases.
  And just last week, Wake Forest and Harvard University announced 
breakthrough technology in amniotic fluids.
  In May of 2006, a poll conducted by the International Communications 
Research showed 48 percent of Americans oppose Federal funding of stem 
cell research that requires the destruction of human embryos, and only 
39 percent support such funding.
  I believe the most effective way to counter disease in the long run 
is to support research that will prevent the occurrence of the disease. 
That is why I strongly supported efforts in 1998 to double the funding 
for the National Institutes of Health, which we accomplished over a 5-
year period of time. We should continue to prioritize that research and 
continue to work on the stem cell research that does not involve the 
taking of the human life.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield now 2 minutes to 
the distinguished new Member from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from Colorado for her 
efforts on this issue which are so important to America.
  Mr. Speaker, when I think of stem cell research, I think of Ronald 
Reagan slumbering through the twilight of his life with Alzheimer's, 
and I think of Christopher Reeve, Superman, laid low by paralysis and 
the host of physical ailments that accompany paralysis. Those are 
images we all share in our national consciousness.
  When I think of my father's struggles with Alzheimer's, I think how 
science might one day through stem cell research find a way to prevent 
others from suffering as he did and as my mother did as his caretaker.
  Many people like to frame the stem cell debate as pro-life and pro-
choice. For Ronald Reagan and Christopher Reeve, the question was a 
matter that they had no choice in. And for each public face of a 
political leader or a movie star, there are thousands of ordinary 
citizens like my father who suffer daily from diseases for which there 
are no cures.
  My hometown, Memphis, Tennessee, is the proud home of St. Jude 
Children's Research Hospital. St. Jude is the patron saint of forgotten 
and impossible causes. Saint Jude's Hospital has given hope where no 
hope existed. It has made possible the impossible. This is because St. 
Jude is a research hospital focused on medical advancement.
  Let us each remember that science is our friend, not our foe, and we 
must embrace science. The issue of stem cell research should not be a 
political football tossed about with callous disregard for the very 
real suffering of people with Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, spinal cord 
injuries, cancer, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, 
osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. We must not tie the hands of 
scientists and physicians with the bureaucracy and red tape. We must 
commit ourselves to the health of our citizenry. Like St. Jude, we must 
remember the forgotten, and we must have the vision to see 
possibilities in what appears impossible.
  I ask all of my Members to join in voting for this bill.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady 
from Florida, the distinguished Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in very 
strong support of H.R. 3, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.
  I stand with 500 of America's most respected research groups in 
support of this bill. The bottom line is that this bill is about saving 
and improving lives.
  As a mother and grandmother, I fear that the untapped potential of 
stem cell research may be falling by the wayside. Let us remember, only 
when the embryo is implanted in a uterus to grow can life be sustained.
  Unless a couple has an option of donating remaining embryos, a 
failure to pay storage fees means the embryos will be disposed of as 
medical waste.
  Listen up, America. H.R. 3 gives us a choice. We can use the promise 
of embryonic stem cell research to save lives, or we can let that 
promise be thrown away.
  Millions of people around the country support this life-affirming and 
life-enhancing research. People with cancer, Parkinson's and 
Alzheimer's want this bill to pass. Your friends and neighbors and your 
constituents back home want this bill to pass because it gives hope 
where hope doesn't exist now.
  It will let the research on stem cells continue under ethical 
guidelines and will provide millions of Americans suffering from 
debilitating and terminal diseases the hope that they need and want.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill. And I certainly commend 
Ms. DeGette, as well as Mr. Castle, for their leadership on this bill.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to recognize and 
yield 3 minutes to a new Member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Walberg).
  Mr. WALBERG. Thank you for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I am honored to come before you today and join my 
distinguished colleagues to address an issue close to my heart. My 
initial entry into politics came as a member of a right-to-life 
organization, my home county of Lenawee, Michigan. I am proud to say 
that during my 16 years in the Michigan House of Representatives, I 
established a 100 percent pro-life voting record.
  As I begin my first term in the U.S. House with the same ardent 
commitment to the sanctity of life, I want to preface my remarks by 
saying I wholeheartedly support stem cell research in all cases except 
one, any form of research that requires the eradication of human life.
  The legislation this Congress is considering not only destroys human 
life and could ultimately lead to human cloning, but also is 
antiquated. Embryonic stem cell research has seen consistently 
disappointing and with fruitless results, while nearly every month more 
studies come out showing that ethical, adult stem cell research 
continues to flourish.
  Just this week my wife and I were heartened to learn about stem cells 
derived from amniotic fluid and placentas. It is time for Congress to 
catch up with the remarkable and ethical developments taking place in 
the scientific community.
  In truth, this debate isn't really even about the science of stem 
cell research, but rather how such research will be financed. Taxpayers 
should not be expected to fund this research, especially when it 
continues to be illegal in the private sector, though unsuccessful to 
date.
  On behalf of the men and women in my district and across the pro-life 
districts of the country, I urge my colleagues to cast a vote for both 
the sanctity of life and fiscal responsibility.
  This vote was made even more personal and poignant to me this past 
Sunday when I read an article talking about a couple who will be giving 
birth to a child this next week as a result of having an embryo saved 2 
weeks after Katrina hit, where literally National Guard troops, the 
Governor of Louisiana, troops from Illinois as well, moved literally 
hell and high water to save not only this couple's embryo, but 1,400 
other embryos.
  The question comes, if we are going to talk about discarded embryos, 
or those not wanted, which ones of those 1,400 that were saved as a 
result of moving hell and high water by our government would be the 
ones that we would discard?
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to support life and to support 
good science and vote against this proposal.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished new Member from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire) for his maiden 
floor speech.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. Having 
worked for a large academic medical center, I have

[[Page H355]]

seen the promise that embryonic stem cell research holds for Americans 
suffering from chronic disabilities such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, 
diabetes, and spinal cord injuries.
  We all know people with these disabilities and a vote for this bill 
is a vote for them. This bill says specifically that it only applies to 
embryos that would otherwise be discarded by the fertility clinics. So 
a vote for this bill is a pro-life vote. We must pass this bill for the 
millions of Americans that suffer from debilitating medical conditions 
today and the millions more that will tomorrow.
  This is something that is deeply personal to me. I am a pro-life 
Democrat. The reason I am supporting this bill is because this is a 
pro-life vote. There is nothing more important that we can do in this 
Congress than to support life. This is a pro-life vote. I urge my 
colleagues to pass this bill.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of ethical, moral, and effective 
stem cell research. This debate is not whether embryonic stem cell 
research is permitted. It already is. This debate is not about whether 
the Federal Government should fund embryonic stem cell research. It 
already does. What I do believe is that embryonic stem cell research 
crosses ethical boundaries, and that is the bigger question today. But 
given the track record of stem cell research, where should we focus 
taxpayers' dollars today?
  Now, this is bowl season in America, championship season. So we go to 
the scoreboard to see where we are with stem cell research in this 
country today, and the score is very clear. Adult stem cell research, 
there are 72 clinical applications currently available today and more 
being developed. Where are we with embryonic stem cell research today? 
We are at zero. So the score today is 72-0.
  So you can talk about the ethical and the moral issues, and certainly 
I stand on the side of life. But when we start talking about one of the 
other stewardships that this body has, it is what is our responsibility 
to the taxpayers with the limited amount of dollars that we have for 
research in this country today. Certainly one of the things that we 
should be looking at is results, a novel thing for Congress sometimes 
to look at.
  I come from the private sector recently to Congress. We didn't invest 
our money in things that were losers. One of the things we know today 
is that currently embryonic stem cell research is not yielding any 
clinical applications that we can use in an effective way.
  So doesn't it make sense that as we sit down and allocate our 
resources, look at our research patterns as we move forward, we ought 
to be investing our money where we are getting results? Certainly there 
are a lot of people who will get up and talk and make emotional 
appeals. I am not insensitive to that.
  There are a lot of people that have huge issues going on today in 
their lives. One of the things we want to do is make sure that we are 
applying Federal resources in a way that we can actually benefit from 
them and not talk about the politics.
  So if you want to vote for effective stem cell research in this 
country today, you are going to want to vote against H.R. 3, the Stem 
Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard from several speakers on the other side 
that allegedly adult stem cells have cured a myriad of diseases. 
Apparently, the scorecard is now up to 72. In fact, as the researchers 
have shown, Dr. Shane Smith, William Neaves and Steven Teitelbaum, the 
opponents say that a myriad of diseases have been cured by adult stem 
cells, but, in fact, adult stem cell treatments fully tested, fully 
tested in all required phases of clinical trials, have cured nine 
conditions, not 65 or 72; and all of those conditions were blood-
related conditions.
  They were not the kinds of conditions that embryonic stem cells have 
shown promise for and have shown hope for. Embryonic stem cells have 
only been around for about 8 years, and the President's restrictions 
have greatly hampered research; but, nonetheless, these cells show 
great promise.
  The researchers conclude: ``By promoting the falsehood that adult 
stem cell treatments are already in general use for 65 or more diseases 
and injuries, Prentice and those who repeat his claims mislead lay 
people and cruelly deceive patients.''
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I want to thank Congresswoman DeGette and Congressman 
Castle for bringing this bill before the House. It is something for me 
that is personal. I have a child with epilepsy.
  Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, this bill holds out promise for millions 
and millions of people across the country, whether they have 
Alzheimer's or diabetes or Parkinson's or Huntington's or someone who 
has epilepsy. It is something that we need to allow science to move 
forward on. It is this kind of promise, this kind of opportunity, and 
it is my job, I believe, as a Congressman, and it is this House's job, 
to improve people's lives. This has been done in so many laboratories, 
but now is being hampered.
  I want to thank Congresswoman DeGette and Congressman Castle for the 
way they have managed this particular bill. I want to thank the House 
for the way it has been civil and respectful of both sides of the aisle 
on both sides of the issue.
  This is one where there are firm convictions on either side. But for 
someone like me, who has a child with epilepsy, where there is hope, 
there is promise for her, that she can get better from this disease, 
this is something we need to pass, we must pass.
  This is a pro-life bill, as one of my colleagues said earlier, and I 
urge the passage of this bill. I ask all of our colleagues to support 
this bill, and I hope that the President, Mr. Speaker, will take a 
second look at this and will certify and support this bill and not veto 
it as he has in the past.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago I talked about the process and 
the people that convinced me to vote for H.R. 810. I discussed what the 
idea of pro-life means to me. I remembered my late husband, Bill 
Emerson, to this body and talked about the victims of cancer and 
paralysis and muscular dystrophy and dementia in my district and 
throughout the Nation. We talked about something upon which we can all 
agree: human life is precious.
  It is a sad reality, though, that human embryos are discarded in this 
country every day. They are certified as waste and disposed of in the 
earliest stages of their prenatal lives.
  Defeating this legislation will not change that fact. Embryos that 
can't live outside the mother's womb will be discarded regardless of 
what we do today.
  Where we have the opportunity to make a difference is to take the 
pleuripotent stem cells which hold great promise for medical research 
and the afflictions I mentioned earlier and use them to help other 
precious lives survive, to defeat diseases for which we know no cures 
and to give a fulfilling, meaningful existence to millions. Like all 
medical breakthroughs, it will take a lot of hard work and a little 
luck.
  But I can't stand in this House today and say to a little boy I know 
with muscular dystrophy named James, to a young man suffering from 
paralysis in Campbell, Missouri named Cody, to my daughter's friend, 
Will, I will not say to them, never. I will not stand in the way of 
their progress. I will not help them extinguish their dreams for 
themselves and others with their same afflictions. I will not let any 
of our short lives be shortened unnecessarily so.
  This bill is not about hope. This bill is about the pursuit of cures 
for diseases that afflict us, diseases that take our loved ones and 
destroy families and freeze us in single moments of time in which we 
become helpless. This bill is about fighting back and not letting any 
part of human life, no matter how small, be wasted.
  No one I have met who has urged the support of this issue to me would 
mind

[[Page H356]]

going to the grave untreated by the benefits of embryonic stem cell 
research as long as we are trying, as long as we never say never to 
them. No one I have ever met who has urged the support of this issue to 
me, Mr. Speaker, would mind going to the grave untreated by the 
benefits of embryonic stem cell research as long as we are trying, as 
long as we never say never to them.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I would point out in response to one of the previous speakers that 
embryonic stem cell research has actually been present on the animal 
model for over 25 years.
  Mr. Speaker, it is now my great pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, in one of my favorite plays of all 
time, ``Inherit the Wind,'' the attorney Henry Drummond is talking to 
his client and his client's fiancee about a lesson of life based upon 
an experience that Drummond had when he was 7 years old, and by his own 
admission, a self-described expert on rocking horses.
  He saw in the store window, Golden Dancer, a rocking horse with a red 
mane, blue eyes, beautiful gold with purple spots on it, and there 
would always be a plate glass window between him and Golden Dancer 
because it would have cost a week of his father's salary. But on his 
next birthday as he woke, he saw at the foot of his bed, Golden Dancer. 
His mother had scrimped on groceries, his father had worked nights for 
a month and they had purchased the very high-priced Golden Dancer.
  He jumped out of the bed and jumped on to the rocking horse. As he 
began to rock, it broke. It busted in half. Golden Dancer was made of 
rotten wood. Despite all the glitz and glamour around it, it was held 
together by spit and sealing wax. They had purchased Golden Dancer, but 
at too high a price.

                              {time}  1130

  Often for us as individuals as well as society, we go after Golden 
Dancers, and they are purchased at too high a price. Embryonic stem 
cell research in my opinion is a Golden Dancer, and it would be 
purchased at too high a price. It is a glitzy golden dream that is out 
there.
  Last year we were discussing this bill, a lot of doctors and genetic 
researchers on this floor, the overwhelming majority of whom were 
opposed to this process, because we can do the research without having 
to go through objectionable processes and procedures to do it, without 
having to deal with the issue of innocent life.
  If embryos are being destroyed, it is not right that taxpayer money 
should be used to expand that process in what I find to be a morally 
objectionable way and objectionable process regardless of what that 
Golden Dancer may or may not be. To me, this is still an issue of 
ethics: Does the manner in which we spend our tax dollars promote a 
policy that one form of innocent life at a stage is more important than 
another innocent life at a different stage? Will we, by our tax 
policies, condone tax spending, condone a policy that says innocent 
life can be destroyed for utilitarian purposes? Because if we do that, 
whatever the reason may be, in my contention that cheapens society and 
it cheapens us, and it gives us a cavalier attitude of life at the 
beginning of the process which leads to a cavalier attitude of life at 
the end of the process and who knows in between.
  This is a Golden Dancer that for me is too high a price for what it 
does to us as a people and as a society.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished new Member from Ohio (Mr. Space).
  Mr. SPACE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask you to support Federal 
funding of embryonic stem cell research. My remarks today are made, Mr. 
Speaker, both as a legislator and as a father.
  My wife, Mary, and I are the proud parents of two beautiful children. 
My youngest child, my son, Nicholas is 16 years old. He is a great kid, 
typical in so many ways. He loves football, argues with his sister and 
struggles with the awkward challenges of adolescence. But Nicholas also 
suffers from juvenile diabetes.
  For the last 10 years, he has waged a battle against this devastating 
disease, undergoing thousands of injections and blood tests. He has 
done so without complaint and without self pity as his parents, my wife 
and I, are extraordinarily proud.
  As Nicholas approaches adulthood, Mr. Speaker, our family fears for 
what the future brings. For as difficult as this disease is to live 
with on a daily basis, most troubling of all is what potentially awaits 
someone who suffers from this disease: amputations, blindness, kidney 
failure, even premature death.
  Mr. Speaker, we have before us not simply an opportunity to help my 
son and the millions of other Americans who depend upon the promise of 
this science; we have an obligation. This research represents the only 
meaningful hope for a cure in my son's lifetime.
  While this measure is likely to pass, our President is likely to veto 
it. I am addressing my remarks not to the cameras, not to those who are 
inclined to vote for this legislation, but to those of you who do not 
have the will to stand up to a Presidential veto. We as a Congress must 
be resolute in making life better for our citizens. We are compelled to 
promote a society where the value of life rules supreme, where 
compassion prevails and where light overcomes darkness.
  The measure before you does not destroy life; it potentially gives 
life to those who need it, and it affords purpose to embryos that are 
otherwise destined for destruction. There is no time to wait. For every 
hour we debate, lives are being lost. This is no Golden Dancer. This is 
indeed a golden opportunity.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues who have spoken before 
me on the side of life have been extremely eloquent, and I am very glad 
that they have spoken this morning.
  I have listened to the debate this morning, and I want to say that 
many people are very cynical about our government and about Congress in 
general, and I can understand why this debate would make even more 
people cynical. To say to the American people that by approving more 
Federal dollars to do embryonic stem cell research would cure all of 
these diseases that are brought out and that those of us who oppose 
spending more Federal dollars on embryonic stem cell research are 
stopping the advance of science is one of the most cynical things I 
have ever heard said on this floor and, I think, will tend to make more 
people think that Members of Congress who are pro-life are cruel and 
unkind.
  As my colleagues have said, the score board is 72-0. Nothing 
efficacious has come out of embryonic stem cell research in 25 years of 
research. In fact, a lot of negative things have happened. And to 
mislead the American public is cruel. It is just absolutely cruel to 
make people think again that they could be cured.
  Thirty years ago, I lost a side of my right eye completely from a 
detached retina. You can't implant retinas. You can't transplant 
retinas. The only thing that could possibly help me would be a new 
retina to be grown.
  So I support stem cell research. I support Dr. Atala's work in North 
Carolina at Wake Forest because they are actually growing organs from 
people's own stem cells. That research has enormous potential. Adult 
stem cell research has done good things. Embryonic stem cell research 
creates tumors and rejection. Dr. Atala would tell you that himself. It 
is not the way to go.
  What we need to be doing is promoting stem cell research and to do 
all that we can. My husband is diabetic. I am very empathetic to the 
fact that research could do a lot to help us with diseases, but this is 
not the route to go. Killing human life does not have to be 
accomplished to create efficacious treatments for people and diseases.
  Again, I am so disappointed in the way this has been presented to the 
American people. We are doing embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic 
stem cell research and stem cell research are two different things. My 
colleagues never use the word embryonic. They always say stem cell 
research. Pro-lifers support stem cell research; we just don't support 
the destruction of life to get there.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

[[Page H357]]

  Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker alleged that Dr. Atala, who is 
doing the embryonic stem cell research, said that it is not the way to 
go, that embryonic stem cell research is not the way to go.
  In fact, in the letter that my distinguished colleague Mr. Castle has 
already submit for the record, Dr. Atala specifically says that 
amniotic stem cell research is not a substitute for embryonic research. 
And he further says: It is essential that National Institutes of Health 
funded researchers are able to fully pursue embryonic stem cell 
research as a complement to research into other forms of stem cells.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished new member from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Mr. Speaker, if I could just tell one story about a small State in 
the northeast, Connecticut, a place where we made 2 years ago a 
historic $100 million investment in stem cell research. And there will 
be others that will speak much more ably about the moral and ethical 
and scientific rationales for the bill before us; let me talk about the 
practical rationales from our standpoint in Connecticut.
  Our success investing $10 million a year in stem cell research was a 
bittersweet one, because it was only made necessary by the failure of 
the Federal Government to act on this question. We responded to the 
cries of thousands of families throughout Connecticut that wanted us to 
give them not only hope but tangible support when it came to 
researching cures and treatments for the diseases that afflicted their 
family members.
  The problem being that, because of the Federal prohibition on the use 
of Federal funds for scientific research, Connecticut is now having to 
do back flips to find ways to invest our money. We are having to invest 
in bricks and mortar, invest in stealing sciences from other of the few 
remaining States that allow for State funding of stem cell research.
  This is a highly inefficient means to spend the State of 
Connecticut's money, and one of the reasons that I was sent down to 
this august body was to make stem cell research, to make investment in 
scientific research, not a 50-State strategy, but to make it a national 
priority.
  We hear from people on the other side of the aisle, I think, a very 
wise caution that we shouldn't make promises today or throughout the 
debate that embryonic stem cell research will definitely lead to a cure 
of this disease or a treatment for that disease. But the point being 
here is that there are no promises, there are no guarantees, but that 
what our families wants is a removal of the ceiling that we have placed 
on scientific research in our States and our Federal institutions so 
that that hope may become a reality.
  From the citizens of Connecticut who have made great strides on this, 
as the author of that bill in the State of Connecticut, I am very 
proud, ten times prouder than I was to vote for it in the State of 
Connecticut, to vote for it today.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).
  (Mrs. SCHMIDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3, and urge a ``no'' vote 
on this question before the House. I strongly oppose H.R. 3, the Stem 
Cell Research Enhancement Act. A human embryo is human life.
  H.R. 3 would use Federal tax dollars, tax dollars of hardworking 
Americans to fund the destruction of human life. This research is 
already permitted. The debate is not about stopping it but about who is 
going to pay for it.
  To my colleagues who support this legislation, I share your concern 
for finding future medical treatments to improve lives, but disagree 
with your focus on embryonic stem cell research. There are other 
promising techniques to produce stem cells, techniques that do not 
involve the destruction of human life. Moreover, these techniques have 
actually achieved results. Cord blood has saved the lives of people 
with leukemia and other blood-related diseases.
  This week a series of encouraging research reports reveal the promise 
of stem cells obtained from amniotic fluid. These share the 
characteristics of embryonic stem cells, but obtaining them does not 
damage the embryo. We should focus on funding alternative sources of 
stem cell research, something we can all support.
  H.R. 3 advances the proposition that this body must choose between 
science and ethics. That is not the case. Let's be aggressive in 
looking at alternative ways to save human lives through stem cell 
research, ways that do not compromise our moral values and the lives of 
the unborn.
  I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill and work towards 
finding and funding methods that do not involve the destruction of 
human life.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am now delighted to yield 2 minutes to 
another new Member, the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Patrick J. Murphy).
  Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as 
an original cosponsor of this legislation and a strong supporter of the 
medical miracle of embryonic stem cell research.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a woman named Shelbie Oppenheimer who is 
watching today in my district of New Hope, Pennsylvania, who simply 
wants to see her 8-year-old daughter Isabella go to her senior prom in 
10 years.
  Shelbie lives with her husband Jeff and their 8-year-old daughter, 
and over a decade ago, Shelbie was diagnosed with ALS, Lou Gehrig's 
disease. She was 28 years old. Shelbie vowed to fight the disease and 
looked at embryonic stem cell research as her best and perhaps only 
hope to fill her dream of seeing her daughter grow up.

                              {time}  1145

  Now confined to a hospital bed in her own living room, Shelbie 
continues to fight on. Though forced to speak through a respirator, she 
told me, ``Patrick, my voice is too soft to be heard, so please tell my 
story.''
  There are countless stories of heartache and hope across America just 
like Shelbie's. Mr. Speaker, I know Shelbie is watching us today, and I 
hope we make her proud.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from the Keystone State of Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Dent).
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
  (Mr. DENT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3, the 
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007.
  Although the purpose of this legislation is straightforward, the 
significance cannot be understated. H.R. 3 would expand the limited 
number of embryonic stem cell lines currently available for federally 
funded research. Permitting research on additional embryonic stem cell 
lines will advance a field that scientists agree holds the greatest 
potential to provide groundbreaking therapies for some of the most 
vexing diseases of our time.
  I believe stem cell research, all forms of stem cell research, adult, 
cord blood, amniotic, embryonic, should be pursued. This discussion is 
not about a competition. The promise of stem cell research, to find 
treatments for the most devastating diseases like Parkinson's, juvenile 
diabetes, coronary heart diseases, cancer and spinal cord injuries, is 
too great not to explore every single possibility.
  That said, embryonic stem cell research raises serious ethical 
questions that have been raised by some of my colleagues today. I 
strongly believe that H.R. 3 is the most responsible way to ensure that 
we are observing the highest possible standards of ethical and clinical 
practice by setting meaningful ethical guidelines for embryonic stem 
cell research that will serve as the benchmark for scientific study 
throughout the world. H.R. 3 provides these ethical guidelines.
  First, in order to be considered for this research, the donated cells 
must come from an in vitro fertilization clinic, have been created for 
the purpose of fertility treatment and be in excess of the clinical 
need of the individuals seeking treatment.

[[Page H358]]

  Second, the in vitro facility has to certify that these cells would 
be otherwise discarded if not donated and that the cells are not 
destined for implantation.
  Third, the donors of these cells have to sign a written consent form 
providing for such a donation and confirm that they have not received 
any inducements, financial or otherwise, to make the donation.
  We took one important step last year in Congress in addressing these 
ethical dilemmas that are raised by this emerging field of science. We 
enacted a law which prohibits the practice of fetal farming where human 
fetal tissue would be deliberately created for the purpose of 
scientific research. H.R. 3 will take another step in ensuring that 
research is adhered to the highest possible principles of scientific 
inquiry and respects critical ethical boundaries while advancing some 
of the most critical research of our time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, by now, most of my colleagues know that, on Sunday, a 
team of scientists from Wake Forest University and Harvard Medical 
School announced the stunning news that they had discovered a new, 
readily available source of potentially lifesaving stem cells derived 
exclusively from amniotic fluid.
  For those of us who passionately support extending ethical stem cell 
research to effectuate cures and mitigate disease, news of this 
breakthrough was particularly encouraging. News media around the world 
seemed to appreciate the enormity and the historical significance of 
the findings. ABC News said, ``Stem cells discovered in amniotic fluid: 
Researchers say stem cells can be taken from amniotic fluid with no 
harm to mother or fetus.'' They pointed out that stem cells they drew 
from the amniotic fluid donated by pregnant women hold much the same 
promise as embryonic stem cells.
  The L.A. Times said, ``Stem cells in amniotic fluid show great 
promise, a study finds they offer key therapeutic benefits but avoid 
controversy.''
  Mr. Speaker, for those of us who strongly support taxpayer funding 
for ethical stem cell research, and I would note parenthetically that 
the Bush administration spent over $600 million on stem cell research 
at NIH in 2006 alone, the news of this breakthrough suggests that we 
can and must do more to finance this kind of ethical research.
  And for those of us who oppose taxpayer subsidies to facilitate the 
destruction of human embryos, this latest breakthrough is yet another 
vindication and underscores the fact that ethical alternatives to 
embryo-destroying research are available now, and they are likely to 
expand.
  Let me reiterate one more time, especially for the press, that we on 
the pro-life side strongly support stem cell research as long as it 
does not require the killing of human embryos. In that vein, let me 
remind my colleagues that I was the prime sponsor of the bipartisan 
Stem Cell Therapeutic Research Act of 2005, a law that authorized $265 
million for cord blood and bone marrow stem cell programs, including a 
new nationwide program to collect, research and help disseminate these 
vital stem cells.
  By way of update, last fall, pursuant to the new law, the Bush 
administration issued contracts to establish a national inventory of 
umbilical cord blood. Contracts totaling $12 million were awarded and 
more contracts are expected this year. The establishing of this 
national cord blood inventory marks the beginning of the effort to 
increase the total number of available umbilical cord blood units, 
making lifesaving cord blood stem cells available to Americans in need 
of a transplant. I believe that is really good news to patients 
suffering from a myriad of diseases such as sickle cell anemia and 
leukemia.
  Mr. Speaker, it was just 6 months ago, in July, on this floor that 
opponents of Roscoe Bartlett's alternative pluripotent stem cell 
legislation belittled and scoffed that adult and cord blood stem cells 
were capable of pluripotency, the ability of stem cells to grow into 
any cell in the body. Despite the fact that numerous scientists had 
published findings of pluripotency in cord blood stem cells and adult 
stem cells, Ms. DeGette dismissed alternative sources for pluripotent 
stem cells as ``fake.''
  She called it ``fake research that doesn't really exist'' and that 
``alternative methods for creating pluripotent stem cells are not a 
real scientific prospect at this time.''
  Mr. Speaker, that statement was false then, and it is false now. The 
scientific evidence clearly refutes it. In 2005, researchers from the 
University of Minnesota Medical School verified that umbilical cord 
blood stem cells expressed pluripotency genes and can repair 
neurological damage.
  In like manner, researchers at the University of Pittsburgh 
demonstrated that placental stem cells express pluripotency genes and 
potentially form any tissue with no signs of tumor formation. As I 
think my colleagues know by now, tumor formation is a catastrophic 
problem with embryonic stem cells.
  Recently, researchers in France and Switzerland discovered that they 
could turn pluripotent bone marrow stem cells into insulin-secreting 
cells, an important step in curing diabetes, and the list goes on.
  And now Wake Forest has come to this same conclusion, this time about 
amniotic-fluid-derived stem cells. And I will quote from the report. 
This is their report issued this weekend: ``We conclude,'' the authors 
say, ``that amniotic-fluid-derived stem cells are pluripotent stem 
cells capable of giving rise to multiple lineages including 
representatives of all three embryonic germ layers. Newsweek got it, 
and they also talked about it as well: ``A New Era Begins: Stem Cells 
derived from amiotic fluid show great promise in the lab and may end 
the divisive ethical debate once and for all.''
  Let me just finally say, where will this all take us if this bill 
were to be passed and signed into law? We would see the demise, the 
destruction over time, if it worked, of millions of embryos. Let me 
just quote Robert Lanza, medical director of Advanced Cell Technology, 
an advocate of embryonic stem cell research, who said that because of 
the likelihood of immune rejection, it may require, his words, 
``millions'' of embryos to be destroyed. Is that the future you want to 
promote with the DeGette bill? Millions of embryos killed? Let's adopt 
them, as we are seeing now.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Frank of Massachusetts). The gentleman 
may state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. What would I need to do to yield the time I am 
controlling to Mr. Castle?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Make a unanimous consent request to do that.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and ask unanimous consent that 
he be allowed to control that time.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 11, 2007--On Page H358 the following appeared: gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Castle) and
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle) and


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished new Member from Florida (Mr. Klein).
  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, my name is Ron Klein, and I 
represent Florida's 22nd Congressional District, which is in Southeast 
Florida. I am truly honored to be here today and to be part of this 
incredibly important effort led by Congresswoman Diana DeGette and 
Congressman Mike Castle, both of whom have been relentless crusaders 
toward leading this bipartisan effort in Congress to expand the use of 
embryonic stem cell research.
  As a member of the Florida State Senate for the past 10 years, 
leading efforts to utilize and fund embryonic stem cell research was 
not just a priority of mine but a passion. We all have our own family 
stories about why medical cures need to be discovered today, not 10 
years from now.
  In my district, which includes Ft. Lauderdale, Boca Raton, Pompano 
Beach and West Palm Beach, we have so many retirees who moved to 
Florida to live out their golden years. But as they age, as we know 
with our own

[[Page H359]]

families, many of them are afflicted with Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and 
many other serious ailments. To them, the stem cell battle is 
critically important, and every day that passes without scientists and 
researchers having all the tools at their disposal is another day of 
suffering.
  From juvenile diabetes to paralysis, the potential of stem cell 
research in all of its forms presents one of humanity's greatest leaps 
toward the ultimate goal of preserving, prolonging and improving the 
quality of our lives.
  Funding stem cell research is also a great investment in our future, 
not only from a personal health standpoint but also from an economical 
and cost-efficiency perspective. Finding cures and therapies may reduce 
the cost of hospitalization and other expensive aspects of our health 
care system. It will also create careers and jobs in the 21st Century 
that will lead the world.
  I am incredibly proud to be part of this effort to increase stem cell 
funding resources, and I look forward to casting my vote and doing 
whatever is necessary to support comprehensive stem cell research and 
funding in the United States.
  Thank you for your attention, your vote, and thank you to the 
millions of Americans who are watching and waiting.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to yield 5 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Linder.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  In January of 2005 University of Florida scientist Michael Atkinson, 
a gene therapy advocate, said: ``Two years ago, the embryonic stem cell 
field was hype, hype, hype. It is still that way in California, but I 
think that field has hit a bit of a wall.''
  Why? Because after 25 years of animal research, embryonic stem cells 
have produced not one single instance of cure or even a palliative 
result. Not one.
  They have produced some results, though. Their versatility is now 
believed to be a disadvantage. As explained in a letter to Senator John 
Kerry, signed by 57 noted scientists in the fields of biology, 
microbiology, chemistry and medicine, they said: ``Embryonic stem cells 
are difficult to develop into a stable cell line. They spontaneously 
accumulate genetic abnormalities in culture and are prone to 
uncontrollable growth and tumor formation when placed in animals.''
  Why is this such an important issue for politicians? Why don't we pay 
some attention to what does work?
  Multipurpose adult progenitor cells have been or are being assessed 
in human trials for treatment of spinal cord injury, Parkinson's, 
stroke, cardiac damage, multiple sclerosis and more. These cells can be 
taken from the patient so they have no risk of rejection and no ethical 
problems.

                              {time}  1200

  They are showing positive results in 72 different diseases, and I 
will submit that list for the Record.

         STEM CELL RESEARCH TREATMENTS--ADULT 72 AND EMBRYONIC 0
 [Check the Score: Adult Stem Cells vs. Embryonic Stem Cells Benefits in
              Human Patients (from Peer-Reviewed Studies).]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Embryonic Stem
                    Adult Stem Cells                          Cells
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancers:
    1. Brain Cancer.                                                  0
    2. Retinoblastoma..................................
    3. Ovarian Cancer..................................
    4. Skin Cancer: Merkel Cell Carcinoma..............
    5. Testicular Cancer...............................
    6. Tumors Abdominal Organs Lymphoma................
    7. Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma..........................
    8. Hodgkin's Lymphoma..............................
    9. Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia....................
    10. Acute Myelogenous Leukemia.....................
    11. Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia...................
    12. Juvenile Myelomonocytic Leukemia...............
    13. Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia................
    14. Cancer Of The Lymph Nodes: Angioimmunoblastic
     Lymphadenopathy...................................
    15. Multiple Myeloma...............................
    16. Myelodysplasia.................................
    17. Breast Cancer..................................
    18. Neuroblastoma..................................
    19. Renal Cell Carcinoma...........................
    20. Soft Tissue Sarcoma............................
    21. Various Solid Tumors...........................
    22. Ewing's Sarcoma................................
    23. Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia................
    24. Hemophagocytic Lymphohistiocytosis.............
    25. Poems Syndrome.................................
    26. Myelofibrosis..................................
Auto-Immune Diseases:
    27. Systemic Lupus.................................
    28. Sjogren's Syndrome.............................
    29. Myasthenia.....................................
    30. Autoimmune Cytopenia...........................
    31. Scleromyxedema.................................
    32. Scleroderma....................................
    33. Crohn's Disease................................
    34. Behcet's Disease...............................
    35. Rheumatoid Arthritis...........................
    36. Juvenile Arthritis.............................
    37. Multiple Sclerosis.............................
    38. Polychondritis.................................
    39. Systemic Vasculitis............................
    40. Alopecia Universalis...........................
    41. Buerger's Disease..............................
Cardiovascular:
    42. Acute Heart Damage.............................
    43. Chronic Coronary Artery Disease................
Ocular:
    44. Corneal Regeneration...........................
Immunodeficiencies:
    45. Severe Combined Immunodeficiency Syndrome......
    46. X-Linked Lymphoproliferative Syndrome..........
    47. X-Linked Hyper Immunoglobulin M Syndrome.......
Neural Degenerative Diseases And Injuries:
    48. Parkinson's Disease............................
    49. Spinal Cord Injury.............................
    50. Stroke Damage..................................
Anemias And Other Blood Conditions:
    51. Sickle Cell Anemia.............................
    52. Sideroblastic Anemia...........................
    53. Aplastic Anemia................................
    54. Red Cell Aplasia...............................
    55. Amegakaryocytic Thrombocytopenia...............
    56. Thalassemia....................................
    57. Primary Amyloidosis............................
    58. Diamond Blackfan Anemia........................
    59. Fanconi's Anemia...............................
    60. Chronic Epstein-Barr Infection.................
Wounds And Injuries:
    61. Limb Gangrene..................................
    62. Surface Wound Healing..........................
    63. Jawbone Replacement............................
    64. Skull Bone Repair..............................
Other Metabolic Disorders:
    65. Hurler's Syndrome..............................
    66. Osteogenesis Imperfecta........................
    67. Krabbe Leukodystrophy..........................
    68. Osteopetrosis..................................
    69. Cerebral X-Linked Adrenoleukodystrophy.........
Liver Disease:
    70. Chronic Liver Failure..........................
    71. Liver Cirrhosis................................
Bladder Disease:
    72. End-Stage Bladder Disease......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  The record of embryonic stem cells today is zero. In an animal model 
of Parkinson's, rats injected with embryonic stem cells showed a slight 
benefit in about 50 percent of the rats, but one-fifth of them died of 
brain tumors caused by the embryonic stem cells.
  Just recently, we have heard the promise of research using the 
mother's amniotic fluid. We have been told by some that we are doing 
this to give people hope. How cruel. They are not looking to the 
Federal Government for hope. They are looking to scientists for cures, 
and adult cells show by far the most promise.
  One of the cruelest examples of political demagoguery I have ever 
heard was in the last Presidential campaign when John Edwards said, 
``If John Kerry were President, Christopher Reeve would walk.'' A 
spokeswoman for the Howard Hughes Medical Institute said, not in 
response to that, but she said no one in human embryonic stem cells 
will tell you that therapies are around the corner. Dr. John Edwards 
seemed not to agree.
  We are not here speaking on behalf of the half-therapies that show 
promise because private capital is flowing into that research. Private 
investors look for hope, too. They hope to make money, and they invest 
their dollars where they can do so.
  Do you wonder why private investment is not flowing into embryonic 
stem cell research? Might there be a hidden agenda here? Might there be 
a hidden agenda at play in this issue? Could it be that the proponents 
of this bill want to succeed in getting a bill signed into law in which 
the government approves the ending of a human life? Are we seeking here 
a way to get the government's imprimatur on ending life that is not 
useful so that the product of that death can be put to more useful 
purposes? That is called the Hegelian Principle, that which is not 
useful can be destroyed for the benefit of useful purposes.
  This has been used by governments before. Hitler believed in it. I 
want to hastily assure everyone on both sides of this issue that I 
compare no one to Hitler. But he believed that that which was useful 
was good, and that which was not useful was not good. The first Germans 
in the gas ovens were not Jews. They were retarded children in Catholic 
homes cared for by nuns. They were exterminated. The line was then 
moved slightly, and the next to go were the crippled soldiers from 
World War I. The line was then moved to include the Jews, and the 
German people, being desensitized, accepted it. That is what we are 
doing here today, we are laying down a line between that life which is 
useful and that which is not. Moving that line in the future will be 
less of a lift.
  In closing, let me point out that if these researchers were taking 
this embryonic tissue from the just-laid eggs of loggerhead turtles or 
bald eagles, they would be fined and jailed. Surely we can do as much 
for humans.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished new Member from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak).
  Mr. SESTAK. I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill, H.R. 3. While I am 
about to

[[Page H360]]

talk to a personal story, the issue of stem cell research is not just 
personal, it is much more than that.
  A year and a half ago, I retired from the U.S. Navy as my then-4-
year-old daughter, Alex, was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor. 
She is here today thanks to the wonderful medical treatment that she 
received from our Nation's doctors and nurses including high-dose 
chemotherapy with stem cell infusion.
  The medical coverage I received from our country as a military member 
allowed my daughter to receive the best care it had to offer, the care 
every American child should have access to. And that is why I ask to 
speak to this bill today above all others.
  The best of medical care today may not be good enough for tomorrow. 
Take a case such as my daughter's: there is a chance that brain tissue 
may be harmed by the very treatments intended to save young lives.
  Why would we preclude the medical promise that stem cell research 
offers for tomorrow's recuperative treatment or cure, not just for my 
daughter, but for all those Americans whose lives are inflicted by 
serious disease, or who now pass prematurely from us when they might 
not?
  Embryonic stem cell research may mean that every day 3,000 of our 
loved ones affected by Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, or diabetes or spinal 
cord injury might have the quality and the full time of life they would 
not otherwise have.
  I thought about life every day as I lived in the pediatric oncology 
ward at Children's Hospital, just down the street from here. I always 
wondered if the children there would have a chance to experience life 
to its fullest.
  I understand debates, and I respect those couched in moral terms; but 
when the bargain we are offered is the opportunity that a child might 
live, how can we not strike that bargain?
  I would hope that we would not let young or old lives be shortened by 
the worst of plagues, which is, ``what might have been'' for them. For 
the promise of life, its quality, is the congressional tasking we are 
most charged with to promote the general welfare. I urge all my 
colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Tim Murphy).
  Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, over 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson told us: ``I 
tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and that His 
justice cannot sleep forever.'' Although he was talking about the 
issues of the day, those words ring true for all of us in this Chamber 
because all of us want to do the right and the just thing. Our words 
here for or against embryonic stem cell research will not change what 
is true and just. We seek knowledge, we pray for wisdom, but our 
thinking does not make it so in one way or the other.
  I believe life begins at conception. Others do not. If we are to err 
on any side, on what side should we err? There are opinions on each 
side of this issue about when life begins. There are common opinions 
that we all must work together to help treat disease. There is confused 
information regarding what works. Research tells us adult stem cell 
research works. Amniotic stem cell research has been revealed to have 
much promise. Embryonic stem cells after 20 years of research tells us 
it does not.
  What is important to know is there is nothing in Federal law that 
limits academic research. We do not stop the States from pursuing 
research. We do not limit private companies. Research has not been 
hampered. And nothing is stopping research from treating disease. What 
we are all commonly pursuing is ways to treat disease, and our concern 
is how do we do this in a just and ethical way.
  When I would be involved in pursuing medical research studies at the 
University of Pittsburgh, we had to put forth our study in front of the 
human subjects review panel. They scrutinized research very carefully 
to make sure it did no harm to anyone. Sometimes what one researcher 
considered to be a small and innocuous risk, others said, no, you 
cannot get involved in that portion of research. Whatever it is, 
sometimes just evaluating the outcome of some treatment on a child that 
someone thought, as small as it might be, might be invasive. That was 
because we were guided by the ethical principle of ``first do no 
harm.''
  But here we are faced with recent studies that say amniotic stem cell 
research has tremendous promise, and for some reason we are rushing 
this week to say we must pass this bill on embryonic stem cell research 
when perhaps we should really be pursuing further scientific 
information so this House can do its job with hearings, with gathering 
information to give us the knowledge we need and pray for the wisdom we 
seek.
  I hope in all of this that we would continue to be guided by the idea 
of first doing no harm, and I would hope that we would also look at the 
fundamental basis of this bill that refers to the idea that these 
children would otherwise be discarded. I don't think that is a road we 
want to use.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to now yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlelady from Colorado for her leadership on 
this issue over the years, and I thank the former Governor of Delaware, 
our colleague, Congressman Castle, for his leadership on this. This 
bill in my opinion reflects the best in bipartisan cooperation to try 
to respond to the American public and their concerns and their needs.
  Mr. Speaker, today for the third consecutive day in this 110th 
Congress, the new Democratic majority in the House is considering very 
important legislation that will pass on a bipartisan basis. On Tuesday, 
we passed legislation implementing the 9/11 Commission's 
recommendations to make America safer. That bill passed 299-128 with 68 
Republican votes. Yesterday we passed a long overdue increase in the 
Federal minimum wage by a vote of 315-116 with 82 Republican votes. 
That is a positive message to the American public that we can and we 
want to work together. There will not be unanimity, but today we will 
pass H.R. 3, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, 
legislation offered, again, by the gentlewoman from Colorado and the 
gentleman from Delaware.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not a bold prediction to say that this legislation 
will pass today, because this House approved identical legislation last 
May by a vote of 238-194 with 50 Republicans joining 187 Democrats and 
one Independent. There are, as that vote reflects, bipartisan concerns 
about this legislation. It is my personal belief that they have been 
addressed in this legislation carefully drafted to do so. The Senate 
passed the bill by a vote of 63-37 before the President vetoed it last 
July.
  Mr. Speaker, in short, the DeGette-Castle bill would increase the 
number of embryonic stem cell lines eligible for federally funded 
research. Current policy limits, as we all know, the use of Federal 
funds for research only to those stem cell lines that existed when 
President Bush issued an executive order on August 9, 2001. This policy 
severely restricts the potential for lifesaving breakthroughs because 
only 22 of those 78 stem cell lines are available for research and a 
vast majority of those 22 lines are aged, contaminated or have been 
developed through obsolete methods.
  It cannot be stressed enough, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation only 
authorizes Federal research funds for stem cell lines generated from 
embryos that would otherwise be discarded by fertility clinics. That 
seems to me to be a critical consideration for all who will vote on 
this legislation.
  I believe this legislation does not seek to destroy life. Others 
disagree. I understand that. It seeks to preserve and protect life. In 
fact, former Senate majority leader Dr. Bill Frist who formerly opposed 
this legislation but now supports it has stated: ``I strongly believe 
that embryonic stem cells uniquely hold specific promise for some 
therapies and potential cures that adult stem cells cannot provide.''
  I believe, Mr. Speaker, we have a moral obligation to provide our 
scientific community with the tools it needs to save lives and this 
legislation in my view accomplishes exactly that. We understand this is 
a difficult issue to many Americans and that it raises important 
questions that humanity

[[Page H361]]

has yet to adequately answer. That is why this legislation also directs 
HHS and the National Institutes of Health to issue ethical guidelines 
that will ensure the highest standards of scientific investigation.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation enjoys the overwhelming support of 
Members of this Congress and the American people, many of whom are 
affected by diseases such as ALS, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and 
injuries of the spinal cord and nervous system. This legislation 
represents the hope of millions of Americans who are waiting for us to 
take action. That is why we have urged action early in this session.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill, as they have 
before; and I urge the President to reconsider his veto when this 
bipartisan legislation reaches his desk. Again I congratulate Ms. 
DeGette and Mr. Castle for working together assiduously and without 
flagging on behalf of the American people. This is a good bill for our 
country and for those who face great challenges of health.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Colorado and the 
gentleman from Delaware deserve our thanks for sponsoring the Stem Cell 
Research Enhancement Act and working with so many families on a 
bipartisan basis who have been impacted by diseases that may find cures 
as a result of this vital research. Their work and dedication on this 
legislation has been tremendous and praiseworthy. I also thank them for 
giving me the opportunity to cast one of the most important votes I 
will ever make in Congress.
  Almost everyone has lost some family members and friends prematurely. 
Embryonic stem cell research has the potential to cure disease and save 
lives, and it is only 8 years old. These are stem cells that come from 
the inner cells of discarded embryos that were never in a mother's 
womb, are being destroyed as we speak. Thus, this is not a matter of 
pro-life versus pro-choice, but rather a matter of humanity and the 
potential of life versus disease and the certainty of death.
  I am grateful the new Democratic leadership is making this 
legislation a priority in this Congress, just as I was grateful the 
Republican leadership gave us an opportunity for clean up-or-down vote 
on legislation in the last Congress.
  I pray we pass the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 and 
that the President reconsiders his position and signs this bill into 
law. Sometimes ideology can box you in and cause you to make wrong and 
harmful decisions. I think it is time we recognize the dark ages are 
over. Galileo and Copernicus have been proven right. The world is in 
fact round. The Earth does revolve around the sun.
  I believe God gave us the intellect to differentiate between 
imprisoning dogma and sound ethical science, which is what we must do 
here today. I want history to look back at this Congress and say in the 
face of the age-old tension between religion and science, the Members 
here allowed critical scientific research to advance while respecting 
important ethical questions that surround it.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to the taking of human life. 
The question that is before the House is whether or not the Federal 
Government should force taxpayers to fund a procedure that requires the 
destruction of innocent human life.
  Congress has always refused to allow this on the issue of abortion, 
only allowing Federal funding if the pregnancy endangers the life of 
the mother or is because of rape or incest. There is no reason why this 
same principle should not apply here. Even President Clinton's 
bioethics council, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, wrote in 
1999 that most would agree that human embryos deserve respect as a form 
of human life.
  Is it showing respect to kill embryos for research? To allow the 
seeds of the next generation to be used for the doubtful sake of our 
own? Furthermore, does it show respect to the consciences of Americans 
who oppose the research to provide public funding for it?
  President Clinton's bioethics council also wrote that the derivation 
of stem cells from embryos remaining following infertility treatments, 
the killing of embryos that H.R. 3 would encourage, is justifiable only 
if no less morally problematic alternatives are available for advancing 
the research.
  Regrettably, the supporters of this bill seem to have forgotten that 
advice, and their continued support for embryonic stem cell research 
seems to display ignorance at the recent developments of stem cell 
science. Far less morally problematic alternatives are exactly what 
scientists are continuing to find. We have heard this referred to 
several times.
  This was the front page of the Fort Wayne News Sentinel just last 
weekend: ``Stem cell find gives new hope to compromise.'' In this, in 
addition to the hearing that we had last year, where we heard multiple 
scientists receive testify of promising advances in non-embryonic stem 
cell research, what he points out here is ``the fetus is swallowing 
fluid and breathing in through the nose. Not only does it travel 
through the respiratory tract, it gets into the gastrointestinal tract, 
the bladder and the kidney. The stuff is chock full of fetal cells.''
  They are no longer combined but are separated, and that is why the 
research is working, and that is why so many scientists don't even 
believe embryonic stem cells will ever work.
  There are two fundamental questions here: What is the science, and, 
in this case, we have proven research that is working and additional 
research that shows incredible promise of working; versus embryonic 
stem cell going on for 25 years, not 8 years, that is, in humans, 25 
years with nothing. Not a single animal. Nothing has worked in 
embryonic stem cell research. Yet we are underfunding the research that 
actually works. Why?
  I would argue the second point, and that is it is political. It has 
to do with the fundamental question of abortion. We have deep 
differences in America and in here on the taking of innocent human life 
at conception, deep differences and honest differences.
  But why should I, with my view, be forced, and the many Americans who 
believe this is the taking of innocent life and killing and murder for 
that matter, why should we be forced to pay for it? I just do not 
understand the intensity of trying to drive this down our throats.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the taking of human life.
  Mr. Speaker, the question that is today before the House is whether 
or not the Federal Government should force taxpayers to fund a 
procedure that requires the destruction of innocent human life. 
Congress has always proudly refused to allow this on the issue of 
abortion, only allowing federal funding if the pregnancy endangers the 
life of the mother or is due to rape or incest. There is no reason why 
the same principle should not apply here.
  Even President Clinton's bioethics council, the National Bioethics 
Advisory Commission) wrote in 1999 that ``[M]ost would agree that human 
embryos preserve respect as a form of human life.'' Mr. Speaker, is it 
showing respect to kill such embryos for research--to allow the seeds 
of the next generation to be used for the sake of our own? Furthermore, 
does it show respect to the consciences of Americans who oppose this 
research to provide public funding for it?
  President Clinton's bioethics council also wrote that, ``the 
derivation of stem cells from embryos remaining following infertility 
treatments''--the killing of embryos that H.R. 3 would encourage--``is 
justifiable only if no less morally problematic alternatives are 
available for advancing the research.'' Regrettably, supporters of H.R. 
3 seem to have forgotten this advice, and in their continued support 
for embryonic stem cell research seems to display ignorance at the 
recent developments of stem cell science, for less morally problematic 
alternatives are exactly what scientists are continuing to find.

  Mr. Speaker, as scientists have worked to find useful therapies using 
embryonic stem cells, such research has encountered only problems. Such 
stem cells have shown to be too unstable and likely to form tumors when 
transplanted into adult tissues. Indeed, despite more than 80 research 
projects investigating human embryonic stem cells funded by the 
National Institutes of Health since 2002, to date there have been no 
verifiable reports of any human clinical trials being conducted using 
embryonic, not adult, stem cells--in the U.S. or anywhere else.

[[Page H362]]

  Despite these facts, the sponsor of H.R. 3 has stated publicly that 
embryonic stem cell research could help cure diseases that affect 110 
million Americans. Unfortunately, scientists have been complicit in 
this deceit. For example, to justify this hype, stem cell researcher 
Ron McKay has said bluntly that people need a fairy tale.
  Meanwhile, adult stem cell research continues to show increasing 
promise. There are currently 72 therapies showing human benefits using 
adult stem cells. In fact, it seems our whole scientific paradigm of 
cellular development has been wrong. It now appears that stem cells do 
not lose their pluripotency as they develop from the embryo to 
differentiated tissue types, and that adult stem cells are much more 
elastic than previously thought. This means that embryos are no longer 
the unique source of pluripotent stem cells we once thought they were. 
Pluripotency is the real goal; and if that can be found in adult stem 
cells, embryonic stem cells and the destruction of human life are no 
longer necessary.

  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I ask my opponents to consider that they 
do not need to believe a human embryo is the moral equivalent of a 
child in order to oppose this bill. Rather, they need merely to 
consider the drastic step it would be to provide public sanction--
through federal funding--for life-destructive research that has, at 
best, ambiguous potential; when more promising and more ethical 
alternatives are available. Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, this bill 
and this research are morally wrong, but also, they are simply 
unnecessary. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 3.

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Government Reform,

                                    Washington, DC, July 17, 2006.

  Efforts To Discredit Adult Stem Cell Advances or ``Science by Fairy 
                                 Tale''

       This week's debate on federal funding for embryonic stem 
     cell research is full of disinformation. Among the many 
     pieces of distortion you may come across is a recent letter 
     published in ScienceExpress, written to discredit Dr. David 
     Prentice, a high profile critic of embryonic stem cell 
     research. Dr. Prentice is formerly Professor of Life Sciences 
     at Indiana State University, and Adjunct Professor of Medical 
     and Molecular Genetics for Indiana University School of 
     Medicine. He is now Senior Fellow for Life Sciences, Center 
     for Human Life and Bioethics, at the Family Research Center.
       Apparently, in the ``open-minded'' spirit of scientific 
     inquiry, since Dr. Prentice opposes destructive embryonic 
     stem cell research (as do more Americans, when fully informed 
     about the nature of the research), his credibility is being 
     attacked by ``scientists'' who have an agenda of research-at-
     all-costs-including-creation-of-human-embryos-purely-for-
     destructive-research.
       I am attaching Dr. Prentice's useful guide demonstrating 
     the 72 adult stem cell applications for humans. I also want 
     to emphasize, that after twenty- five years of embryo stem 
     cell research, there are zero human applications for using 
     embryonic stem cells in patients.
       I am also attaching a response to the distortions printed 
     in ScienceExpress--distortions which I expect will be abused 
     in this week's debate. As this response points out, 
     illuminating the scientific facts about embryonic vs. adult 
     stem cell research:
       ``It remains absolutely true that adult stem cells have 
     benefited patients suffering from at least 72 diseases and 
     conditions, where patient improvement is documented by peer-
     reviewed scientific publications.''
       Pointing out that ClinicalTrials.gov shows 565 currently 
     active FDA-approved clinical trials (and a total of 1170 
     total trials, including those that no longer need to recruit 
     patients), the response also notes this critical fact about 
     embryonic stem cell research:
       ``There are no human trials of embryonic stem cells, and 
     there never have been. Nor are there any peer-reviewed 
     references for human treatments with embryonic stem cells, 
     because animal trials have yet to show that embryonic stem 
     cells are safe or effective enough to initiate even Phase I 
     human trials for any condition.''
       I hope this information is helpful to you.
                                  ____

         Do No Harm, The Coalition of Americans for Research 
           Ethics,
                                                   Washington, DC.

                 Misleading, or an Inconvenient Truth?

       Do No Harm is disappointed to see a new low in scientific 
     publishing with Science's June 13 online posting of a Letter 
     to the Editor that is a transparent personal attack on Dr. 
     David Prentice, a founding member of Do No Harm.
       The Letter purports to analyze Do No Harm's list of adult 
     stem cell treatments, which lists diseases and conditions in 
     which human patients have benefited from stem cell treatments 
     and provides peer-reviewed references on these trials. Do No 
     Harm clearly states that these are simply cases where adult 
     stem cells have shown ``benefits to human patients'', have 
     produced ``therapeutic benefit to human patients''; Dr. 
     Prentice is quoted here as saying that adult stem cells have 
     ``helped patients.''
       But the authors of the Letter engage in semantic 
     gymnastics, creating a straw man so they can knock it down 
     and then claim they have discredited Do No Harm. They twist 
     our statements into claims that these treatments all 
     currently provide a ``cure,'' are ``generally available,'' or 
     are ``fully tested in all required phases of clinical trials 
     and approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.'' 
     (Such a claim would have been ridiculous, in part because 
     some dramatic advances have occurred in other countries where 
     FDA approval is not a relevant factor.)
       Regarding two diseases, the Letter implies that the list 
     cites only one peer-reviewed reference and does so 
     inaccurately. However, the Letter's supplement acknowledges 
     an additional four references showing ``improved long-term 
     survival'' for patients receiving adult stem cells.
       Do No Harm thanks the Letter's authors for pointing out 
     some references that were inadvertently included, as well as 
     some new references to include, so the list could be properly 
     updated. Dr. Prentice is submitting a formal response to 
     Science, and we hope the journal will belatedly give him the 
     courtesy of a published reply. This courtesy is normally 
     accorded by prior notice, and simultaneous publication of the 
     response with an original Letter of this nature.
       That the authors of the Letter should bring up the subject 
     of FDA-approved clinical trials is especially odd, because 
     the federal government documents a great number of current 
     trials using adult stem cells at various phases of 
     investigation. A check of ClinicalTrials.gov shows 565 such 
     trials currently active and recruiting patients, and a total 
     of 1170 trials in all (including trials that no longer need 
     to recruit more patients). There are no human trials of 
     embryonic stem cells, and there never have been. Nor are 
     there any peer-reviewed references for human treatments with 
     embryonic stem cells, because animal trials have yet to show 
     that embryonic stem cells are safe or effective enough to 
     initiate even Phase I human trials for any condition.
       It remains absolutely true that adult stem cells have 
     benefited patients suffering from at least 72 diseases and 
     conditions, where patient improvement is documented by peer-
     reviewed scientific publications. There are likely others, 
     undoubtedly more to come, and many more accounts of people 
     who have benefited from such research. That is the real 
     success of adult stem cells: helping human patients. It is a 
     success that no one can claim for embryonic stem cells.

  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Mitchell).
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman.
  Mr. Speaker, just a few months ago, the American people sent a clear 
message to Washington: It is time to expand our investment in embryonic 
stem cell research. I heard that message loud and clear from my 
constituents in Arizona who believe as I do that the best way we can 
honor life is to use science and ethical research to discover 
treatments for the millions of Americans who suffer from diseases such 
as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Lou Gehrig's and Huntington's disease.
  The people of my district understand that we have a moral obligation 
to invest in embryonic stem cell research because it provides the best 
hope for a cure for these diseases and many others.
  Last year, I met a fellow Arizonan who helped me understand just how 
important this fight for cures is to so many people and so many 
families. His name is Phil Hardt, and he suffers from Huntington's 
disease. Huntington's disease results from the genetically programmed 
degeneration of brain cells that causes uncontrolled movements, loss of 
intellectual faculties and emotional disturbances. It is a terrible and 
agonizing disease that has no cure. But with the promise of embryonic 
stem cell research, there is hope for a cure.
  But, Mr. Speaker, today Phil and people like him all over the country 
need more than hope. They need action. They need action from this 
Congress, for us to once again pass this important legislation. And 
they need action from the President.
  Mr. Speaker, I am asking you to urge the President that he has in his 
hands the opportunity to improve the lives of so many people and help 
so many families. The American people support ethical embryonic stem 
cell research, and so does a vast bipartisan majority in Congress. When 
this legislation reaches the President, I hope he does the right thing, 
to honor life by signing this legislation into law.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in respectful opposition to H.R. 
3, the

[[Page H363]]

Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, a bill, Mr. Speaker, that 
authorizes the use of Federal tax dollars to fund the destruction of 
human embryos for scientific research.
  The late President Ronald Reagan wrote, ``We cannot diminish the 
value of one category of human life, the unborn, without diminishing 
the value of all human life.''
  The supporters argue that this debate today is between science and 
ideology or dogma; that destroying human embryos for research is 
necessary to cure a whole host of maladies, from spinal cord injuries 
to Parkinson's. But the facts suggest otherwise, and physicians on our 
side have and will continue to make the case for the ethical 
alternative of adult stem cell research and new breakthroughs, past and 
present.
  But, Mr. Speaker, the debate over the legitimacy or potential of 
embryonic stem cells, I believe, is actually not the point of our 
debate today. We are here simply to decide whether Congress should take 
the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use them to 
fund the destruction of human embryos for research.
  This debate is not really about whether embryonic stem cell research 
should be legal. Sadly, embryonic stem cell research is completely 
legal in this country and has been going on at universities and 
research facilities for years. But proponents of this legislation 
apparently don't want to just be able to do embryonic stem cell 
research, they want me to pay for it. And like more than 40 percent of 
Americans, I have a problem with that.
  You see, I believe that life begins at conception and that a human 
embryo is human life. And I believe it is morally wrong to create human 
life to destroy it for research. But I believe it is also morally wrong 
to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of Americans who believe that 
life begins at conception and use it to fund research that they find 
morally offensive.
  This debate then, Mr. Speaker, is not about what an embryo is. This 
debate is about who we are as a nation. Not will we respect the 
sanctity of human life, but will we respect the deeply held moral 
beliefs of nearly half of the people of this Nation who find the 
destruction of human embryos for research to be morally wrong.
  Despite what may be uttered in this debate today, I say again, this 
debate is not about whether we should allow research that involves the 
destruction of human embryos. This debate is about who pays for it.
  Last year here in Congress, I was surrounded by dozens of snowflake 
babies, Mr. Speaker, children born from frozen embryos. I couldn't help 
but think of that ancient verse: I have set before you life and 
blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children 
may live.
  It is my fervent hope, Mr. Speaker, and my prayer, as we stand at the 
crossroads of science and the sanctity of life, that we will choose 
life.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Indiana and several other people have 
said they don't think taxpayers should fund this research. But, in 
fact, we have a national consensus in this country in support of 
taxpayer funding for embryonic stem cell research, 72 percent, to be 
exact. We fund all other types of this research, so we have this 
national consensus.
  My constituents in the First Congressional District of Colorado, the 
vast majority, the majority, do not want to fund this war. That doesn't 
mean, Mr. Speaker, that they don't have to pay their taxpayer dollars.
  We should fund this with taxpayer dollars because the NIH and our 
public institutions are the driving force behind basic research for the 
private researchers, for the foreign researchers and for all of this 
wonderful research that is going to, we hope, cure diseases.
  Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
new Member from Illinois (Mr. Hare).
  Mr. HARE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues, 
Congresswoman DeGette and Congressman Castle, for introducing the Stem 
Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 and for their strong leadership 
on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, last Thursday was a bittersweet day for me. I had the 
incredible honor of being sworn in as a new Member of the United States 
Congress in front of my family, friends and constituents. Yet part of 
me was sad that my friend and mentor, Congressman Lane Evans, wasn't in 
my place.
  Lane served as a distinguished Member of this body for 24 years until 
Parkinson's disease forced him to retire at the end of the 109th 
Congress. Lane's battle with Parkinson's is a testament to his 
incredible spirit that never caused him to ask, Why me, although 
retiring meant he had to leave Congress when there was still so much he 
wanted to do, helping veterans, working families and his constituents.
  Mr. Speaker, Lane is just one of millions of Americans struggling 
with chronic illnesses that are curable with the advancement of stem 
cell research.
  Spencer House is the son of my very good friend Doug. He suffers from 
diabetes and must take four insulin shots each and every day. But Doug 
is encouraged by the hope that lies in embryonic stem cell research to 
offer his son a more normal life. And he is not alone. Poll after poll 
shows that the majority of Americans support ethical embryonic stem 
cell research as a way towards preventing others from having to live 
with illnesses like Parkinson's disease, diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer's 
and spinal cord injuries.
  I am an original cosponsor of this commonsense legislation because 
the science of stem cell research is clear: Embryonic stem cell 
research has the potential to treat and cure some of our most 
debilitating injuries and diseases.
  Mr. Speaker, today we decide whether to give the American people hope 
or continue to prolong the suffering of those who struggle with curable 
chronic diseases. I urge all my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 3.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  (Mr. KIRK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Illinois and rise in 
strong support of Federal funding to accelerate stem cell research.

                              {time}  1230

  In the last Congress, I helped craft the bipartisan consensus to back 
stem cell research here in the House, and our bipartisan coalition is 
even stronger today.
  America is home to more Nobel prizes in medicine than any other 
nation. Our record of medical achievement led the way to eliminating 
smallpox and saves half of all people diagnosed with cancer. This 
legislation will help us save the other half. It offers hope to anyone 
suffering from diabetes, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's. It represents 
the strong will of parents and patients who have banded together with 
effective voices, like the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, the 
American Heart Association, and the American Cancer Institute.
  This legislation offers a powerful message to both political parties, 
Republican and Democrat, that one of our American legacies is to lead 
the world in the freedom of intellectual inquiry, in scientific 
research, in medical science, and especially in that most 
quintessential American value, optimism and the expectation of better 
days for our children.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation directly supports the research of Dr. 
John Kessler at Northwestern University and his work to treat spinal 
injuries, Dr. Mary Hindrix at Childrens and her work to prevent 
metastasis in cancer and Professor Robert Goodman of Northwestern for 
his research to explore a cure for ALS.
  We are going to pass this bipartisan bill with a thunderous 
bipartisan majority, sending to the Senate as an expression of the 
American people as pro-research, pro-science pro-American leadership 
and supporting hope for patients everywhere.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted now to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished new Member from New York (Mr. Hall).
  (Mr. HALL of New York asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HALL of New York. I thank the gentlewoman. Today, I rise in 
support of H.R. 3, the Chamber's effort to improve the lives of 
millions of Americans by once again advancing the Stem Cell Research 
Enhancement Act.

[[Page H364]]

  For many Americans, including relatives and friends of mine who 
suffer from the effects of Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, paralysis, and 
other devastating illnesses, embryonic stem cell research provides the 
hope of a better life or even perhaps a cure.
  Last year, Johns Hopkins University released the results of stem cell 
therapy tests on frogs in the laboratory using frog embryonic stem 
cells which showed paralyzed frogs recovering the use of their hind 
quarters. Now, one can't necessarily extrapolate from laboratory 
experiments to humans; but until we try, we will not know.
  There has been a lot of debate about this bill, what it is and what 
it is not. I would just suggest that by allowing the Federal Government 
to support research on embryonic stem cells, regardless of when they 
were derived, this bill will allow science to move forward unimpeded in 
the quest to cure some of our most crippling diseases.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak in support this chamber's effort 
to improve the lives of millions of Americans by once again advancing 
the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.
  For many Americans suffering from the effects of Alzheimer's, 
Parkinson's, paralysis, and other devastating illnesses embryonic stem 
cell research provides the hope of a better life, or even perhaps a 
cure.
  There has been a lot of debate about what this bill is, and what it 
isn't.
  What this bill is an opportunity to expand the resources the federal 
government can bring to bear in supporting breakthroughs in medical 
technology.
  Under current policy, only stem cell lines derived before August 2001 
can be used for research. But according to the National Institutes of 
Health, of the 78 stem cell lines that were declared eligible for 
federal funding by the President, less than one third are still 
available.
  To make matters worse, many of the available lines are contaminated 
with ``mouse feeder'' cells, making their therapeutic use for humans 
uncertain.
  By allowing the federal government to support research on embryonic 
stem cells regardless of when they were derived, this bill would allow 
science to move forward unimpeded in the quest to cure some of our most 
crippling diseases.
  What this bill isn't is an attempt to devalue human life.
  Under this bill, stem cells could only be used for research if they 
would never be used by fertility clinics and be discarded, and only if 
the donor of the embryo gave full consent.
  Instead of being discarded, these embryos could help researchers 
unlock the cures to Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, MS, cancer, and other 
conditions. Certainly, advancing these goals is consistent with a 
reverence for human life.
  Last year, Congress overwhelmingly passed this bill on a bipartisan 
basis, and it's clear that the majority of the American people want 
this research to go forward.
  It is my sincere hope that we will again pass this bill by an 
overwhelming and bipartisan margin, and send it to the President for 
his signature.
  I would urge the President not to repeat his previous mistake of 
allowing ideology to trump science by vetoing this bill. Instead of 
placating his narrow political base, the President should heed the will 
of the great majority of the American people by signing this bill into 
law.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield now to the 
gentleman and new Member from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth) 1 minute.
  (Mr. YARMUTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. YARMUTH. I thank the gentlewoman.
  Mr. Speaker, the progress that has been made of late in the area of 
adult and amniotic fluid stem cell research is astounding. In my own 
district, the University of Louisville is curing paralysis in lab 
animals using adult stem cells. But with each new discovery, the 
scientists say the same thing: none of these areas of research can 
replace the vast unique and still unchartered potential of embryonic 
stem cells.
  Politics interfering with scientific advancement is nothing new. In 
Louisville, public controversy was a major obstacle before our 
pioneering doctors successfully implanted the first artificial heart 
and performed the first hand transplant. Had the politics of the day 
prevailed, additional lives would have been lost and incredible 
progress halted.
  Today, again on the cusp of discoveries that could save lives, we 
find ourselves at a similar crossroads. Will we aid progress or impede 
it?
  And none--not one of the embryos in question could ever grow into a 
human life. The researchers are speaking exclusively of embryos that 
would otherwise be discarded.
  We can no longer afford to let politics stand in the way of science 
and allow America to fall behind the rest of the world's medical 
advances, especially now as the research being conducted with embryonic 
stem cells holds the unprecedented potential to revolutionize medicine. 
I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 3.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair at this point would remind Members 
to be careful not to pass between the Chair and Members speaking and 
also to be careful not to have conversations in direct proximity to 
Members who are addressing the House.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to recognize the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry) for 2 minutes.
  (Mr. FORTENBERRY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin with a story. Several weeks ago, I 
was reading some of our national publications, and I came across a very 
small article that reported how Swiss scientists were taking amniotic 
fluid from preborn children, children who had been diagnosed in the 
womb with heart disease, and they were taking adult stem cells from 
that amniotic fluid and beginning the process of growing heart valves 
that would inevitably be placed in those children because of that heart 
disease.
  Mr. Speaker, my spirits lifted. I had hope again. You see, my 
daughter Kathryn is 6 years old and she suffers from complete atrial 
ventricular septal defect, a severe form of heart disease. She has had 
three open-heart surgeries thus far. We are probably looking at a 
fourth in the coming months, and in that surgery it is likely she will 
need a mechanical valve which further complicates her difficulties. 
This is why this article was so meaningful to me.
  You see, adult stem cells from bone marrow sources and umbilical cord 
sources and now amniotic fluid are showing real therapeutic value in 
the treatment of 72 diseases currently, and this avoids the ethically 
divisive issue of the destruction of unborn human life, the destruction 
of unborn human embryos.
  Embryonic stem cell research has shown no therapeutic value to date, 
is highly controversial, and many taxpayers do not wish to have their 
money spent here. So, Mr. Speaker, I say, why not? Why not invest our 
limited resources in adult stem cell research that is showing great 
promise and giving real hope? This is good public policy. This is the 
right thing to do.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from the Energy and Commerce Committee, my 
colleague, Ms. Eshoo, 2 minutes.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues Congresswoman DeGette 
and Mr. Castle for the outstanding work they have done in bringing this 
bill before the House. I am proud to support it, and I think that this 
is a very important moment for the Congress. Why? Because this bill 
really represents hope for the American people.
  I often say to my constituents that I am in the business of hope, to 
give hope to people with what I do and the vote that I cast. There is a 
reason why this bill is an overwhelmingly bipartisan bill, because 72 
percent of the American people support stem cell research.
  There is only one type of stem cell research that is not funded by 
the Federal Government today and that is embryonic stem cell research. 
There are tax dollars for all the others: for cord blood, for amniotic, 
and for adult. That is why we have the bill before us today.
  We all have constituents, we all have members of our families that 
have diseases that have befallen them and injuries that have befallen 
them and where they come to us and say, please, take action on this. So 
as someone that considers herself in the business of hope, I am 
especially proud to not only be a part of this effort but also be part 
of a new Congress that is giving hope to

[[Page H365]]

people that a Congress will take action on those things that are really 
relevant to people in their day-to-day lives: that the American people, 
the working people of our country, be given a raise in the minimum 
wage; that people across this country will be given substantial hope 
that we will take action on this bill; and that, hopefully, the 
President will continue the line of hope by changing his mind and 
signing the legislation into law.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would again urge Members not to 
cluster around the floor manager. The Chair understands it is necessary 
to have conversations, but please respect the Members speaking and to 
approach the floor manager, when it is necessary, no more than one at a 
time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am now very pleased to recognize my 
friend and colleague from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) for 3 minutes.
  (Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  This debate is really one of the most fundamental, important debates 
this body can undertake. Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker: I support stem 
cell research using adult stem cells, cord blood, and amniotic stem 
cells. I do not, however, support destroying life in the name of 
research.
  H.R. 3 fails to address the most basic essential ethical question of 
when does life begin and when should life, including human embryos, be 
open to experimentation and scientific research.
  As elected representatives, we have been cloaked with America's 
legislative responsibility. With this responsibility we are entrusted 
to determine the ethical and moral bounds of scientific research and to 
determine what value America places on human life. I believe our work 
today must reflect America's belief that all life has value, from the 
human embryo to those in the twilight of their life. We must not 
legislate shortcuts for one life over another.
  Embryonic stem cell research requires the killing of human embryos, 
which if left to grow would become children. Where do we as a Nation 
draw the ethical and moral line on scientific research as to when life 
begins, and at which stage of human life are we willing to sacrifice 
one life to promote the life of another?
  The good intentions of the proponents of H.R. 3 do not answer these 
questions. The proponents do not allow us, as America's elected 
representatives, to draw the ethical and moral line for human life. 
Under H.R. 3, when do embryos become human life? After 40 hours? After 
2 days or 14 days?
  H.R. 3 leaves the research guidelines to an administration official. 
As elected leaders, we should not entrust an unnamed individual to set 
America's guidelines on the value of human life. Mr. Speaker, I believe 
that human embryos, as life, should be treated and valued with the same 
respect as you and me.
  While the promise of embryonic stem cells is still 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 and injuries. As science learns 
more about the building blocks of life, researchers announced this week 
that stem cells found in the placenta and the amniotic fluid hold the 
key stem cells for research. These stem cells can be obtained while 
protecting life. This research offers science the ability to provide 
hope to those who suffer from disabling injuries and diseases while 
protecting all human life.
  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. We cannot, however, let science leapfrog 
our ethics. I urge Members to protect life at all stages and vote 
``no'' on H.R. 3.
  Mr. Speaker, this debate on H.R. 3, the Stem Cell Research 
Enhancement Act, is really one of the most fundamental, important 
debates that this body can undertake.
  Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker, I support stem cell research using 
adults stem cells, cord blood, and amniotic stem cells. I do not, 
however, support destroying life in the name of research.
  H.R. 3 fails to address the most basic, essential, ethical question 
of when does life begin? And when should life, including human embryos, 
be open to experimentation and scientific research?
  As elected representatives of the people, we have been cloaked with 
America's legislative responsibility. With this responsibility, we are 
entrusted to determine the ethical and moral boundaries of scientific 
research and to determine what value America places on human life?
  I believe our work today must reflect America's belief that all life 
has value from the human embryo to those in the twilight of their life. 
We must not legislate ``short cuts'' for one life over another, which 
this legislation does. Embryonic stem cell research which requires the 
killing of human embryos, which if left to grow would become children.
  Where do we, as a nation draw the ethical and moral line on 
scientific research as to when life begins? And at which stage of human 
life are we willing to sacrifice one life to promote the life of 
another?
  The good intentions of the proponents of H.R. 3 do not answer these 
questions. The proponents do not allow us, as America's elected 
representatives, to draw the ethical and moral line for human life.
  Under H.R. 3, when do embryos become human life? After 40 hours? 
After 2 days? H.R. 3 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. 3 will claim that this legislation will leave the 
research guidelines to an unelected and unnamed administration official 
within 60 days. A bureaucrat will set the guidelines, for scientific 
research and experimentation on human life!
  As elected leaders we should not entrust an unnamed individual to set 
America's guidelines on the value of human life.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that human embryos, as life, should be treated 
and valued with the same respect, as you and me.
  While the promise of embryonic stem cells is still 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.
  As science learns more about the building blocks of life, researchers 
announced this week that stem cells in human amniotic fluid hold the 
key stem cells for research. These stem cells can be obtained while 
protecting human life.
  These stem cells are found in the placenta and the amniotic fluid of 
pregnant women. These stem cells hold the same promise as embryonic 
stem cells, including an ability to grow into brain, bone, muscle and 
other tissues that could be used to treat a variety of diseases. This 
research offers science the ability to provide hope for those who 
suffer from disabling injuries and diseases while protecting all human 
life.
  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.
  We cannot, however, let science leap-frog our ethics, our morals, and 
our responsibility to protect human life at every stage of development. 
I urge Members to protect human life at each stage of development. Vote 
``No'' on H.R. 3.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I rise in opposition to this bill.
  If this bill becomes law, it will establish a new precedent for our 
government. For the first time, we will be funding researchers who are 
knowingly destroying human embryos in the course of their research, and 
that is really what this debate is essentially about.
  This Congress enacted legislation over 10 years ago, and President 
Bill Clinton signed it, specifying that no Federal funds will be used 
for research that involves the destruction of a human embryo. This 
piece of legislation takes us down a path that overturns that.
  Now, the advocates for this legislation assert that this is necessary 
because of the great potential of embryonic stem cells, and I rise 
essentially as a physician and a concerned American to challenge that 
notion based on

[[Page H366]]

my understanding of embryonic stem cells. And by the way, we have heard 
it said repeatedly that embryonic stem cells have only been studied for 
8 years. They have been studied for 25 years in the mouse. Eight years 
in the human model, but 25 years in the mouse.
  All embryonic stem cells form tumors. All of them. Indeed, if you are 
in the research lab, that is how you determine you actually have an 
embryonic stem cell. You put it in an animal, and it forms a tumor 
called a teratoma.

                              {time}  1245

  They have never been shown not only to be really good and 
therapeutic, but they have never been shown to be safe. Before an 
embryonic stem cell therapy could ever be approved by the FDA, it would 
have been to be shown to be both effective, which embryonic stem cells 
have never been shown to be; and as well, safe, and the very nature of 
embryonic stem cells renders them unsafe.
  So why is this such a critical debate? Why is this such an important 
debate? It is simply because this is not necessary and it is morally 
wrong. It is morally wrong because it takes us down a path where we 
will be saying certain forms of human life are expendable and can be 
discarded. And it is totally unnecessary, because they have never been 
shown to be therapeutically useful.
  Furthermore, we were just amazed to discover that in the amniotic 
fluid are cells that behave just like these embryonic stem cells, but 
they don't form tumors. It is not ethically controversial to use them, 
and they have all the potential that embryonic stem cells have been 
shown to have in the lab.
  So I would encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
legislation. Support the President of the United States, and just 
remember, just remember, that there are absolutely no restrictions on 
this research in the private sector. This is all about Federal dollars 
and how they are going to be used.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
Member from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, let me, first of all, say that, for the 
most part, this discussion has gone on without name calling, although 
it has happened once today, and so I want to start out by saying, I am 
coming to this floor to make a point, and not an accusation.
  It is important for me to say because there are words used here, 
morality and moral and ethical, and in the last election, in my State, 
the word religion was used with this discussion because stem cell 
research was on the ballot.
  I want to say very clearly, there is no conflict between religion and 
science. There was a man by the name of Paul who visited Turkey, and 
while in a city called Ephesus, he learned the people, went back and 
wrote a letter to them. And he said, ``Now Glory be to God who, by his 
mighty power at work within us, is able to do far more than we would 
ever dare to ask or even dream of, infinitely beyond our highest 
prayers, desires thoughts or hopes.''
  Science is but another word for hope. And hope stands on tippy toes 
looking for healing, looking for cures, searching for the ideal.
  I will not be a hopeless pessimist. I realize that whenever we are 
able to use the scientific advancements, that we are not becoming the 
enemies of faith, but rather it is another way to praise God and his 
constantly evolving creation.
  Now, there was a great Baptist clergyman by the name of Harry Emerson 
Fosdick, and in his book, ``The Modern Use of the Bible,'' he says, 
``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.' ''
  Now, it is my hope that we will not be as troglodytic as our 
ancestors who refused to peer through the lens of Galileo's telescope; 
that we are men and women who will do every single thing we can to 
bring about whatever we can, within our human powers, to cure the 
beastly diseases that wreak havoc in the lives of Americans and people 
all over this country.
  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.
  Because I accept the Holy 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 yet another way to praise God and His 
constantly evolving creation.
  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.' ''
  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. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to the time that is 
left.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Frank of Massachusetts). The gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Burgess) has 26\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman 
from Delaware (Mr. Castle) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) has 46 minutes remaining
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the chairwoman of the Rules Committee.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank both my colleagues, Mr. Castle 
and Ms. DeGette, for their tenacity on this bill. Stem cell research 
has the potential of reaching every man, woman, child on the planet. 
And without your tenacity, I am not sure we would still be here today. 
Thank you for that.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today not just as a Member of Congress, but as a 
microbiologist and a citizen.
  During recent years in Washington, politics has often stood in the 
way of the consensus and conclusions of the scientific community.
  One of the victims of that reality has been funding for stem cell 
research. I hope that today we can put aside our differences and 
together, achieve something that not just our scientists believe in, 
but the American people both want and deserve.
  New medical technologies are always met with concern, but today many 
of the technologies are saving lives. Many of you remember the debate 
about organ transplants, in vitro fertilization, that we should never 
do that. The same will soon be said about embryonic stem cells, if we 
want it to be.
  While all forms of stem cells should be researched, none offer as 
much promise as embryonic stem cells. An overwhelming body of 
international scientific research has shown them to be the only cells 
capable of becoming any element of the body. They are the key to so 
many of the cures that we have long sought.

[[Page H367]]

  Let me provide just one example of how powerful this research could 
be. There is growing evidence linking embryonic cell mutations to 
cancer, including testicular and breast cancer. As a result, future 
breakthroughs could one day eradicate many forms of cancer at their 
source.
  Because of its potential, 70 percent of Americans support embryonic 
stem cell research, and we all know someone who has suffered from a 
disease that embryonic stem cells could one day cure. Why would we 
choose to deny hope to millions of Americans and people all over the 
world?
  I should add that nations throughout the world have embraced 
embryonic stem cell research.
  I just want to say that, for all my colleagues who have second 
thoughts about this bill, let me ask you to step back and think about a 
loved one who could possibly benefit from this research, a neighbor, a 
friend. We have all got many of them.
  Your vote today should be clear. Vote for scientific research to help 
people.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today not just as a Member of Congress, but also 
as a microbiologist and a citizen who stands in awe of the life-saving 
potential we hold in our hands.
  During recent years in Washington, politics has often stood in the 
way of the consensus and conclusions of the scientific community.
  One of the victims of that reality has been funding for stem cell 
research. The opinions of those on both sides of this issue are both 
heartfelt and sincere. But I hope that today, we can put aside our 
differences and unite to achieve something that not just our scientists 
believe in, but that the American people both want and deserve.
  New medical technologies have always been met with skepticism and 
concern. There was a time in America when organ donations were 
experimental, and blood transfusions were considered too dangerous to 
consider. And yet today, these procedures are saving lives every hour.
  The same will soon be said of embryonic stem cells--if we want it.
  We may hear from some today that adult stem cells, cord blood cells, 
and amniotic fluid cells are just as promising as embryonic stem cells. 
But while they all show promise and should be researched, none of them 
offer as much promise as embryonic stem cells.
  An overwhelming body of international scientific research has shown 
embryonic stem cells to be the only type of stem cells capable of 
becoming any cell type in the body. They are the key to so many of the 
cures we have long sought after.
  Let me provide just one example of how powerful this research could 
be.
  There is growing evidence linking embryonic cell mutations to cancer. 
At UC San Francisco, scientists have discovered elevated activity of 
several embryonic stem cell genes in both testicular and breast 
cancers.
  Based on this new finding, scientists are hypothesizing that 
misregulated embryonic stem cell genes could cause or at least advance 
cancer.
  In fact, recent research is showing that up to 20 percent of all 
breast tumors are now suspected to originate in stem cells.
  Scientists hope to learn more about the functions of genes in the 
cells that make up tumors. Their examinations could show why stem cells 
become cancerous and how doctors can treat them.
  These breakthroughs could one day eradicate many forms of cancer at 
their source.
  Because of its potential, fully 70 percent of Americans support 
embryonic stem cell research. And that's not surprising. Nearly 
everyone has suffered from a disease, or knows someone who has, that 
embryonic stem cell research could one day cure. Who wouldn't want to 
end the suffering of their son, sister, father, or friend? Why would we 
choose to deny this hope to millions of Americans?
  Nations throughout the world have embraced embryonic stem cell 
research. Their scientists are taking great strides forward. In the 
end, enforcing restrictive federal research policies will only ensure 
that the United States will continue to lose many of our best and 
brightest scientists in this field to other countries.
  Mr. Speaker, many of history's greatest medical killers now have 
cures because of scientific research. Tens of millions of lives have 
been saved as a result. Today, we have the potential to save millions 
more, and to leave other deadly diseases behind us.
  I believe people in wheelchairs will one day walk again. I believe 
that we can bring about an entirely new form of health care in 
America--one defined by shorter hospital stays, fewer invasive 
procedures, and increasing benefits to both our patients and our bottom 
line.
  The bill before us today presents an ethical solution to research 
that could potentially benefit almost every American. It gives our 
country hope--hope that one day we won't have to watch our mothers die 
of breast cancer, our grandparents suffer from Alzheimer's, and our own 
children endure Type I diabetes.
  If we fail to fund embryonic stem cell research, I do not believe 
that we will be able to look our children and grandchildren, our 
mothers or fathers, or our grandparents in the eye and tell them we did 
everything we could to help them live a better, healthier, longer, 
happier life.
  I urge my colleagues who have second thoughts about this bill to step 
back and think of a loved one who could possibly benefit from this 
research. Your vote today should be clear.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), a member of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I gave a 1-minute earlier that 
compared the hope for embryonic research with the new research that is 
being done on other stem cells. But, in all honesty, we need to be 
looking at everything to deal with the illnesses that we have.
  Embryonic stem cell research is the hope for millions of Americans. 
Embryonic stem cell research is now supported by educational and 
religious affiliated institutions, but they need Federal Government 
help to find the cures for spinal cord injuries, Alzheimer's and many 
other illnesses.
  Let me talk about two personal examples of the imperative need for 
this Federal assistance to find these cures. I know of a young lady 
named Monica who had her spinal cord severed in an auto accident. She 
is young enough to benefit from aggressive research on a cure. We need 
all the research dollars we can get into embryonic stem cell, adult 
stem cells and others to be able to deal with this young lady who has 
the possibility that her spinal cord could be regenerated. It may be 
next year. It may be 10 years or 20 years. But let's don't take that 
hope away.
  Another example is my mother-in-law. She was diagnosed in 1996 with 
Alzheimer's. And my wife and I have lived for the last 10 years 
watching my mother-in-law die. She died the day after Christmas. She 
hasn't known either of us for over 2 years. She was in a research 
facility in Houston, at Baylor College of Medicine, that could just 
monitor her progress on a yearly basis. For the last 2 years, we 
couldn't take her to the hospital or to the doctor's office. And we 
watched Alzheimers make that happen.
  It is too late for my mother-in-law's generation. But it is not too 
late to change it for the next generation, Mr. Speaker, and Members. 
And to stand up here today and say it is a sin to do this research, it 
is a sin not to do the research. It is not a sin to try and use 
embryonic cells. It is a sin not to do this research.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  (Mr. HENSARLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favor of the unalienable 
right to life and in opposition to H.R. 3.
  This legislation would require increased Federal support for embryo-
destructive research, abrogating, I believe, our responsibility to 
protect life as declared by our Founders in the Declaration of 
Independence.
  Yet, some in this Chamber, I believe, would inadvertently end life, 
even in its earliest moments, in order to try to improve the lives of 
others. And they do so by using research that has shown little promise 
to develop effective treatments.
  Mr. Speaker, there are alternatives. I support ethical stem cell 
research that does not spend Federal taxpayer dollars to fund studies 
that so many Americans find morally reprehensible. For example, we know 
that adult stem cell research has now, to date, led to 72 different 
treatments and clinical applications in humans. Additionally, we know 
that umbilical cord blood is already being used successfully against 
diseases like leukemia, sickle cell anemia and lymphoma.
  And just this week, we all know, worldwide we heard the news that a 
new source of stem cells had been found in amniotic fluid. These cells, 
which can be retrieved without doing harm to a developing child, and 
have

[[Page H368]]

been described as having all the positive potential of embryonic stem 
cells but with much greater stability.
  But, Mr. Speaker, for those who are committed only to embryonic stem 
cell research, it is important for all Americans to know there is no 
current prohibition on this research. Any individual, any university, 
any medical center is free to use their resources to conduct this type 
of research. And, indeed, hundreds of millions have already been spent, 
unfortunately, with little result.
  In this body we debate a number of vitally important issues. But is 
there any issue more important than preserving the sanctity of life? 
And shouldn't we ask ourselves, how can we preserve liberty if we 
cannot preserve life? And should there be doubt, we should err on the 
side of life.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman so much 
for her relentless and effective leadership, and express my gratitude 
to Congressman Castle.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3. I have been struck 
and moved by the number of colleagues who have come here and cited 
their own family members, including their children, as the driving 
force behind their support. But none of us should be surprised, since 
100 million Americans are afflicted with diseases that potentially 
could be cured by embryonic stem cell research. And I have heard from 
so many of them from my own district. Why destroy their hope?
  And I rise today in the name of our beloved friend and part of our 
Congressional family, Lane Evans. Lane is one of the million Americans 
who suffer from Parkinson's Disease, and that has cut his career short. 
And during his time in Congress, Lane was dedicated to advancing stem 
cell research because he understands what it is like to struggle with 
an incapacitating disease. And he understands the hope that embryonic 
stem cell research holds. Why would we want to destroy that hope?
  And I want to thank all of my friends from the Juvenile Diabetes 
Foundation from my district and their children, who have served as 
advocates in such an effective way and met with me on a regular basis 
and educated me about this. And my dear friend, Bonnie Wilson, whose 
daughter, Jenna, has juvenile diabetes and has lived with that for her 
whole life. Why would we want to destroy their hope?

                              {time}  1300

  Since I have been in Congress, I have received letters from people 
like Liz O'Malley, and she describes the daily struggle of her son, 
Seamus. Seamus has muscular dystrophy. He is only 11 years old. Stem 
cell treatment may be his only hope. Why would we destroy that hope?
  Illinois has already awarded $10 million in grant funding to research 
institutes and hospitals because Governor Blagojevich recognizes the 
advances. Now we can do it on a Federal level.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and 
thank her for her strong leadership on this issue. The bill that we are 
considering today addresses shortcomings in current stem cell policy 
while maintaining strict ethical standards in stem cell research. 
Embryonic stem cell research offers promise to millions of Americans 
suffering from spinal cord injuries and chronic illnesses, including 
cancer, Parkinson's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, and diabetes.
  Neither Congress nor the administration should prohibit the medical 
community from pursuing a promising avenue of research that can improve 
the lives of millions of Americans. Embryonic stem cell research is 
supported by the majority of my constituents in Maine and has 
overwhelming bipartisan support across this country. I have heard from 
hundreds of constituents who support this bill, including Virginia, 
from Gardiner, Maine, whose mother is stricken with Parkinson's 
disease.
  She describes the conditions of limited mobility her mother faces as 
horrific. Celia, in Madison, Maine, says her twin sister, Maura, was 
paralyzed from an auto accident and hopes for a better life.
  We need to ensure that our scientists can pursue the promising 
research of embryonic stem cells to help these people and millions like 
them. We cannot allow the politics of this issue to undermine 
groundbreaking research, impede science and place at risk the health 
and well-being of victims and their families.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 3.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. I thank my colleague for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3, but definitely 
not in opposition to stem cell research; indeed, not in opposition to 
embryonic stem cell research. That is the position, my colleagues, of 
this President and most of the Republicans in this House. It is not an 
issue of being opposed to research on embryonic stem cells, but it is 
in opposition to research that results in the destruction of human 
life.
  Certainly if you ask the American public when they look at this 
picture on television if they would be in favor of embryonic stem cell 
research, if you could help this man, or, even more compelling, our 
colleagues in this body, Lane Evans and James Langevin, the answer 
would be a resounding, yes, 80 percent. I think maybe I would be one of 
those who would be inclined to so vote.
  But on the other hand, Mr. Speaker, if you held up this picture, 
snowflake babies, and asked them, would you be willing to support 
embryonic stem cell research if it meant the destruction of these 
lives, or not giving these lives an opportunity to ever develop, I 
think the answer, with the statistics, would be completely reversed.
  Now, the Members in this body, some are strongly pro-life, some are 
mostly pro-life, some are slightly pro-life and some are pro-choice, 
whether we are Republicans or Democrats. But I think most of us would 
say we are pretty much opposed to abortion, and we wish there would be 
no need for abortions.
  Well, we have an opportunity with H.R. 322, the Bartlett bill, of 
which I am a very proud original cosponsor, to do it another way, to do 
research, indeed, to obtain embryonic stem cells without destroying the 
embryo, either through a biopsy or through using embryos that have no 
chance to live. We can get viable embryonic stem cells.
  The point is, we don't have to divide this body and this Nation. We 
have lots of things that we can argue about legitimately in a friendly 
atmosphere, and that is the way it should be in this body.
  We have gotten Members, a Republican and a Democrat, Mr. Castle and 
Ms. DeGette, who are very popular Members, very persuasive, but are 
very committed to this issue. We have a better choice. Now with this 
research from Wake Forest utilizing amniotic cells and the provisions 
within the Bartlett bill, H.R. 322, let us give that a chance. Let us 
give life a chance.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Georgia holds up a picture of two 
beautiful little girls and says we would not want to destroy them for 
research. He absolutely has that right. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I take 
deep offense at any insinuation that we would kill children for this 
type of research.
  The thing to know, H.R. 3 specifically says the only embryos we will 
allow for this research is embryos created for IVF clinics which are 
slated to be thrown away, embryos which are never implanted and will 
never become babies.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Last year, the President vetoed the hope and crushed the 
dreams of millions of patients and their families. With the stroke of a 
pen, the President used his very first veto to block this bill, the 
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, and to continue to impose severe 
restrictions on stem cell research. We are now giving the President a 
second chance to move beyond his Luddite moment in American scientific 
history to a new moment of scientific enlightenment

[[Page H369]]

and hope. We must let hope triumph over fear and science, triumph over 
ideology.
  Diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer's, and cancer wreak havoc on the 
lives of millions of Americans. We can free our loved ones from this 
pain, but only if we free science to find the keys.
  Embryonic stem cell research is the flickering candle of medical 
promise that gives hope for the treatment and cure of these devastating 
diseases, researchers' medicines' field of dreams from which we can 
harvest the findings that can give hope to millions of families.
  Please do not condemn the afflicted to another generation of 
darkness. It is past time to take this critical step towards fulfilling 
our moral obligation to do all we can to reduce pain and suffering 
around the world and to support ethical, comprehensive stem cell 
research.
  I thank the gentlelady from Colorado, and I thank all Members for 
their work on this critically important historic litigation.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) for a unanimous-consent request.
  (Mrs. BIGGERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3.
  Everyone has a family member or friend who suffers from diabetes, 
Alzheimer's, Parkinson's or other diseases. Unfortunately, without 
Federal Government support, scientists won't have access to the stem 
cells they need to develop treatments and cures for these and a host of 
other diseases that touch the lives of every American.
  We already are using Federal funds to support embryonic stem cell 
research. But science has advanced rapidly since the President 
announced his stem cell research policy. These cells were just 
identified less than ten years ago, and already, the technology is 
progressing by leaps and bounds. The 22 lines currently available under 
the President's policy were developed using outdated techniques and 
have been contaminated, possibly skewing the outcome of experiments.
  There are now 125 good, pure cell lines available for use. Because 
they are more diverse, not only can scientists use them to research 
more conditions, but they better reflect the genetic diversity of 
individuals.
  I support lifting the ban on Federal funding for embryonic stem cell 
research, so long as the donors give their consent and the cells made 
available would otherwise be discarded and destroyed. It is simply 
tragic that something so valuable would just be thrown away when it has 
so much potential to alleviate so much suffering.
  Given the promise that these stem cells hold, it is time to drop the 
restrictions and allow researchers to do what they do best. Let's let 
researchers go where the science leads them, not where politicians 
dictate. In order to truly explore all the possibilities, scientists 
must have access to all kinds of stem cells: adult, embryonic and those 
from umbilical cord blood and amniotic fluid. That is why I plan to 
vote for H.R. 3.
  I am proud to support H.R. 3, and for the sake of the millions 
suffering from debilitating diseases, I ask my colleagues to do the 
same.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to recognize the 
gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany, for a unanimous-consent 
request.
  (Mr. BOUSTANY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 3. As a heart and lung surgeon, 
I've seen the power of hope and the harms caused by those who give 
misinformation and false hope to patients and families.
  Too often, proponents of embryonic stem cell research promise an 
immediate cure to dying patients and their families.
  From a medical standpoint, embryonic stem cells have yet to produce a 
single human treatment. Embryonic cells also produce tumors and cause 
transplant rejection.
  Such techniques also raise grave ethical problems. The claim that 
most human embryos in fertility clinics ``will be discarded anyway'' is 
disingenuous. Research shows that ``the vast majority of stored embryos 
(88.2 percent) are being held for family building.''
  Fortunately, science continues to discover more promising lines of 
stem cell research.
  Adult stem cells have already been used to treat a growing number of 
human diseases.
  Scientists at Harvard and Wake Forest University recently reported 
their success using stem cells in amniotic fluid and the placenta.
  They explained that these stem cells ``remain stable for years 
without forming tumors.''
  All Americans depend on medical breakthroughs. Federal funding for 
all types of stem cell research rose above $609 million last year.
  It's disappointing that the Speaker would not permit a vote today to 
increase funding for the most productive stem cell research.
  Last year, the Bartlett bill passed the Senate unanimously. It would 
have increased funding for embryonic stem cell research that doesn't 
destroy an embryo, including embryo biopsy. The current House 
leadership defeated it to score political points against the President.
  It's irresponsible for Congress to spend scarce federal tax dollars 
on lines of scientific research that have proven least effective.
  Evidence proves it's possible to advance stem cell research without 
paying biomedical firms to destroy human embryos.
  Conclusion: For these reasons, I oppose H.R. 3 and urge my colleagues 
to oppose this bill as well.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would repeat that the gentleman 
from Michigan did get general leave for all Members to insert into the 
Record. All Members have general leave to insert statements in the 
Record and to also include therein extraneous material.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. I thank my friend from Colorado for yielding this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of federally funded ethical stem cell 
research. This important legislation would lift the ban on which stem 
cell lines can be researched using Federal dollars. It provides sound 
rules and regulations to govern the research of stem cells, rules such 
as preventing human cloning for embryos or the deliberate destruction 
of embryos. This legislation will give doctors and scientists the 
ability to perform more research, to find new cures for degenerative 
diseases such as Alzheimer's, spinal cord injuries, and diabetes. We as 
a country excel in so much. Let us push forward on important research 
rather than regressing.
  With embryonic stem cell research, we could potentially save or 
extend the lives of an estimated 100 million Americans. While this bill 
has overwhelming support from our country's leading scientists, 
biomedical researchers, patient advocacy groups and health 
organizations, along with many religious leaders, and 72 percent of all 
Americans.
  In the past, President Bush has emphatically stated that he will veto 
this legislation. I hope that this time around the President listens to 
the overall majority of Americans and approves this important 
legislation. I support this legislation and stand with my colleagues 
here in the House.
  To President Bush, I ask you to reconsider your stance on stem cell 
research. Don't make your second veto of your administration as 
detrimental as your first. Democrats promised America a new direction, 
and we are delivering a new direction forward.
  I thank the gentlelady from Colorado.
  Mr. CASTLE. At this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support, but let me say not 
support in the traditional sense. There are those of us who are parents 
who have lost young ones and have watched and had to make the decision 
of what to do with embryos that they have. I think the sanctity of life 
works both ways.
  One of the sanctity of life concepts is to make sure that if you are 
going to lose a loved one, you respect the life and try to maximize the 
benefit from that loss. I think this bill is trying to address that. I 
would ask both sides not to point fingers, but to try to find that 
sanctity of life is something that is interpreted in many ways.

[[Page H370]]

  One of them is to make sure that if a life is going to be lost, we 
have a moral obligation to maximize the potential benefit from that 
loss. That is a respect for sanctity of life that is not discussed 
enough.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members to address 
all remarks to the Chair and not to other individuals not present in 
the body.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, a couple of 
numbers, there has been a suggestion an overwhelming number of the 
American people support the approach contained in this bill. In fact, 
the latest poll that was taken just last spring shows that only 39 
percent support Federal funding of the approach found in this bill when 
they are informed that it requires the destruction of embryos.
  The CBS poll taken a year ago shows that only 37 percent of the 
American people support more Federal funds for more stem cell lines. 
Another number that is important is 70-0. That is the score of the 
diseases that have been successfully treated by the use of stem cells 
from adult and blood cord stem cells, zero of the number that have been 
treated successfully by embryonic stem cells.
  But more importantly, it seems to me as we deal with this issue, we 
should recall the words of Dr. Nigel Cameron, the founder of the 
journal called ``Ethics and Medicine,'' when he said in his testimony: 
``Our membership in the human species is enough to distinguish the 
human embryo from all other laboratory artifacts.''
  It is important for us to understand that human dignity is not 
reserved for adult human beings. And for us to say here at this time 
that human dignity is contingent upon arbitrary criteria such as size 
or location is a profound judgment that we make. It is for that reason 
that President Clinton's National Bioethics Advisory Commission decided 
not to permit stem cell research using IVF embryos after finding that 
``the derivation of stem cells from embryos remaining following 
fertility treatments is justifiable, only,'' it said, ``only if no less 
problematic alternatives are available for advancing the research.''
  We have seen the evidence compounding, even since we were here on 
this floor, just last year, that there are morally appropriate 
alternatives. Let us not follow in this direction.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. This bill is about hope. Scientists call them stem 
cells; but they are really cells of hope, the hope of a life with 
dignity, the hope of increased mobility, the hope of a time without 
pain, and the hope of a parent to spare a newborn a life of illness and 
impairment. With this bill, scientists' hands are freed to find cures 
for Alzheimer's and ALS, for cancer and MS and Parkinson's and much 
more.
  Blocking this bill will not prevent the destruction of embryos, but 
it will ensure the destruction of hopes like that of the young 19-year-
old Daniel from Austin, who wrote, ``Every day that embryonic stem cell 
research is delayed will be another day of my life confined to a 
wheelchair.''

                              {time}  1315

  How cruel to block hope for those suffering from lingering diseases 
that slowly drain away life and happiness and energy.
  Publicly-funded, responsible stem cell research is coming. It is just 
a question of how many lives are lost first, of how many families will 
still be suffering before we here in Congress are able to secure the 
votes to pry open the politically inspired restraints that this 
administration has imposed on expediting the cures and the treatments 
long awaited by so many who are afflicted and those who care for them.
  Affirm life today by affirming life-saving science. Vote hope over 
obstruction.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California, a member of the committee, 
Mrs. Capps.
  Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Stem Cell Research 
Enhancement Act. I have been so proud to be a part of the bipartisan 
effort to advance federally funded stem cell research and commend the 
tireless work of the bill's cosponsors Diana DeGette and Mike Castle.
  It is evident that we will pass this bill today, but we know that 
hurdles remain before the measure is signed into law. Along the way, 
opponents of this legislation have been spreading mistruths about what 
embryonic stem cell research entails and what its promises are. How 
many times have we heard here on the floor today the claim that this 
research involves the creation of life in order to destroy it? So I 
reiterate again, the bill explicitly states that only embryos created 
for in vitro fertilization that would otherwise be discarded and are 
being discarded every day can be used for this type of research and 
only with the explicit consent, permission given explicitly by the 
donors; and also that no Federal dollars are used in the extraction 
process.
  It is important above all that we enact this Federal legislation even 
for a State like mine, California, which does have stem cell research, 
because we need in this Nation the highest ethical standards which is 
what the Federal legislation can do.
  By allowing research to make use of embryonic stem cells slated to be 
thrown out, we are in fact giving purpose to this. And of course 
through this research lives will be saved for millions now suffering 
from debilitating illnesses.
  Today, we have also been hearing the argument that adult or amniotic 
stem cell research alone will be enough, but this is not the case. The 
world's leading scientists concur that all stem cell research should be 
conducted together in order to maximize the benefits.
  Our President himself has stated his desire to put the United States 
at the forefront of science and innovation. Getting him to sign this 
bill is one way to make that happen. A vote against H.R. 3 would be 
setting us back even further and would let other countries get much 
further ahead of us in the effort to cure the world's most chronic and 
devastating diseases.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote enthusiastically in favor of H.R. 3.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia, Jack Kingston.
  (Mr. KINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that this is a debate 
which so many of us feel passionately about on both sides. It is such a 
shame, though, that it was not allowed to go to committee. I hear over 
and over again how important this bill is and actually to both sides, 
proponents and opponents, yet no committee, no hearing, no amendments. 
It is a pity. I certainly hope that the Democrats do go back to their 
party's promise of last week and start opening things up.
  Now, having said that, I wanted to make two points, and then I am 
going to extend my remarks. But there is no Federal law against 
embryonic stem cell research right now. Many people seem to think that 
this will allow something to happen that it doesn't. The debate is more 
about what types of lines.
  Now, as you know, the President has approved research on 78 lines. 
Twenty-two of them are being used currently in Federal funding, and I 
have the list of where those 22 are, their locations, which I will 
submit to the Record.

                                 TABLE 1. NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH FUNDING
                                                 [$ in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Stem cell research                            FY03     FY04     FY05     FY06     FY07
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human Embryonic....................................................       20       24       40       38       39
Non-Human Embryonic................................................      113       89       97       97       96
Human Non-Embryonic................................................      191      203      199      200      200

[[Page H371]]

 
Non-Human Non-Embryonic............................................      192      236      273      274      273
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
    Total, Stem Cell Research......................................      517      553      609      609     608
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NIH Budget Office, March 10, 2006.


            Table 2. NIH LIST OF HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL LINES ELIGIBLE FOR USE IN FEDERAL RESEARCH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Number of stem cell lines
                            Name a                             -------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Eligible                Available
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BresaGen, Inc., Athens, GA....................................                        4                        3
Cell & Gene Therapy Institute (Pochon CHA University), Seoul,                         2
 Korea........................................................
Cellartis AB, Goteborg, Sweden................................                        3                        2
CyThera, Inc., San Diego, CA..................................                        9                        0
ES Cell International, Melbourne, Australia...................                        6                        6
Geron Corporation, Menlo Park, CA.............................                        7
Goteborg University, Goteborg, Sweden.........................                       16
Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.......................                        6                        0
Maria Biotech Co. Ltd.--Maria Infertility Hospital Medical                            3
 Institute, Seoul, Korea......................................
MizMedi Hospital--Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.....                        1                        1
National Center for Biological Sciences/Tata Institute of                             3
 Fundamental Research, Bangalore, India.......................
Reliance Life Sciences, Mumbai, India.........................                        7
Technion University, Haifa, Israel............................                        4                        3
University of California, San Francisco, CA...................                        2                        2
Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, Madison, WI.............                        5                        5
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................................                       78                      22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: [http://stemcells.nih.gov/research/registry/eligibilityCriteria.asp].
a Six table entries do not have stem cell lines available for shipment to U.S. researchers because of a variety
  of scientific, regulatory and legal reasons. The zeros entered in the ``Available'' column indicate that ``the
  cells failed to expand into undifferentiated cell cultures.''

  Mr. Speaker, I also want to say that $200 million is being spent by 
private foundations and institutions on stem cell research, in addition 
to $39 million over at the National Institutes of Health; in addition 
to that $39 million, on nonhuman embryonic stem cell research, $96 
million; on human nonembryonic stem cell research, $200 million; on 
nonhuman nonembryonic stem cell research, $273 million. This is very 
important.
  The other thing that we keep hearing over again is that these are 
leftover embryos. In fact, of the 400,000 embryos which keep getting 
referred to, the RAND Corporation, which is nonpartisan, says only 
11,000 have been designated for research, and of those they will 
probably yield 275 stem cell lines.
  And why is that important? It is important because eventually you run 
out and then you start deciding to produce something. And I want to 
point out, England has already crossed this path. They have already 
voted on an H.R. 3, and today they are debating the hybrid stem cell 
creation of an animal-human embryonic stem cell. That is a debate going 
on in England today. So don't think that this bill will stay within the 
boundaries of the bill if it is passed.
  My colleagues today will try to tell you that all of those against 
this bill are against science. That is just not the case. You can be 
pro-life and pro-science; the two are not mutually exclusive. To say we 
are anti-science is just a complete falsehood.
  Stem cells are cells with the unique ability to divide and grow 
colonies of the specialized cells that make up the tissues and organs 
of the body.
  Adult stem cells: unspecialized cells that can reproduce and mature 
into the specialized cells of the surrounding tissue. For example: Stem 
cells found in the heart can divide into more heart tissue cells.
  Embryonic stem cells: unspecialized cells found in the early stages 
of an embryo that can reproduce and mature into the specialized cells 
of any organ or tissue in the body. For example: Stem cells found in 
the early stages of an embryo can divide into and create more cells of 
heart tissue, liver tissue, or any other tissue in the body.
  Stem cells have been found in many tissues in the developed human 
body (adult stem cells), and are found in the largest quantities in the 
early stages of embryonic development in: the umbilical cord (cord 
cells), embryos (embryonic stem cells), and just this week, it was 
announced that stem cells have been discovered in the amniotic fluid 
(amniotic stem cells) that surrounds an unborn child in the womb.
  A ``stem cell line'' is created by removing a cluster of cells from 
an embryo in its early stages of development. The embryo is destroyed 
and the cells are grown in a culture that under the right conditions 
will yield colonies of stem cells. Once the initial stem cells are 
isolated they can be manipulated to reproduce over and over again.
  While the Democrats will try to make this a vote for or against 
embryonic stem cell research that is just a falsehood. There is no 
federal law against embryonic stem cell research. On August 9, 2001, 
President Bush announced that his administration would allow federal 
funding for research using the 78 approved lines. Of the 78 original 
derivations held to meet the August 9, 2001 criteria, there are now 
twenty-one embryonic stem cell lines available and in use.
  This has been the number available for about a year now, up from 17 
in 2004 and just 1 in 2002. The 78 eligible lines break down as 
follows:
  Twenty-one available and used.
  One in development (which could yet become available, that remains 
unclear).
  One temporarily on hold due to irregularities in its use (this is a 
South Korean line, NIH investigation continues).
  Thirty-one owned by foreign institutions that have not made them 
available.
  Sixteen of these are frozen in an undeveloped state for use when 
culturing methods are perfected. These are owned by a Swedish 
institution, they could very well become available when that 
institution decides techniques for developing them are sufficiently 
developed (i.e. high efficiency, no animal cells etc.) but we have no 
control over that and cannot know how many of them will prove viable 
when they are thawed.

  The remaining 15 have never been made available and NIH suspects 
(reasonably) they are not viable.
  Seventeen have proven unviable and cannot be made usable.
  Seven are duplicates of some of the 22 available lines, and are being 
held in reserve to avoid over-development of those lines. These are not 
being distributed and not counted among the available lines (a common 
and logical practice in cell biology.)
  Since each line can be replicated almost without limit, these 21 
lines have made for more than 700 shipments to individual researchers 
since 2001.
  NIH has the capacity to make more than 3,000 more shipments available 
upon request. There has been no shortage of lines.
  Funding for use of the lines has been growing each year.
  In FY 05, NIH spent $39 million on human embryonic stem cell work, an 
increase of 61 percent over FY 04. In total, more than $130 million 
have been spent.
  Now, to me, it seems the Democrat party, who chose to vote against 
the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Enhancement Act by a vote of 273-
154 under suspension, would be the party against science. This bill, 
which was supported by the President and was voted for unanimously by 
the Senate, would have directed HHS to research and develop techniques 
for ``the isolation, derivation, production, or testing of stem cells 
that are capable of producing all or almost all of the cell types of 
the developing body, but are NOT derived from a human embryo''. And on 
H.R., once again, the Democrats are NOT allowing for an open and 
transparent process which would allow amendments in the form of the 
substitute of some of this language.
  While any potential treatments from embryonic stem cells are decades 
away at best (in

[[Page H372]]

fact, there have been no therapeutic applications or even human trials 
at this point) patients being treated today with adult stem cell 
treatments have been found to benefit 72 different ailments, ranging 
from cancers, auto-immune diseases to wounds and injuries. (Note that 
though none of these are cures, peer journals show adult stem cells 
benefit Leukemia and Parkinson's patients, who have gone into 
remission, and those who have MS can walk more, etc.) Embryonic stem 
cells have the capacity to grow and reproduce rapidly, but that same 
tendency causes them to form tumors.
  When cells derived from embryonic stem cells are transplanted into 
adult animals, their most common fate is to die. This is in striking 
contrast to the survival of adult cells when transplanted in adult 
tissue. This failure of embryonic stem-cell derived tissue to survive 
when transplanted seems to show that science hasn't determined how to 
generate normal adult tissue from embryonic stem cells.
  Embryonic stem cell science relies on the assumption that embryonic 
stem cells can grow into any type of cell just because they can within 
the embryo. But in reality, scientists have found that it is hard to 
control the direction of the cells, and they often grow faster than 
surrounding tissue, forming tumors.
  Proponents of embryo-destructive research claim that there are 
400,000 leftover embryos that could be used for research.
  It's deeply troubling to describe any human being as ``leftover''. 
This is not a matter of religious belief but of biology. A human embryo 
is a human being, and each of us was once an embryo.
  However, according to the non-partisan RAND corporation, the ``vast 
majority of frozen embryos are held for family building'' and ``only 
11,000 have been designated for research, and those 11,000 embryos will 
likely yield just 275 stem cell lines''. This same study found that of 
the roughly 400,000 human embryos currently frozen in storage; only 2.8 
percent have been designated for research.
  In Vitro Fertilization clinics are most commonly used by Caucasian 
Americans--not the diverse population that the scientists claim to need 
for research purposes.
  As of 2006, 110 children have been born through the Nightlight 
Christian Adoption agency's Snowflake Baby program.
  The NIH spent 38 million federal taxpayer dollars for human embryonic 
stem cell research in 2005 and through 2006, they spent $122 million on 
human embryonic stem cell research. The Bush policy does not limit the 
level of NIH funding and NIH determines how many grant proposals to 
give. Additionally, the Journal of the American Medical Association 
published an article in September 2005 that found when public funding 
for research lapses, private funders almost always step in to take up 
the slack.
  The President will stand firm in his stance that it is possible to 
advance scientific research ``without violating ethical principles by 
enacting appropriate policy safeguards and pursuing appropriate 
scientific techniques'' (statement of Admin. policy).
  Proponents of this research will not be satisfied with the 275 stem 
cell lines they may be able to get from frozen embryos. They will move 
to the next step, human cloning, and begin to create custom ordered 
embryos on which to experiment. In fact, Diana DeGette herself has said 
``therapeutic cloning is the way to take stem cell research and all of 
its promise from the lab to the patient'' (July 31, 2001 floor debate).
  Harvard scientists already want to grow disease specific lines of 
stem cells, which of course you would need cloning to do. According to 
their website, ``To be maximally useful, stem cell science requires 
using a process in which the nucleus of an egg, which contains its 
genetic material, is removed and replaced by the genetic material from 
an adult cell. This egg, with its new nucleus, then grows into a 
cluster of cells from which investigators can derive stem cells 
matching the genetic identity of the patient who donated the implanted 
cells, and which are therefore unlikely to be rejected by the patient's 
immune system. This technique is called somatic cell nuclear transfer, 
or therapeutic cloning''.
  Proponents claim that adult stem cells are no match for embryonic 
stem cells. I guarantee you that those who vote in favor of this bill 
today will then say embryonic stem cells are no substitute for cloned 
cells. It will never be enough.
  Democrats will also argue that our current quote restrictions are 
causing us to fall behind other countries in research in this arena. 
This is just not the case. Of the number of scientific publications on 
the matter, 40 percent of those on embryonic stem cells are by 
researchers in the U.S. and the others are divided by 20 countries.
  A paper in the April issue of Nature Biotechnology showed that 85 
percent of all human embryonic stem cell publications in the world have 
used the approved lines, with the great bulk of them appearing between 
02 and 05. This is a much higher number than expected.
  The same study also showed that American researchers easily lead the 
world in human ES cell publications, and the number of American 
publications has been growing each year of this administration (as has 
the number of foreign publications).
  The Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005--which is now 
public law--made genetically matched cord blood stem cells available to 
patients who need them.
  Cord blood is the blood leftover from the placenta after the birth of 
a child and has been used for years. In fact, it has been used to treat 
more than 70 diseases including sickle cell disease, cancer, and 
genetic disorders. These cells have the ability to change into many 
different types of cells in the body.
  The Act is beginning to be implemented into the National Cord Blood 
Inventory. HHS has begun developing contracts which are then authorized 
by the Stem Cell bill to collect and store 150,000 new units of cord 
blood. Cord blood stem cell research and treatment is a good way to 
promote cures while still maintaining ethics.
  One example of a patient who has benefited: Nathan Salley, who had 
leukemia at age 11, did not respond to intense chemotherapy sessions. 
When this treatment didn't work, doctors performed a cord blood 
transplant which involved killing off Nathan's bone marrow cells, then 
regrowing new (healthy) ones by injecting healthy umbilical cord blood 
stem cells. Nine years after his initial diagnosis, Nathan is preparing 
for his final year of college.
  PrimeCell Therapeutics has created the first non-embryonic, adult-
derived stem cell showing the ability to transform into any cell type 
found in the body (pluripotency). They have taken stem cells from one 
part of the body and turned them into cells from another part of the 
body, including into beating heart cells as well as brain, bone and 
cartilage cells.
  They are derived from the germ line, which is the most protected and 
genetically pure cell line in the body, since they normally would 
develop into eggs and sperm. This is the one line that remains 
unaffected by the aging process.
  They are autologus, meaning they come from you and are transplanted 
back into you for treatment. Therefore, there is a reduced chance of 
infection following transplantation and there is no risk of rejection--
meaning there will no longer be the worries involving immunosuppressant 
drugs.
  Other successful treatments: Scientists have grown human heart valves 
using stem cells from amniotic fluid. The new valves are created in the 
lab while the pregnancy progresses and are then implanted in a baby 
with heart defects after it is born (AP/Wash Post).
  On January 8, 2007, scientists from Wake Forest University reported 
that these amniotic cells, which are easily retrieved during routine 
prenatal testing and can be isolated as early as 10 weeks after 
conception, were ``easier to maintain in laboratory dishes than 
embryonic stem cells'' (Wash. Post). They also grow ``as fast as 
embryonic stem cells, show great pluripotentiality, and remain stable 
for years without forming tumors'' (Dr. Anthony Atala, Wash. Post). If 
the goal of using embryonic stem cells (versus adult stem cells) is 
pluripotency, we may have an even better and more flexible solution 
with these amniotic cells without the complications of tumor formation.
  Researchers at Northwestern have found that adult stem cells derived 
from bone marrow gives rise to blood cells, which can then be 
transformed into a wide variety of tissue types. In fact, they have 
found like a certain type of bone marrow cell has been transformed into 
white blood cells that are 
responsible for fighting infections (medicalnewstoday).
  Bone marrow cells have also been shown to be stretched into patterns 
that could potentially transform them into smooth muscle cells similar 
to blood vessel tissue (DC-Berkeley experiment, medical news today).
  In conclusion, science has shown us that there are several 
alternative ways to explore stem cell research without destroying an 
embryo. We need to direct the NIH to fund and research these 
alternatives and make them a priority. Science is flexible, and 
researchers need the incentive to pursue the already proven research of 
adult stem cells--not the questionable and unproven helpfulness of 
embryonic stem cells.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, would the gentlewoman yield for a question?
  Ms. DeGETTE. No. The gentleman can use his own time.
  Mr. McHENRY. I just have a question about----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has declined to yield.
  Mr. McHENRY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Well, does the gentlewoman yield for the purpose of a parliamentary 
inquiry?

[[Page H373]]

  Ms. DeGETTE. No. He can use his own time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman does not yield.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry does not count 
against anyone's time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A parliamentary inquiry may be propounded 
only if the Member holding the floor yields for that purpose and would, 
in that event, count against her time.
  The gentlewoman from Colorado has been recognized, and she may 
proceed.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).
  Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, special thanks to the leaders on this 
debate, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) and the gentleman 
from Delaware (Mr. Castle). They have been great leaders in a strong 
bipartisan effort that has brought us here to this floor again.
  I stand here today for my constituents in Missouri in strong support 
of H.R. 3 and its strong ethical standards. Stem cell research holds 
real promise of cures for many, many diseases we have heard about 
today.
  Expanding the President's artificially restrictive policy will 
support the hopes of millions of Americans who struggle every day to 
survive under the burden of a life-altering diagnosis or a life-ending 
disease. Science, not politics, should determine the future of this 
vital research.
  Last Congress, this House passed this legislation with extraordinary 
bipartisan effort. It is my sincere hope that we will not have to wait 
much longer before this bill becomes law. Every day we wait is another 
day that people suffer needlessly. We stand here with the tools in our 
hands to ease the pain of so many across this country.
  Decades ago, Martin Luther King called Americans to act with fierce 
urgency of now. Today, it is time to act with fierce urgency on life-
saving cures. Let's pass H.R. 3 and the Stem Cell Research Enhancement 
Act again, and we all urge the President to reconsider his veto.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. McHENRY. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, inquiry of the contents of this 
legislation. Would it be appropriate to offer an amendment at this time 
exempting American Samoa just as it was from the minimum wage bill?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. Under the rule 
that was adopted, no amendment is in order at this time.
  Mr. McHENRY. So the gentleman----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has asked the parliamentary 
inquiry, and he has received the answer.
  Mr. McHENRY. Further parliamentary inquiry. Further parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Yes. The gentleman may state the inquiry.
  Mr. McHENRY. So the Chair is saying that I may not offer an amendment 
exempting American Samoa from this legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is making a speech and will 
suspend.
  Mr. McHENRY. If the Chair will let me finish my question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. The Chair has 
answered the gentleman's question, not by the Chair's own decision but 
by the rule. The rule does not provide for amendments. That is the 
answer to the gentleman's question.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, is the rule that we are operating 
under coming out of the Rules Committee?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has not stated a 
point of order, but rather a parliamentary inquiry. The House has 
adopted procedures which do not allow amendments. Therefore, Members 
will now proceed, and the Chair will recognize anyone who wishes to 
yield time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Another point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state the point of order.
  Mr. BARTON. How many times----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. No. ``How many times'' could not conceivably 
be a point of order. It could be a parliamentary inquiry, but it could 
not conceivably be a point of order.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I have one additional parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state it.
  Mr. McHENRY. Is American Samoa exempted from this bill before us on 
the House floor?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will respond to the gentleman: 
that is not a parliamentary inquiry; that is an inquiry about the 
substance of a bill. Questions about substance of legislation are not 
parliamentary inquiries. Parliamentary inquiries pertain to the 
procedures.
  Mr. McHENRY. Additional inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. No. The Chair will not recognize the 
gentleman.
  Mr. McHENRY. So the gentleman will not recognize me for an additional 
parliamentary inquiry?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. No. The Chair will say that having heard 
several parliamentary inquiries which were not parliamentary 
inquiries----
  Mr. McHENRY. Well, the Chair will not answer my question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will not interrupt. The 
gentleman asked several, he said, parliamentary inquiries; the Chair 
answered them. The gentleman has tried to respond by making speeches 
which are not in order at this point. If the gentleman wishes to get 
time from the manager of the time to make his remarks----
  Mr. McHENRY. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state the nature of the 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. McHENRY. Is there a way by which I can derive whether or not 
American Samoa, like the minimum wage bill, is exempted from this 
legislation?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. While the Chair is presiding, the gentleman 
will not make speeches in the guise of a parliamentary inquiry. He has 
asked a legitimate one, can he find out, how does he find out that 
information?
  The answer is as follows: he asks the gentleman on his side who 
controls debate time to yield him time. He may then with that time 
under the rule make the question.
  The other way I could say the gentleman could find out would be by 
reading the bill. Read the bill and it will tell you. But the gentleman 
may get debate time and then may propound any question to the other 
side that he wishes.
  Mr. McHENRY. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Point of order. My point of order is, the 
distinguished Speaker when he was in the minority numerous times made 
points of order that were----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. Comments on the 
past behavior of the Speaker might be interesting, but they are not 
points of order.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Point of order. Then the distinguished Speaker 
was out of order in the past.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas will suspend. And 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) is recognized to yield time for 
someone who might actually want to debate the bill. The gentleman is 
recognized for yielding time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3, the Stem Cell Research 
and Enhancement Act of 2007. We all support advancing science to fight 
disease, particularly those diseases that may have already affected our 
loved ones or might affect them sometime in the future.
  Like so many other areas within science and technology, discoveries 
in stem cell research are occurring every day. Just this week, news 
reports highlighted a significant breakthrough made by researchers from 
Wake Forest University in the use of amniotic stem cells to treat 
diseases and other conditions. This discovery, coupled with the 
advances made in the therapeutic use

[[Page H374]]

of cord blood, bone marrow, and other stem cells, demonstrates that 
effective and ethical research are not mutually exclusive.
  In fact, Congress came together last May to support ethical stem cell 
research. By an overwhelming majority, Congress passed the Stem Cell 
Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005, which made cord blood units 
collected by cord blood banks available for stem cell transplantation 
or peer-reviewed research. Since its passage, cord blood banks from 
around the country have collected and stored approximately 150,000 new 
units of cord blood which will allow the pleuripotent stem cells within 
the cord blood to be used to treat one of a number of diseases and 
conditions such as heart disease, nerve damage, and certain cancers, as 
well as to be used for research.
  These important advances illustrate that science can and should be 
advanced in an ethically minded manner. On Tuesday, the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) reintroduced H.R. 322, the 
alternative Pleuripotent Stem Cell Therapeutic Enhancement Act.

                              {time}  1330

  I urge my colleagues to support and invest taxpayer dollars in stem 
cell research that is comprehensive, ethical, and effective. The bill 
before us today falls short of these goals, and therefore I urge 
opposition.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield now 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the gentlewoman from Colorado 
and also Congressman Castle for their leadership on this issue.
  Today I rise in strong support of H.R. 3.
  Stem cell research, as you know, is a promising science that provides 
hope for millions of our families whose loved ones suffer from 
Parkinson's disease, cancer, Alzheimer's disease and, even more, 
diabetes.
  And as one who chairs the Hispanic task force on health, I know how 
very important it is that research be done on diabetes treatment 
because Latinos have a disproportionate large number in our community 
that suffer from this illness. Puerto Rican Americans and Mexican 
Americans are nearly twice as likely to have diabetes. The promising 
potential of stem cell research for those with diabetes provides a real 
opportunity to eliminate one of the most blatant health disparities for 
Latinos and African Americans.
  Nearly three out of every four Americans support stem cell research. 
The American public have clearly stated that stem cell research is 
important to them and their families and their well-being. Let us make 
sure that we do the right thing today and we support this very 
important piece of legislation that went out of this House not too long 
ago. As a country, we have a moral obligation to support life, 
especially those who are ill and who need this treatment and cures. 
With stem cell research we would help to provide assistance to over 100 
million Americans suffering from these various diseases. We cannot 
ignore a valuable research tool that might provide real cures for 
millions of Americans.
  In my congressional district, the City of Hope, a grand research 
facility, is ready, willing and able to conduct promising cancer 
research using stem cells. For my constituents and for all Americans, I 
hope that we can remove this cumbersome limitation on federally funded 
research.
  I urge my colleagues to strongly support H.R. 3.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to continue the discussion that the 
gentlewoman from Colorado had on the IVF process in the clinics. There 
is a methodology that many people, even perhaps here, have taken 
advantage of in terms of being able to procreate, and that is going to 
an in vitro fertilization clinic, and that is done commonly in this 
country.
  Right now, by survey, there are about 400,000 embryos frozen in those 
clinics around the country. About 2 percent a year are disposed of. 
That is about 8,000. Why are they disposed of? For a variety of 
reasons. People may divorce. Perhaps they have children. Who knows what 
the reasons may be, but they are disposed of. How are they disposed of? 
How are those 8,000 disposed of? A decision is made by the original 
creators of that particular embryo and by the physician running the in 
vitro fertilization clinic that they will be disposed of, and then they 
are put in as hospital waste; so they are not going to be life. It is 
only those embryos that would be used in this situation to develop the 
stem cell lines that we are talking about. It is very important to 
understand that they are going to be disposed of anyhow as hospital 
waste or are they going to be used for research.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, it is now my great privilege to yield 4 
minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.
  Mr. Speaker, this has been a very difficult issue for me for quite 
some time and I think for many of my colleagues also. It involves 
deeply held convictions by conscientious people of good faith, by some 
of my closest friends, on both sides of this question.
  So I would like to begin with some things we can all agree upon. 
Principles about which there is no real debate today.
  First of all, this bill is not about the legality or illegality of 
embryonic research. Surprisingly, I have had constituents say to me 
that they weren't asking for Federal funding for embryonic stem cell 
research, only that it be legal. This represents a misunderstanding of 
existing law.
  So let us be clear at the outset. Embryonic stem cell research is 
legal today, has always been legal, and few people are suggesting that 
it be otherwise.
  Secondly, there is currently a great deal of embryonic research going 
on today. Over the past 6 years, under the Bush guidelines, more than 
$130 million has been devoted to human embryonic stem cell research. 
Such research is also being conducted by State governments to the tune 
of $140 million. I happen to believe that this type of research is 
ethically troubling, but for my colleagues who feel otherwise, let us 
at least acknowledge that a lot of embryonic research is being done 
under current law.
  Next, I think we can all agree that the Federal Government alone 
cannot possibly fund all the medical and scientific research we would 
want. The annual appropriation for the NIH is $28 billion. But even if 
that figure were to be doubled or even tripled this year, we couldn't 
afford all the potential research that is out there.
  It is our job as Federal legislators to pick and choose. We have to 
allocate scarce resources, and we can't do it all.
  Which brings us to the real philosophical difference in the debate 
today. For me and many of my fellow Americans, the destruction of a 
human embryo involves profound ethical and moral questions. This is a 
matter of conscience for millions of taxpayers who are deeply troubled 
by the idea of their tax dollars being used to destroy another human 
life.
  We have been told by proponents of this bill that all they want to do 
is use embryos from fertility clinics which would otherwise be thrown 
away. I do not believe it will end there. After a period of time with 
no progress, we will be asked to approve and fund therapeutic human 
cloning, the creation of a human life for the express purpose of 
destroying that embryo for research purposes. This is the very real 
slippery slope upon which we are perched. Indeed, many proponents of 
this bill have voted against legislation to prohibit human cloning.
  So, Mr. Speaker, given the admitted ethical problems involved in 
destroying human embryos, given the lack of any results so far from 
embryonic research and the proven cures and accomplishments from adult 
stem cells, given the great potential of germ cells, cord blood cells 
and amniotic stem cell research without the ethical drawbacks, and 
given the limited Federal resources and the fact that we can't fund 
everything, shouldn't we concentrate Federal dollars on research that 
does not involve the destruction of human embryos?
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio, Mrs. Tubbs Jones.

[[Page H375]]

  (Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment my 
colleague Diana DeGette and my colleague Mr. Castle for their 
leadership in this area.
  I rise today on behalf of my 86-year-old father, who carried bags for 
United Airlines for 40 years, who currently is suffering from dementia 
and Alzheimer's.
  I go visit him, and he knows who I am. But this man used to walk and 
play 18 holes of golf. He used to talk to me about golf. He used to 
talk to me about being just a great daughter and how proud he was of 
me. And now I do get, ``I love you,'' but I would have loved to have 
been able to see him be more of the Andrew Tubbs that I grew up with.
  So I rise in support of my father, and I rise to say to the American 
public and my colleagues, it is time for us to understand the 
difference between being able to do research ethically and to get 
caught up and lost in some conversation about what we should or should 
not be doing.
  In my congressional district, the Center for Stem Cell and 
Regenerative Medicine, composed of investigators from Case Western 
Reserve University, University Hospitals, Case Medical Center, the 
Cleveland Clinic, Athersys, and Ohio State University, is doing 
fantastic research. The mission of the center is to utilize adult human 
stem cells and tissue engineering technology to treat human disease. It 
would be wonderful for them to be able to expand the research they are 
doing.
  I met a young woman who is having a problem walking. Based on the 
research that was done, they took her tissue, did some research, and I 
don't know all the details, and now she is able to walk. I met a young 
man who was having problems with cancer. Based on the research they 
have done at that center, this young man is fostering and doing well.
  I just say, ladies and gentlemen, vote for this legislation. We need 
the research.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), a member of the committee.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I 
thank her for her leadership on this very important issue, as well as 
Mr. Castle.
  I am proud to stand here today as an original cosponsor of H.R. 3, 
the Stem Cell Research Enactment Act.
  We all remember that dark day last July when President Bush cast the 
first veto of his Presidency on legislation approved overwhelmingly by 
the House and Senate, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. To veto a 
bill that has the support of 72 percent of the American people and will 
do such good is simply unconscionable and indefensible as far as my 
concerned.
  Despite what the critics may say, H.R. 3 doesn't end life. It honors 
life. As anyone who suffers from diabetes, Parkinson's disease, ALS, or 
a host of other debilitating health conditions knows, scientists 
believe that embryonic stem cells provide a real opportunity for 
devising unique treatments for these serious diseases.
  Now, let me be absolutely clear. This is not about abortion. This is 
not about cloning. This is about the use of embryonic stem cells which 
would be discarded anyway, as the gentlewoman has pointed out. 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 ethical 
standards, and H.R. 3 protects this.
  The National Institutes of Health have admitted that U.S. science has 
fallen behind Europe and Asia in stem cell research because of 
President Bush's policy. While the number of States have committed 
significant funding towards embryonic stem cell research, 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 a national directive on stem cell research.
  Over 200 patient groups, universities and scientific societies have 
urged President Bush to expand the Federal policy on embryonic stem 
cell research. 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. We must honor life 
by passing H.R. 3 today.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished new Member from Wisconsin, Dr. Kagen.
  Mr. KAGEN. Mr. Speaker, as a physician for 30 years, I know something 
about human diseases and the personal suffering of my patients and 
their families. I support stem cell progress, which is what H.R. 3 
represents, because it will fulfill the promise of finding a cure to 
the many life-altering and painful disorders such as Alzheimer's, 
juvenile diabetes, heart disease and spinal injuries and more.
  Saying ``no'' to stem cell progress is extremely unkind to patients, 
patients who will benefit from these potential cures yet to come. If 
one truly cares about life and believes in improving the quality of 
life of all of our people that we represent, then one should say 
``yes'' to stem cell progress.
  To all my colleagues, be not afraid. Be not afraid to take this 
important step forward. This Congress should be proud to be in favor of 
progress and should become pro-cure.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am now very pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

                              {time}  1345

  Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from Colorado for 
her leadership on this work and bringing this forward again and, of 
course, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) as well.
  Today, the Democratic majority will advance life-saving medical 
research. We will give American families hope, not lost opportunity. We 
will give them medical cures, not politics.
  Mr. Speaker, we will give grandparents and parents, children and 
loved ones the promise of stem cell research. President Bush's policies 
have let the ideology of a few dictate and degrade matters important to 
safeguarding the public's health.
  That will change. No longer will the promise of stem cell research 
and sound and ethical medical science be stifled.
  Instead, we will expand stem cell research. H.R. 3 will mandate and 
maintain the United States' stance as a world leader in medical 
research and scientific advancement. It will advance scientific 
discovery in an ethical and responsible manner. It will enhance the 
ability of our medical professionals to care for their patients.
  It will use Americans' ingenuity and intelligence for the greater 
good. And most importantly, it will benefit millions of people who are 
battling disease and injury.
  My own home State, and in particular southeastern Pennsylvania, is in 
the forefront of science and medicine. Our hospitals, medical schools, 
biotechnology and pharmaceutical institutions are home to the best and 
brightest scientists who are working every day to provide new medicines 
and diagnostics. These scientists deserve access to the tools they need 
to find the cures for 100 million Americans suffering from diseases 
like cancer and Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, diabetes, spinal cord 
injuries, and other debilitating diseases and disorders.
  Support ethical scientific research. Support hope. Vote ``yes'' on 
the Expanding Stem Cell Research Act.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, you know, I do believe that everybody 
engaged in this debate today does have the best intentions at heart. 
And the beauty of this House is that important issues like this that 
face our country can be debated, and passionately debated, right here 
on the floor of the House for the public to see.

[[Page H376]]

  But this is not a debate about passion, and it is not a debate about 
style. It is, Mr. Speaker, a debate about substance. And the substance 
of this debate today is life. Clear and simple, it is life. That is why 
I rise to support ethical stem cell research and to oppose H.R. 3.
  We hear from a lot of proponents of stem cell research that they have 
suggested that embryonic stem cells would provide potential benefits to 
all mankind, and some of them insinuate that those of us or anybody who 
opposes their brand of research doesn't care about the suffering of 
their fellow man, and that is completely untrue.
  There are many of us with family and friends who look for 
breakthroughs for debilitating diseases. But the presumption that only 
embryonic stem cells have the most potential for success is inaccurate. 
The growth of these cells can be erratic and uncontrollable. We have 
had people speak to that today. And we all know that embryonic stem 
cell research has not given science any successes in treating diseases.
  In my opinion, I think we would be giving away a little part of our 
humanity and our sense of ethics for mere hope that this form of 
research would some day at some point yield results that would surpass 
ongoing research.
  So let's focus on the efforts that are proven alternatives, adult 
stem cell, cord blood research that have made great leaps, significant 
success. This past week, the researchers from Wake Forest and Harvard, 
using the latest in technology, made reports showing advances in stem 
cell research that can be achieved faster and safer with amniotic 
fluids.
  I encourage everyone to vote ``no'' on H.R. 3 and to support our 
motion to recommit.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3.
  I was listening to the previous speaker, my colleague on the 
Republican side, and I have to say all we are really saying with this 
bill is we should have options and that those options should be allowed 
to proceed.
  I believe strongly, regardless of your ethics or your theology, that 
the way this bill has been crafted by the gentlewoman from Colorado 
there is no reason why anyone here should not support it, regardless of 
how they are thinking of this theologically or from an ethical point of 
view.
  Each day we wait to lift the ban that President Bush has placed on 
advancing embryonic stem cell research is another day that we waste in 
discovering new cures for the chronic diseases and medical conditions 
that so many of our friends and families suffer from.
  Instead of embracing the potential embryonic stem cell research holds 
in developing new life-saving and life-enhancing therapies, the 
President has chosen to cater to the fringe of his party and has 
continually blocked this important legislation from becoming law.
  This misguided policy has significantly impeded scientific progress 
over the years and needlessly placed American lives at risk. As a 
result, States like my own, New Jersey, are moving forward with their 
own initiatives to advance embryonic stem cell research. The State 
legislature in New Jersey and the Governor recently signed legislation 
setting up stem cell research institutes in my town, in my district, 
New Brunswick, and in two other parts of the State.
  But the State should not have to go it alone. We need to leverage 
Federal, State and private dollars in order to unlock the potential of 
embryonic stem cells in the quickest fashion possible and bring new 
life-saving therapies to the patients who need them.
  An overwhelming majority of Americans support embryonic stem cell 
research and their representatives in this Congress should do so as 
well. The time has come to put an end to these absurd restrictions. 
There shouldn't be restrictions. Today, let's vote for hope for 
millions of Americans and pass H.R. 3.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to now yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from Colorado for 
yielding me time, although today I rise in opposition to H.R. 3.
  Mr. Speaker, no one likes to see another human suffer or struggle. 
This bill intends to provide hope. I can personally appreciate hope 
because I have juvenile diabetes. I take at least four shots a day and 
draw blood at least five times a day. But the bigger struggle is 
steering myself through the shoals of high and low blood sugar levels, 
and the very serious long-term and short-term consequences of both of 
those.
  I want a cure for diabetes and for other diseases that are far more 
devastating, but I don't believe this bill is the way to get there.
  I sit on the Science Committee because I believe a key to our better 
future is scientific research, especially in medicine. Last year I 
helped introduce and get signed into law the Stem Cell Therapeutic and 
Research Act that provides for the collecting and researching of human 
cord blood stem cells.
  This week it was reported that a hospital in my district, Hope 
Children's Hospital, cured a girl suffering from leukemia using cord 
blood stem cells.
  This year we need to pass the Alternative Pleuripotent Stem Cell 
Therapies Enhancement Act that recognizes that there are many forms of 
stem cells that offer great promise. Very recently, we were shown great 
promise that amniotic stem cells are pleuripotent, and this feature 
gives them the same advantage as sought in embryonic stem cells. But 
amniotic cells avoid not only the ethical pitfalls of embryonic cells; 
they also have been shown to be much better because they do not tend to 
produce tumors as embryonic stem cells do.
  This is all in addition to adult stem cells that are being used today 
in clinical trials and clinical practice to treat 72 diseases.
  Yes, I desperately want to be cured of diabetes, and I want to see 
the suffering end for so many other people; but science continues to 
demonstrate we don't have to choose between advancing medical 
techniques and contentious life issues.
  So, today, I urge my colleagues to reconsider this bill and defeat 
it.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, at this point I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3, which has 
been steamrolled to the House floor without any committee 
consideration, without even the chance to amend a bill that puts 
theoretical research, and I have heard the words ``a promise'' and 
``hope'' and ``we hope,'' ``potential,'' over real cures for real 
patients.
  Supporters of H.R. 3 have offered no solutions to two problems that 
have plagued embryonic stem cells. Even with 25 years of research with 
embryonic stem cells in mice and almost a decade in humans, researchers 
still find that the cells tend to form cancerous tumors and can be 
subject to immune rejection, with not one successful treatment or 
therapy for human application using embryonic stem cells.
  In fact, Ronald McKay, an NIH researcher who is supportive of 
embryonic stem cell research, says, ``To start with, people need a 
fairy tale. Maybe that is unfair, but they need a story line that is 
relatively simple to understand.'' That was in The Washington Post.
  In other words, embryonic stem cell research is a false hope in 
addition to being destructive and unethical. Patients, many think, will 
be the last to benefit from H.R. 3. But biotech firms and research 
universities will reap millions of taxpayer dollars for research that 
may never help a single patient.
  However, Wake Forest University and Harvard Medical Center recently 
released a study that shows that stem cells taken from amniotic fluid 
are pleuripotent, adding these cells to the growing list of ethical 
stem cell treatments that are available to researchers.
  Embryonic stem cells have not treated a single human patient and have 
not been proven effective in good animal models. Conversely, ethical 
and successful adult and cord blood stem cell therapies are lab tested 
and are treating dozens of human patients today. In fact, there are 
several FDA protocols using adult stem cells for treating patients.
  The score is zero, not one successful treatment for embryonic stem 
cell research, to 72 and counting, successful

[[Page H377]]

treatments for human patients using adult stem cells. H.R. 3 is an 
empty promise that uses old science when there are real cures for real 
people with ethical research today.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 3 and support the motion to recommit.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguish gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, every American has a very personal stake 
in today's discussion because everyone knows people who would benefit 
from breakthrough research using stem cells. Indeed, with 100 million 
Americans at risk from a variety of diseases, ranging from Lou Gehrig's 
disease to Parkinson's, it is almost impossible not to know somebody 
impacted. The most profound beneficiaries are our family and friends 
who have not yet shown any symptoms, but may fall victim to one of 
these devastating diseases.
  The stakes in this debate are both high for potential benefit to the 
physical condition of all human kind, as well as the establishment of 
appropriate boundaries between public policy and personal theology. The 
President failed the latter test when he exercised the only veto in his 
entire career.
  In the last election, the American voter made it clear their 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 for all.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute 
to the distinguished Member from Texas, Judge Lou Gohmert.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of pages here on great stem 
cell research that has been going on: adult stem cells, amniotic fluid 
stem cells. But my time is so limited. Let us just clarify. This is not 
about no research on embryonic stem cells. That is ongoing. That is not 
illegal.
  We have funded tremendous amounts of stem cell research. Frankly, 
some of us don't need lectures on what it is to watch someone you love 
suffer and die and diminish and want to help them. Most all of us know 
that.
  This is about prying money from taxpayers' hands who believe it is 
illegal and immoral and unethical to kill living embryos, and some of 
us have seen our little embryo mature into a beautiful person. This is 
about taking taxpayer dollars away from them and funding this research.
  We are in a free market society. Pharmaceuticals have been demonized. 
Gee, they are making a profit. They are out to make a profit. If the 
money were there, they would be doing this.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire as to the time remaining on 
each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Colorado has 13\1/2\ 
minutes, the gentleman from Texas has 6\1/2\, and the gentleman from 
Delaware has 2.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I now recognize the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) for 1 minute.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support all the efforts to encourage 
responsible research in this area. Indeed, I think it is a moral 
imperative for the Congress to pursue all prudent policies for the 
benefit of our people.
  I want to commend both the manager and all of the other managers on 
both sides of the aisle, because they have not shrunk from addressing 
the moral issues here, which are very, very important to the whole 
issue.
  I am not afraid of those issues, I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, at 
all. Even as a Christian, I say this: The principle of double effect is 
in play here. More good will come out of this, the saving of many 
lives. I think this is critical. If we are afraid to face the moral 
issues, then we should not have presented this bill in the first place. 
That is why I want to commend the sponsors.
  This is not inherently wrong. It is not intended to be wrong. The 
good effort and result may not be a direct casual result. Finally, the 
good result must be proportionate to the bad result.
  Prudence and reflection are critical here, and I want to address 
this, and the debate should be on a moral plane. There is nothing wrong 
with that, that we debate this issue. But the moral correctness of this 
thing isn't all on one side, I want everybody to understand that. 
Thomas Aquinas laid out the principles of double effect. It is 
absolutely inherent in this particular issue.
  I say support H.R. 3, and, again, I commend the moral fortitude of 
all the sponsors of this legislation.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Frank of Massachusetts). The Chair would 
caution Members to heed the gavel.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me thank Mr. Castle and 
Ms. DeGette for their outstanding leadership.
  Might I just simply call the roll: Parkinson's disease, diabetes, 
Alzheimer's, ALS, cancer, spinal cord injuries, and the many soldiers 
that are in the hospitals of America, Walter Reed, Bethesda, who have 
suffered from spinal cord injuries in the battle of Iraq and 
Afghanistan. We owe them hope. We owe them hope for the hopeless.
  As I listened to my friends talk about the existing research, let it 
be clear that the NIH approved lines lack the genetic diversity that 
researchers need in order to develop effective treatment for millions 
of Americans.
  We know that there is amniotic fluid, and there is some suggestion 
that that is a substitute. But George Daley from Harvard says that 
these newly discovered cells are not a replacement for embryonic stem 
cells. On the contrary, research for these is entirely complimentary.
  As Michael J. Fox has said, I respect and counsel and thank those who 
prayerfully disagree with me. I respect their moral standing. But 
ethicists and others believe this is the right way to go. Let us give 
hope to the hopeless. Support stem cell research.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3, the ``Stem Cell 
Research Enhancement Act of 2007.'' Once again we find ourselves in a 
position to pass a bill that will provide our nation's scientists with 
the valuable opportunity to save lives. It is our duty as 
representatives of the people to help Americans who are suffering.
  In 1998, the very first stem cells were isolated, leading to the 
immediate realization of the enormous possibilities this discovery 
presents. Suddenly treatments, even cures, seemed possible for 
devastating illnesses like Parkinson's disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's, 
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), cancer, and spinal cord injuries.
  Despite restrictions on federal funding imposed by President Bush in 
2001, the states of California, New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois, and 
Maryland have provided funding for this important research. In 2005 and 
again last year, we learned that in spite of the President's continued 
opposition to stem cell research, support for it in Congress 
transcended party lines.
  Unfortunately, the embryonic stem cells currently permitted by law 
for research are not sufficient for scientists needs. According to the 
National Institute 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. Opponents of this bill repeat statistics on the little 
progress that has been made with embryonic stem cell research, but I 
must remind them that the restrictions placed on it have greatly 
hindered its success.
  In spite of recent scientific breakthroughs that suggest alternate 
means of obtaining stem cells, I must caution my colleagues from 
thinking that embryonic stem cell research is no longer necessary. I 
applaud Dr. Anthony Atala and his team at Wake Forest University and 
Harvard University for their very recent outstanding discoveries. 
However, I must repeat the caution of Harvard researcher George Daley 
in saying that these newly discovered cells ``are not a replacement for 
embryonic stem cells''--on the contrary, research for these is entirely 
complementary. In addition, while we know very little about these new 
methods, much progress has already been made in the research of 
embryonic, or pluripotent, stem cells, the most adaptable and

[[Page H378]]

unique of all the stem cell varieties. They currently provide 
scientists with the most possibilities for research and for the 
discovery of life-saving treatments; as such, we must allow these 
scientist the opportunity to do so.
  It is understandable that many Americans may have moral conflicts 
with this issue, but this bill is ethical in every respect. First, 
embryonic stem cells are only clusters of cells, and do not have the 
capability to develop into a fetus or a human being. Also, not a single 
embryo will be destroyed in order for this research to be implemented, 
because there is no need to do so. 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.
  Further, H.R. 3 ensures that none of the embryos used in stem cell 
research is intended for implantation in a woman. All of these embryos 
would otherwise be discarded. Mr. Speaker, denying people in our nation 
who suffer from debilitating illnesses the possible medical benefits 
that could result from embryonic research is not only cruel but a waste 
of these valuable life-sustaining stem cells.
  This is indeed a matter of ethics--we cannot morally argue that it is 
better to deny suffering people hope for a cure. Let us provide all 
people in this world with possibilities for a better future by 
supporting stem cell research. Let us create the potential for miracles 
in the lives of paralyzed individuals, those with cancer, or those in 
need of organ transplants.
  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. 
Finally, the Texas Medical Center is located in Houston, it is a major 
research site and in desperate need for being giving the hope of Stem 
Cell Research--I urge support for H.R. 3--Stem Cell Research.

                                                  January 9, 2007.
     Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee,
     Rayburn HOB,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: I am writing today to express my 
     strong support for the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.
       As you may know, I am pro-research, pro-science and support 
     all forms of stem cell research. Every scientist I've spoken 
     to (and a lot more I haven't) believes that embryonic stem 
     cells may hold the key to better treatments and cures--not 
     only for Parkinson's disease but for cancer, diabetes, spinal 
     cord injuries, heart disease, Alzheimer's and countless other 
     illnesses that cut short or diminish millions of lives every 
     year.
       My own Foundation has funded this promising research, 
     giving hope to millions of people worldwide. But under 
     current restrictions, our ability to build on early 
     breakthroughs is deeply compromised.
       No matter where you are on the issue of stem cell research, 
     one thing is fundamentally clear: disease is a non-partisan 
     issue that requires a bi-partisan solution.
       A majority of the House of Representatives, a majority of 
     the United States Senate, and over two-thirds of Americans 
     support expanded funding for stem cell research. We 
     understand that embryonic stem cell research holds the 
     potential to transform microscopic cells already marked for 
     destruction into life-saving treatments.
       I have great respect for those who have concluded, after 
     much thought, reflection, and prayer, that they cannot 
     support embryonic stem cell research.
       But the debate today is over the use of embryos discarded 
     by in vitro fertilization clinics. Indeed, this is the 
     ultimate rescue operation. These embryos have the potenital 
     to rescue millions or people from terrible diseases and in 
     doing so they will not be created then discarded in vain.
       Personally, I can't think of a greater affirmation of the 
     culture of life than to advance the fight against disease by 
     increasing federal funding for biomedical research. Equally 
     crucial is to remove undue restrictions on important paths 
     forward, including embryonic stem cell research.
       The Senate and House of Representatives will soon consider 
     the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, a vital piece of 
     legislation that could lift current federal funding 
     prohibitions and improve oversight of embryonic stem cell 
     research.
       You can make a difference by co-sponsoring and voting yes 
     on the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. I urge you with 
     all my heart to support this bill and deliver hope to every 
     person affected by debilitating disease.
       America is about optimism, about promise, about always 
     moving forward. The idea of rejecting one of the most 
     promising areas of research is shortsighted. We have no way 
     of knowing where the next breakthrough will emerge.
       I very much appreciate your consideration of this matter 
     and look forward to working with you this year to pass this 
     important legislation and allow the science to move forward.
           Thank you,
                                                   Michael J. Fox.

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a new Member, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, the Founders had it right. We are created with certain 
inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty and the pursuits 
of happiness. It is interesting the order the Founders placed the 
rights they chose to mention. Can you pursue happiness if you first 
don't have liberty? Can you ever go after your goals and dreams if you 
first don't have freedom? And do you ever have true freedom if 
government doesn't protect your most fundamental right, your right to 
live?
  H.R. 3 devalues human life. It ends human life, and it does so with 
taxpayer dollars. This is the wrong kind of message to send. It is the 
wrong thing to do.
  On this issue, the science is also clear. The morals are clear, and 
the ethics are clear. We do not have to end life to protect it. Today, 
as has been pointed out earlier, American doctors are performing all 
kinds of positive research without taking human life. Embryonic stem 
cell research is not producing results, even after 25 years and 
millions of dollars of taxpayer money.
  Like other pro-life Members of this body, I support ethical research 
that protects life, but embryonic stem cell research does not.
  Mr. Speaker, the ethical decision is the smart decision. That is why 
I oppose this bill, and hope others do as well.
  Mr. Speaker, the Founders of our great Nation got it right. We are 
created with certain inalienable rights, and among those rights are 
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is in defense of the 
first of these rights--the right to life--that I rise today to express 
my opposition to H.R. 3, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 
2007. Like its cousin, H.R. 810, which failed to pass the legislative 
process during the last Congress, H.R. 3 would provide new Federal 
auspices and funding to destroy embryos for use in embryonic stem cell 
research.
  Like the other pro-life members of this House, Mr. Speaker, I 
enthusiastically support the many forms of ethical stem cell research 
taking place in our country today--research that has already yielded 
invaluable treatments for over 70 health conditions. Among these are 
successful treatments for Brain Cancer, Breast Cancer, various forms of 
Lymphoma and Leukemia, Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson's Disease, spinal 
cord injury, Sickle Cell Anemia and Krabbe Disease.
  Research has demonstrated that various forms of adult stem cell 
materials, umbilical cord blood and, as described in a Washington Times 
article from January 8th, amniotic fluid are an excellent source of 
pluripotent stem cells. Such ethical sources have yielded all of these 
effective treatments and offer hope for Americans suffering the ravages 
of disease. In many cases, these materials are taken from the patients 
themselves and so offer a better therapeutic match than materials taken 
from the embryos of other humans. Furthermore, expansion of the 
resources designed to gather and store these materials will increase 
the number and frequency of successful treatments.
  Despite these significant facts, many in this House are pressing for 
Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, which necessitates 
destroying human embryos and, thus, human lives. The pre-born are 
precious human beings from the moment of conception. They deserve our 
protection and love and no benefit--perceived or otherwise--should 
persuade us to allow their destruction. All of this added to the fact 
that embryonic stem cell research has never yielded a successful 
treatment for any disease, in spite of millions in annual funding (the 
NIH spent $38 million on human embryonic stem cell research in 2005) 
and 25 years of animal and human research. In recent years, embryonic 
stem cell research has also been marred by fraud through the falsified 
cloning reports of Dr. Hwang Woo Suk.
  Some people have argued that pre-existing human embryos now in 
storage must be used for research because they

[[Page H379]]

are destined for destruction anyway. This is not borne out by the fact 
that the vast majority of human embryos were created for family-
building and that families can adopt and have adopted these embryos and 
had children.
  Mr. Speaker, we must not make a morally repugnant choice in the 
interest of expedience and we must not play God with human lives. We 
must defend the lives of the pre-born while facilitating ethical forms 
of stem cell research that have produced concrete results and hold 
great promise for the future. This is most consistent with a 
compassionate regard for all life--young and old.

         STEM CELL RESEARCH TREATMENTS--ADULT 72 AND EMBRYONIC 0
 [Check the Score: Adult Stem Cells vs. Embryonic Stem Cells Benefits in
              Human Patients (from Peer-Reviewed Studies).]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Embryonic Stem
                    Adult Stem Cells                          Cells
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancers:
    1. Brain Cancer                                                   0
    2. Retinoblastoma..................................
    3. Ovarian Cancer..................................
    4. Skin Cancer: Merkell Cell Carcinoma.............
    5. Testicular Cancer...............................
    6. Tumors Abdominal Organs Lymphoma................
    7. Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma..........................
    8. Hodgkin's Lymphoma..............................
    9. Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia....................
    10. Acute Myelogenous Leukemia.....................
    11. Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia...................
    12. Juvenile Myelomonocytic Leukemia...............
    13. Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia................
    14. Cancer Of The Lymph Nodes: Angioimmunoblastic
     Lymphadenopathy...................................
    15. Multiple Myeloma...............................
    16. Myelodysplasia.................................
    17. Breast Cancer..................................
    18. Neuroblastoma..................................
    19. Renal Cell Carcinoma...........................
    20. Soft Tissue Sarcoma............................
    21. Various Solid Tumors...........................
    22. Ewing's Sarcoma................................
    23. Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia................
    24. Hemophagocytic Lymphohistiocytosis.............
    25. Poems Syndrome.................................
    26. Myelofibrosis..................................
Auto-Immune Diseases:
    27. Systemic Lupus.................................
    28. Sjogren's Syndrome.............................
    29. Myasthenia.....................................
    30. Autoimmune Cytopenia...........................
    31. Scleromyxedema.................................
    32. Scleroderma....................................
    33. Crohn's Disease................................
    34. Behcet's Disease...............................
    35. Rheumatoid Arthritis...........................
    36. Juvenile Arthritis.............................
    37. Multiple Sclerosis.............................
    38. Polychondritis.................................
    39. Systemic Vasculitis............................
    40. Alopecia Universalis...........................
    41. Buerger's Disease..............................
Cardiovascular:
    42. Acute Heart Damage.............................
    43. Chronic Coronary Artery Disease................
Ocular:
    44. Corneal Regeneration...........................
Immunodeficiencies:
    45. Severe Combined Immunodeficiency Syndrome......
    46. X-Linked Lymphoproliferative Syndrome..........
    47. X-Linked Hyper Immunoglobulin M Syndrome.......
Neural Degenerative Diseases And Injuries:
    48. Parkinson's Disease............................
    49. Spinal Cord Injury.............................
    50. Stroke Damage..................................
Anemias And Other Blood Conditions:
    51. Sickle Cell Anemia.............................
    52. Sideroblastic Anemia...........................
    53. Aplastic Anemia................................
    54. Red Cell Aplasia...............................
    55. Amegakaryocytic Thrombocytopenia...............
    56. Thalassemia....................................
    57. Primary Amyloidosis............................
    58. Diamond Blackfan Anemia........................
    59. Fanconi's Anemia...............................
    60. Chronic Epstein-Barr Infection.................
Wounds And Injuries:
    61. Limb Gangrene..................................
    62. Surface Wound Healing..........................
    63. Jawbone Replacement............................
    64. Skull Bone Repair..............................
Other Metabolic Disorders:
    65. Hurler's Syndrome..............................
    66. Osteogenesis Imperfecta........................
    67. Krabbe Leukodystrophy..........................
    68. Osteopetrosis..................................
    69. Cerebral X-Linked Adrenoleukodystrophy.........
Liver Disease:
    70. Chronic Liver Failure..........................
    71. Liver Cirrhosis................................
Bladder Disease:
    72. End-Stage Bladder Disease......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend first of all 
Representative DeGette and Representative Castle for their strong and 
persistent leadership on this issue, and I rise in strong support of 
it.
  I have five important research institutions in my Congressional 
district, and it is their position, it is my position, it is the 
position of a majority of my constituents, that we don't know all of 
the possibilities or potentialities of stem cell research, but we sure 
know that we have a responsibility to try and find out. Therefore, on 
their behalf, I express strong support for passage of this important 
legislation and look forward to unleashing the potential that it has.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from Colorado 
(Ms. DeGette) as well as Mr. Castle, for the bipartisanship that they 
have shown in bringing forward this important piece of legislation. I 
do rise in support, because my State is home to one the premier 
research institutions in the entire world for stem cell research, the 
University of Wisconsin at Madison. But the point is this: This 
research is going to go forward. The question is where and under what 
ethical guidelines it does so.
  If we want to remain the most creative and innovative country in the 
world, at the forefront of medical and scientific discovery, we need to 
allow this research to occur here and not abroad. We are currently 
experiencing a serious brain drain in the medical research community of 
some of our best and brightest going overseas so they can conduct this 
research in this promising field of study.
  I would rather see us, through our watchful guidance and oversight, 
see this being done here under very strict ethical guidelines, which 
are laid out in this legislation, as given to us by the National 
Institutes of Health, guidelines that prohibit human cloning, that 
prohibit the creation of embryos for the sole purpose of medical 
research.
  This should be here, and I hope today we receive bipartisan support 
in passing this important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3, the Stem Cell 
Research Enhancement Act of 2007. This bill would expand the current 
Federal policy on embryonic stem cell research by allowing federally 
funded research on stem cell lines derived after August 9, 2001, while 
implementing strong ethical guidelines to ensure Federal oversight of 
the research. I am pleased the 110th Congress has taken immediate steps 
to address this important issue, and it is my hope that members will 
once again unite in support of this bill.
  Most of the scientific community believes for the full potential of 
embryonic stem cell research to be reached, the number of cell lines 
readily available to scientists must increase. A number of NIH 
Directors have testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee 
that the current policy is restrictive and hinders scientific progress.
  We are already at risk of losing our scientific and technological 
edge because of increasing competition around the world. As a nation of 
opportunity and innovation, we have a responsibility to embrace 
policies that create breakthroughs in both medicine and technology for 
the benefit of our citizens.
  Important advances in the science of embryonic stem cell research 
have been made since the August 2001 policy was set. Recently, 
researchers at the University of Wisconsin in Madison developed a 
method to grow human embryonic stem cells without using mouse feeder 
cells. This is exciting news since mouse feeder cells are thought to be 
a source of contamination if the cells are ever to be used 
therapeutically in humans.
  From its earliest days, Wisconsin has been at the forefront of 
embryonic stem cell research. The University of Wisconsin--Madison is 
one of the leading facilities for stem cell research, and I believe 
with continued study, the possible medical benefits of stem cell 
research are limitless; lives affected by diseases, damaged tissue, and 
faulty organs would be greatly improved. Additionally, this legislation 
would ensure the important work of our scientists is not unnecessarily 
sidetracked by politics.
  The significance of this legislation extends beyond the potential for 
advances in science and technology. More importantly, embryonic stem 
cell research could lead to new treatments and cures for the over 100 
million Americans afflicted with life-threatening and debilitating 
diseases. Scientists believe these cells could be used to treat many 
diseases, including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, and spinal cord 
injuries. However, the promise of this research may not be reached if 
the Federal policy is not expanded.
  Mr. Speaker, it has become increasingly clear that the American 
public supports expanding the Federal stem cell policy. Thus, I 
strongly urge my colleagues to respond to the interests and needs of 
our Nation's citizens. Please join me in supporting this important 
legislation that will reinvigorate embryonic stem cell research in this 
country and allow science to move forward unimpeded, revolutionize the 
practice of medicine, and offer hope to the millions of Americans 
suffering from debilitating diseases.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished Member 
from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

[[Page H380]]

  Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, my heart goes out to all 
those struggling with crippling diseases and disabilities, but I do not 
believe that destroying a human life or the potential for human life is 
the answer.
  Over the weekend, a study done by Wake Forest and Harvard 
Universities was released, and it suggests that researchers may be able 
to use amniotic fluid, further proof that embryonic stem cell research 
is not the only alternative. In fact, research has shown that stem 
cells derived from adults and umbilical cords are already used in over 
70 successful therapies today and hold the most promise for the future. 
We do not have to choose between the need to encourage the advancement 
of science with the need to protect life.
  I voted against this bill in the 109th Congress, and as long as I am 
a United States Congressman, my constituents can count on me to protect 
human life. That is why I urge my colleagues to join me in voting 
against H.R. 3.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished Democratic Caucus Chair, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation. The vote we cast today is a vote that can and will have a 
direct impact on the life and health of those suffering from the most 
debilitating and painful diseases.
  This is not a Democratic issue. This is not a Republican issue. This 
is an issue that all Americans overwhelmingly support. We owe it to 
them to stand up and support this research that is groundbreaking in 
the area of health.
  As I listen to the debate, I hear the moral objections of those who 
oppose, and I acknowledge them. And at the same time, for those who 
support this, I hear their moral, which I view, come from this from 
both a public health position as well as a moral position about the 
responsibility where you can find cures, to lead that way. And I don't 
see a way of resolving the divide of two moral positions held firmly in 
conviction.
  Sometimes I think of this, half in jest, that the only way to get 
around this issue is that those who have moral objections to this, that 
when we find the cures going forward on stem cells, you waive your 
right to the cure to Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, diabetes. I say 
that not seriously.
  But the only way to get past this is in some way allow the research 
to go, and those that don't agree with it, whatever cures emanate from 
it, they would waive their right to it. And I don't say that in any 
seriousness, but I do not see how you resolve those two morally held 
beliefs on conviction.
  I would hope those who object and do it in good conscience understand 
why those of us who support this, which is why 10 States around the 
country have approved it, let alone other countries, all the 
possibility that emerges here to be unlocked to deal with major 
diseases that not only affect the individual but those families; the 
potential on Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, ALS, diabetes, and all the other 
type of money that goes to deal with those at one level, here we can 
come up finally with a cure. And we know one of the things that is 
affecting our research is the fact that we do not deal with cures, but 
only with managing the ailments.
  I am pleased that we have this opportunity to vote on this today.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my opposition to the 
expansion of Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research that is 
represented by this bill, H.R. 3.
  This bill unnecessarily opens the door to research that sacrifices 
one life for the potential health of another. I will never believe that 
this is a fair and equitable trade, especially when there are other 
avenues of research that are available.
  On its own, stem cell research is a worthy pursuit to help solve many 
of today's medical mysteries, but a line must be drawn when this 
research destroys human life, as in the case of embryonic stem cell 
research.
  There are ethical stem cell alternatives which no one objects to, and 
they are flourishing. In fact, as of today, and it has already been 
noted here on the floor, stem cells from noncontroversial sources, like 
umbilical cord, have been used to treat humans suffering from more than 
70 different afflictions.
  In debating this issue, we need to be clear on the facts, and I would 
urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and respect the sanctity of 
human life.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, it is never, never, justifiable to 
deliberately end the life, especially when there are alternative 
sources of stem cells that do no harm.
  Proponents of embryonic stem cells state the greatest advantage is 
the pluripotency of these cells, cells with the amazing ability to grow 
into any type of cell in the human body. It is this unique adaptability 
that they claim makes embryonic stem cells more promising, more 
promising, than adult stem cell treatment of human diseases.
  But my colleagues, the truth, however, is that embryonic stem cells 
have not, have not, produced a single viable human treatment for any 
disease, whereas adult stem cells have produced numerous therapies that 
have been successfully administered. Treatments derived from adult stem 
cells have been successfully treating patients for years, with 
measurable improvement in their conditions, and that is the real story.
  Mr. Speaker, whether you believe that life begins at conception or 
not, the mere potential for human life needs to be protected--not 
destroyed. It is never justifiable to deliberately end a life 
especially when there are alternative sources of stem cells that do no 
harm.
  Proponents of embryonic stem cells state the greatest advantage is 
the ``pluripotency'' of these cells, cells with the amazing ability to 
grow into any type of cell in the human body. It is this unique 
adaptability that they claim makes embryonic stem cells more promising 
than adult stem cells for treatment of human diseases. The truth 
however, is that embryonic stem cells have not produced a single viable 
human treatment for any disease--whereas adult stem cells have produced 
numerous therapies that have been successfully administered.
  Treatments derived from adult stem cells have been successfully 
treating patients for years with measurable improvement in their 
conditions. Over 600 Americans were treated last year with umbilical 
cord blood transplants. After transplant these cord blood cells move 
deeply into the patients' bones and produce new blood and immune cells 
for the remainder of their lives. These cord cells literally give 
patients a new lease on life.
  For example, researchers at the Burnham Institute and the Rebecca and 
John Moores Cancer Centers in San Diego found that pancreatic cells 
could be altered into insulin producing stem cells, foreshadowing a 
possible cure for both type 1 and 2 diabetes.
  Recently, researchers at Wake Forest University and Harvard 
University reported that stem cells drawn from amniotic fluid donated 
by pregnant women hold the same promise as embryonic stem cells without 
causing harm to the mother or the fetus.
  These stem cells are able to differentiate into fully grown cells 
representing the three major kinds of tissue found in the human body. 
Researchers also discovered that amniotic stem cells do not form 
tumors, a problem that commonly plagues embryonic stem cells.
  The findings contained in this study point to a promising avenue of 
research that sidesteps the hurdles facing embryonic stem cell 
research. Moral objections to the destruction of embryos occurring when 
cells are harvested are avoided because no embryos are destroyed.
  The Washington Post recently stated, ``The new cells are adding 
credence to an emerging consensus among experts that the popular 
distinction between embryonic and adult stem cells is artificial.''
  With more than 4 million U.S. births a year, it would not take long 
to collect the estimated 100,000 amniotic donations necessary to 
provide enough cells of sufficient genetic diversity to provide 
compatible tissue for virtually everyone in the United States.
  I also want to remind my colleagues that 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.

[[Page H381]]

  In fact the Federal Government has spent over $161 million dollars on 
existing stem cell lines where the embryo had already been destroyed. 
The bill before us today advocates the further destruction of new life 
to expand human embryonic stem cell research. This research on NIH-
approved embryonic stem cell lines accounts for 85 percent of all 
embryonic stem cell publications published.
  Adult stem cells have provided human treatments, have a lower rate of 
immune rejection in patients, and show less likelihood of tumor 
formation. We should aggressively pursue this avenue of research. In 
seeking new treatments for the ills of humanity, let us also strive to 
protect the future of humanity, We too must uphold the first tenet of 
the Hippocratic oath--``First do no harm.''
  It is unnecesary and morally offensive to force all taxpayers to pay 
to expand embryonic stem cell research. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this legislation.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to just mention 
it is my sincere regret after hearing the remarks of the Representative 
from Illinois who just spoke that we were not allowed the alternative 
of fully vetting this in a committee hearing.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, in a former life, I received a 
doctorate in human physiology, I taught medical school, and I had a 
course in advanced embryology. With this background, my heart just 
bleeds when these diabetic kids come through my office every year, 
because I know there are options which have not been discussed on this 
floor; and I have two charts here which point that out.
  The assumption is being made by many people that you need to kill 
embryos to get embryonic stem cells. That just isn't true, and these 
slides point that out. Let me go quickly to the slide that is really 
important here.
  These are several different ways of getting embryonic-like stem 
cells, and I want to go to the embryonic biopsy. This was a procedure 
that I had suggested to the President before he came out with his 
executive order. The medical community has now run past us with this, 
Mr. Speaker. What I suggested was you ought to be able to take a cell 
from an early embryo without harming an embryo, because I knew that God 
or nature, whoever you think does it, does that every day. When 
identical twins are produced, half the cells are taken away, and each 
half produces a perfectly normal baby.
  What the medical community is now doing is what is called 
preimplantation genetic diagnosis. They take a cell from an early 
embryo and they do a genetic diagnosis on it. If there is no genetic 
defect, they implant the remaining cells. It may be six or seven cells. 
Sometimes they get an extra cell. And more than 2,000 times now we have 
had perfectly normal babies born.
  There are hundreds of clinics in this country doing that. The 
procedure started in England. All that we need is that second cell that 
they inadvertently get when they do the biopsy for preimplantation 
genetic diagnosis. Two professionals have now developed stem cell 
lines, Verlinski and Lanz have developed stem cell lines from single 
embryonic cells.
  Mr. Speaker, we can have embryonic stem cell research without killing 
embryos. I think that is the real message.
  Every professional I know believes there ought to be more potential 
medical applications from embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells. 
Many of my colleagues are opposing embryonic stem cell research 
needlessly because they believe you have to kill embryos to get 
embryonic stem cells. You don't have to kill embryos. The medical 
community is doing this every day by the thousands in preimplantation 
genetic diagnosis with in vitro fertilization.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time, 2 minutes, 
to the very distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if now would be the time to 
yield 2 of my last minutes also to Mr. Barton.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Yes, that would be appropriate. The 
gentleman is now recognized for a total of 4 minutes.
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank Mr. Castle and Ms. DeGette. I also want 
to compliment the Speaker on his management of time. He has done an 
excellent job. I will say it is better to have him up there so he can't 
debate us down here. So I appreciate that.
  Mr. Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives, I have been 
in the Congress for 22 years. Until the last Congress, my pro-life 
voting record, over 21 years, was 100 percent. One hundred percent. In 
the last Congress, I did vote for what was then the Castle-DeGette 
bill. I also voted to override the President's veto. So coming into 
this Congress, my pro-life voting record is 100 percent, minus two 
votes. Now, in anybody's book, that has got to be an A-plus.
  I am going to support what is now DeGette-Castle because I am pro-
life, and I strongly support the pro-life effort in every way. But 
having said that, when it comes to research and when it comes to stem 
cell research, I think Members on both sides and of all various 
persuasions in which your view is the pro-life or pro-choice issues, 
unless you think we shouldn't do research at all, and there are 
certainly Americans who do not believe it is proper to do medical 
research, or unless you don't think we should do medical research at 
all in embryos or in stem cells, then it is appropriate to have a 
debate about this bill.
  Now, I hope the amniotic research works. I had a baby son, Jack, 16 
months ago. My wife, Terry, and I saved his cord blood. It is stored 
right now in California, and if he ever needs it, it is there.
  I hope that the adult stem cell work that is being done is 
successful. I am disappointed that so far the embryonic stem cell 
research has not yielded the results that we hope, but it is that one 
time that works that we are hoping for.
  The Chicago Cubs have not been in the World Series, since when, 1916? 
But every spring they start out that they are going to get to the World 
Series this year. We don't know which researcher will find the cure to 
Parkinson's or the cure to Alzheimer's, and it may be through adult 
stem cell or amniotic stem cell, or it might be through embryonic.
  Now, the bill before us would take the approximately 7,000 to 8,000 
embryos a year that are disposed of as medical waste and make it 
possible for the custodian, the parent, the custodian of those embryos 
to donate them for medical research purposes that is federally funded. 
Seven to eight thousand.
  To me, as a pro-life Congressman for over 22 years, the choice is: 
Medical research, medical waste; which is the most pro-life? Medical 
research that might, might find a cure for my mother's Alzheimer's or 
my brother's liver cancer that he died of, or medical waste that 
literally goes in the trash bin? That is what is happening now. Why 
cannot we make it possible to pursue cord blood, amniotic, adult stem 
cell, and embryonic stem cell?
  So I respectfully, for those Members yet to cast their vote on this 
issue, please vote ``yes.''
  Mr. Speaker, stem cell legislation has been debated on this floor 
before, and I welcome the opportunity to again speak in support of 
legislation to expand embryonic stem cell research.
  In August of 2001, the President issued his policy on federally 
funded stem cell research. President Bush announced that for the first 
time Federal research dollars would be available for research using 
existing stem cell lines. Originally it was believed that there were 
nearly 60 viable stem cell lines, however, for a variety of reasons, 
that number was reduced to 22. Furthermore, many of those 22 lines 
cannot practically be used for research. This legislation will help 
create enough lines of embryonic stem cells to allow for science and 
medicine to progress.
  In order to ensure that these embryonic stem cell lines are ethically 
derived, the legislation provides strict ethical constructs. The lines 
must come from embryos that have been donated, that were specifically 
created for fertilization treatments and would otherwise be discarded. 
Those donating the embryos must provide written consent and they may 
not receive financial incentives.
  Understandably, this is not a simple vote for anyone on this floor. 
This is a vote of conscience for all members. In the 109th Congress, 
identical legislation was agreed to by a vote of 238 to 194 in the 
House and later passed the Senate by a vote of 63 to 37.

[[Page H382]]

However, the House was unable to capture enough votes to override the 
Presidential veto this past summer, and the legislation never became 
law.
  Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have consistently defended human 
life and opposed all forms of abortion. I also respect the need for 
progress in medicine that will help protect and improve existing human 
lives. My decision to support this legislation puts me one vote short 
of a perfect, 100 percent pro-life voting record, and it was not 
reached carelessly. It is the product of much personal contemplation 
and plenty of prayer. I have lost members of my family to illnesses 
that stem cell research might have cured. I have concluded that I am 
just not ready to require that sacrifice from other families, to watch 
lives slip away that could be saved.
  Recently, a study was issued by Wake Forest University in which the 
ability to reclaim embryonic stem cells from amniotic fluid was 
demonstrated. This is an important step forward in stem cell research, 
and I applaud it. However, this important step should not preclude the 
use of other forms of stem cell research that could one day become a 
cure for many diseases that too many Americans suffer. The researcher 
of this very study has restated his support for passage of H.R. 3.
  This will be one of the most difficult votes that many of us cast in 
this Congress. It is literally about life and death. It is about the 
lives and the deaths of real people, people we know and love. 
Regardless of our differing positions, this is an issue on which it is 
impossible to be insincere. I ask that we respect one another during 
this debate, and that we honor each other's views, especially the ones 
with which we differ.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Ranking Member Barton for his 
thoughtful, thoughtful approach and his support of this issue. I also 
want to thank my friend and compadre, Mr. Castle, who has fought hand 
in hand for this legislation with me for years now. And I also want to 
thank the many Members who have helped us through this long process and 
will be helping us long after today.
  This is the first time I can remember a bipartisan whip effort in the 
10 years I have been in Congress. Ms. Baldwin, Mrs. Bono, Mr. Bradley, 
Mrs. Capps, Mr. Carnahan, Mr. Dent, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Langevin, Mr. 
Perlmutter, and Mr. Upton. Thank you, thank you, and our work is not 
completed.
  I want to talk for a minute about what H.R. 3 does, because there are 
a lot of misstatements that have been made today on this floor. H.R. 3 
simply expands the number of stem cell lines that can be used for 
research that is done in an ethical manner.
  In 2001, President Bush restricted stem cell research to lines that 
existed as of that date. In the ensuing years, we have learned there 
were not 73 lines, as has been asserted today, but somewhere between 19 
and 22 lines. We learned that all of those lines are contaminated with 
mouse feeder cells and are not appropriate for clinical use. We learned 
that the research is going offshore and into private hands. Perhaps 
most disturbingly, we learned that the U.S. Government has no ethical 
control over current private research or State research into embryonic 
stem cell lines.
  For that reason, we drafted a bill that both expands the research and 
sets forward a rigid code of ethics. Only cells that are created to 
give life for in vitro fertilization but then are slated to be thrown 
away as medical waste, thrown away, can be donated for this research, 
by informed consent. It is very narrow and it is very ethical. That is 
why 522 patient advocacy groups, health organizations, research 
universities, scientific societies, religious groups, and other 
associations have endorsed this bill. It expands research, and it does 
it in an ethical way.
  Embryonic stem cells were first identified from mouse embryos in 1981 
and primate embryos in 1995; but until November 1998, animal embryos 
were the only source for research. In 1998, for the first time, 
researchers learned that embryonic stem cells could be used in humans, 
and that is when we found so much potential, potential for diseases 
that affect 110 million Americans and their families, Americans 
suffering from diabetes, Parkinson's, nerve damage, and on and on.
  The great promise of this research is why people like Nancy Reagan, 
Michael J. Fox, Orrin Hatch, Mary Tyler Moore, pro-life and pro-choice, 
have come together to say, we cannot deny this research. We must not 
say let's just throw these cells away and discard them. Let's allow 
people to donate them in order to give life and to give hope.
  Now, the opposition tries to obfuscate this issue time and time 
again, and we simply cannot let that happen. We are not researchers; we 
are Congress. It is our job to promote all ethical scientific research, 
not to pick and choose among methods. I can't think of a time when 
Congress says, oh, scientists, use that method to research cancer cures 
but not this method. That is not our job. Our job is to say let's 
support all ethical research, adult stem cells, cord blood, alternative 
methods, amniotic stem cells, and embryonic stem cell research.
  In conclusion, I will say that this is the next step on a long road; 
and I implore all of you to think not about yourself, not even about 
your parents, but your grandchildren and your great grandchildren. When 
we find these cures, we will say we did the right thing today. Vote 
``yes'' on H.R. 3.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3, the Stem 
Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. This bill is a result of the 
tireless efforts of my esteemed colleagues Diana DeGette and Mike 
Castle. I am proud to count myself among the more than 200 Members of 
Congress on both sides of the aisle who have cosponsored this 
legislation. It is a bipartisan, bicameral bill that passed both Houses 
of Congress last year.
  It was one of the very few truly bipartisan bills to leave this 
building during the previous Congress. Unfortunately, despite all the 
public support, despite all the bipartisan support, despite all the 
hope millions of Americans invested in this legislation, the President 
decided to invoke his first, and only, veto.
  This important piece of legislation authorizes the Department of 
Health and Human Services, HHS, to support research involving embryonic 
stem cells, regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived 
from an embryo. There are stringent ethical guidelines included in this 
bill. First among them requires that researchers work only with stem 
cells from embryos that would have otherwise been discarded by 
fertility clinics. Furthermore, the legislation stipulates that embryos 
can be used only if the donors give their written consent and receive 
no money or other inducement in exchange for the embryos.
  These strict ethical standards are critical to the advancement of 
this ground breaking science. The scientific community has the 
opportunity to ease the suffering of thousands of Americans and their 
families. A new round of federally funded stem cell research is 
desperately needed in order to find cures and treatments for diseases 
such as diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, ALS, multiple 
sclerosis, and cancer.
  The State of California recognized early on the extraordinary 
significance of stem cell research. The people of California voted for 
Proposition 71 to provide $3 billion to unleash the dynamic force of 
medical research and unlock the promise of life saving scientific 
research. Researchers in my district are already hard at work and with 
the enactment of this legislation the scientific community in the bay 
area will be unshackled. They will lead the way to help those who have 
been stricken with debilitating diseases.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my great hope that this legislation will soon be 
on the President's desk awaiting his signature. I urge the President to 
listen to the will of Congress and the pleas of the American people and 
sign this bill into law.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3
  Since President Bush announced his stem cell funding restrictions, 
we've learned a number of things that, in my opinion, make the policy 
even less ethical than it was in 2001.
  We learned that the President was wrong about how many stem cell 
lines would be available to researchers under his ban. The President 
said there were more than 60 available lines, and soon after it was 
claimed that there were 78. We learned later that year that only 24 or 
25 of those lines were ready for research. In 2003, the administration 
was conceded that only 11 lines were available to researchers. Today 
only about 20 lines are available, and all of them were grown on 
substances that might make them unfit for future use in therapies.
  We've also learned that since the President's announcement, the 
proportion of stem cell research conducted in the United States has 
shrunk. There's a recent analysis that looked at all scientific papers 
on human embryonic stem cell research published over the last several 
years. The White House has cited this study to point out that almost 
half of the labs producing papers on the topic from 1998 through 2004 
were in the U.S. But in pulling out this overall statistic, the White 
House seems to have ignored the study's title: ``An international gap 
in human embryonic stem

[[Page H383]]

cell research.'' The authors found that after the restrictions, the 
U.S. contribution to embryonic stem cell research dropped. In 2001, 
about one-third of all stem cell research papers were produced here. 
But by 2004--just three years later--that proportion had dropped to 
about one-quarter.
  The study's authors wrote that the U.S. is ``falling behind'' in 
embryonic stem cell research. They wrote that this growing gap could 
put U.S. patients at a disadvantage if therapies are discovered. In 
fact, they concluded that ``U.S. congressional delays and the Bush 
administration's resistance to an expansion of Federal funding suggest 
a real danger for U.S. biomedicine.''
  Scientists are saying that the administration's ban stymies their 
research. Many U.S. scientists are getting offers to work overseas 
because funding is available there and policies are clear. The most 
discouraging news is that young scientists are reportedly hesitating to 
even enter this field because it's not being funded in proportion to 
its potential.
  The White House is pushing other distorted interpretations of the 
issue. In a report released yesterday, the White House pointed out that 
there are many clinical trials related to adult stem cells, but none 
related to embryonic stem cells. This is truly an Alice-in-Wonderland 
style argument. The administration sharply restricts researchers' 
ability to work with embryonic stem cells and pushes researchers to 
work with adult stem cells. Then, it turns around several years later 
and notes, to no one's surprise, that most of the clinical trials are 
being done with adult stem cells. One can only wonder where we'd be if 
America's top researchers were free to work with the most powerful 
tools.
  Some of you may have noticed last week's news reports on amniotic 
stem cells. These cells appear to hold some potential for research 
because they can develop into multiple cell types. We all want to 
understand what this research means for this debate. And I think we can 
probably agree that the lead researcher, Dr. Anthony Atala, is a good 
interpreter.
  What he has said, consistently, is that amniotic stem cells do not 
substitute for embryonic stem cells. He has said that the cells have 
different qualities, may have different potentials for growing into 
different cell types, and may have different applications down the 
road.
  I think we should listen to the scientist behind this study, and not 
those who want to distort this promising news to suppress other 
potentially life-saving research.
  Dr. Atala's explanation makes one thing very clear. The most 
important reason amniotic stem cells can't replace embryonic stem cells 
is that we do not know enough about either type. A growing body of 
research has made clear that stem cells of all kinds have much to teach 
us about the human body and disease. Hopefully this knowledge will lead 
to treatments and cures. But if we're going to get there, we need a 
serious Federal commitment to funding all promising and ethical stem 
cell research.
  That is what this bill will do. I respect the beliefs of those who 
are concerned about protecting human life. But it is my opinion--widely 
shared by most Americans--that the use of cells from embryos that will 
otherwise be discarded is well within ethical boundaries.
  Like many of my colleagues here, what I consider unethical is telling 
people suffering from diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's that 
their suffering doesn't justify the strongest possible federal 
commitment to finding a cure.
  What I consider unethical is turning to the generations following us 
and telling them that we didn't make as much progress, and we won't be 
passing on as much scientific understanding, as we could have.
  We have already squandered valuable time, but it is not too late. 
It's time to recover lost ground--and reclaim the leadership role our 
country has earned in biomedical science--by supporting this ethical 
and important research.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Stem Cell 
Research Enhancement Act.
  Embryonic stem cell research holds potential for some of the most 
far-reaching breakthroughs seen in modem medicine. This is a field 
filled with promise, with the potential to cure the incurable and to 
heal that which was once thought impossible to mend.
  We're bringing this bill up again with the hope that the President 
will hear the scientists and researchers and hear the voices of the 
American people that he do the right thing and sign this vital measure 
into law. We need to take action now so that this crucial research can 
go forward for the sake of the millions of people dealing with 
incurable or debilitating diseases--diseases such as juvenile diabetes, 
Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, and cancer. We can never 
guarantee the results of scientific research, but without it we 
guarantee there can be no results.
  The President's current stem cell policy is not working. Research is 
practically at a standstill in this country. Of the 78 existing stem 
cell lines permitted for use in Federally funded research, only 21 of 
these lines are currently used for research, and many of the available 
stem cell lines are contaminated, making their therapeutic use for 
humans questionable.
  The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act is a well-crafted, bipartisan 
approach. Let me be clear that the bill only allows the use of stem 
cell lines generated from embryos that would otherwise be discarded by 
fertility clinics. The legislation contains strict ethical guidelines, 
including the requirement that embryos can be used only if the donors 
give their written consent and receive no money or other inducement in 
exchange.
  There has been recent news regarding ongoing research using non-
embryonic stem cells. While I believe it is necessary to support study 
on all stem cell types, this research alone is in no way a substitute 
for embryonic stem cell research, whose potential is different from 
that of other stem cell types.
  We need to pass this bill today on a strong, bipartisan vote. I truly 
hope the President will reconsider and do the right thing and sign this 
bill into law. This legislation is so important to millions of 
Americans, and we stand with them as we vote for the Stem Cell Research 
Enhancement Act today.
  I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this vital 
legislation.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong 
support of H.R. 3, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, 
which holds tremendous hope for the 100 million Americans affected by 
devastating diseases and medical conditions.
  In 2001, President George W. Bush announced his final decision on the 
use of Federal funds for embryonic stem cell research. According to the 
National Institutes of Health, of the 78 stem cell lines that were 
declared eligible for Federal funding in the President's executive 
order of August 2001, only 21 lines are now still available for 
researchers. The 21 stem cell lines that remain available today are 
contaminated with ``mouse feeder'' cells, making their therapeutic use 
for humans uncertain.
  I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Stem Cell Research 
Enhancement Act, which increases the number of embryonic stem cell 
lines eligible to be used for Federally-funded research. The bill also 
authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services to support 
research involving embryonic stem cells meeting certain criteria, 
regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from an 
embryo. This legislation authorizes the use of stem cell lines 
generated from embryos that would otherwise be discarded by fertility 
clinics and it has strict ethical guidelines. These guidelines include 
stipulating that embryos can be used only if the donors give their 
written consent and receive no money or other inducement in exchange 
for the embryos.
  In the 109th Congress, this bill passed the House by a vote of 238-
194 and in the Senate by a vote of 63-37. Unfortunately, the President 
used his first veto to stop lifesaving stem cell research and set back 
the hopes of so many who are suffering. Today, we owe it to the 
millions of Americans with chronic diseases like Parkinson's, Multiple 
Sclerosis, Alzheimer's, diabetes, and ALS to invest in this promising 
research and renew the hopes of millions.
  Expanding stem cell research has the support of more than 70 percent 
of Americans. This vote today has the potential to unlock the doors to 
treatments and cures to numerous debilitating and life-threatening 
diseases and will send a clear signal that this Congress is committed 
to improving the lives of millions of patients affected by these 
diseases. Passage of H.R. 3 is critical and I hope the President 
listens to the American people by signing this bill that will allow 
this groundbreaking research to move forward.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3, the 
DeGette-Castle stem cell research bill. Our Nation's top scientists 
agree that embryonic stem cell research has the potential to unlock the 
doors to treatments and cures to numerous diseases, including diabetes, 
Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, ALS, multiple sclerosis and cancer. 
Tens of millions of Americans and their families stand to benefit from 
this life-saving research.
  Current policy allows Federal funds to be used for research only on 
those stem cell lines that existed when President Bush issued an 
executive order on August 9, 2001. However, few of the stem cell lines 
authorized by President Bush are now useful for research. According to 
the National Institutes of Health, of the 78 stem cell lines that were 
declared eligible for Federal funding in the President's executive 
order of August 2001, only about 22 lines are now still available for 
researchers; and, many of these 22 ``available'' stem cell lines are 
contaminated with ``mouse feeder'' cells, making their therapeutic use 
for humans uncertain.
  H.R. 3 authorizes government support of research involving embryonic 
stem cells that

[[Page H384]]

meet certain criteria, regardless of the date on which the stem cells 
were derived from an embryo. The bill creates an ethical framework for 
this research. It prohibits funding for research unless the cell lines 
were derived from excess embryos that were created for reproductive 
purposes and would otherwise be discarded. It also requires voluntary 
informed consent from the couples donating the excess embryos and 
prohibits any financial inducements.
  H.R. 3 represents real hope to the tens of millions Americans 
suffering from devastating illnesses, and I encourage my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from 
Colorado for yielding me the time. I would also like to thank Mrs. 
DeGette for her leadership on this very important issue. And I rise in 
support of H.R. 3, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.
  Today, I want to talk about a young girl who I have the honor of 
knowing, Karle Borcherding from Ankeny Iowa. In 2005, at the age of 10, 
Karle was diagnosed with juvenile or Type I diabetes. Over the course 
of the past year she has had to give herself 4 to 5 shots a day. A 
burden no 10 year old should have to deal with. Karle and her mother, 
Darcy, have been leaders on the finding a cure for Type I diabetes 
across Iowa, the Midwest, and all the way to Washington, DC, with the 
Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation.
  Karle is a vibrant young girl who does not let her disease control 
her life. When asked why Karle wants to find a cure she responds ``Not 
just so I will be cured and can be a normal kid, but because other kids 
will be cured too.'' I am hopeful that, for Karle's sake and every 
child affected by debilitating diseases, we will pass this vital 
legislation today.
  Opponents of this legislation will argue that we should focus our 
attention to adult stem cell research. And while adult stem cell 
research can be useful, embryonic stem cell research offers hope to 
cure diseases. Some of the leading scientists in the country have 
stated that adult stem cells would not be able to find a cure for 
disease such as ALS, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, or Type I diabetes.
  I ask my colleagues to join me today and vote on the side of hope and 
science, and support H.R. 3.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3 
and of the promise that it offers to the literally millions of 
Americans battling terrible illnesses and the effects of devastating 
injuries for which we currently have no cures and few effective 
treatments.
  I approach stem cell research with deep respect for the significant 
ethical concerns that it raises, and I strongly believe we must never 
lose our diligent focus on ensuring that these research techniques are 
not abused for immoral ends.
  H.R. 3 will guarantee the highest ethical standards will be applied 
to stem cell research and will allow only embryos that would otherwise 
be destroyed to be used for research purposes.
  Critically, H.R. 3 will also fulfill our duty to recognize the 
sanctity of human life by supporting the research that may one day 
yield the cures and treatments that could help so many in our nation 
who are being robbed of their sacred lives by disease.
  I urge the passage of H.R. 3 and strongly urge the President to 
reconsider his past veto and let this bill of compassion become law.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3, 
Expanding Stem Cell Research.
  I believe stem cell research holds enormous promise for easing human 
suffering for people like my constituents Judy Reich and Jake Page, 
both of whom suffer from diabetes. Embryonic stem cell research could 
lead to a cure that could dramatically improve their lives. Federal 
support is critical to its success which is why I was pleased when 
President Bush announced his stem cell policy in August 2001.
  Scientists have learned a great deal about stem cells in the five and 
a half years since that announcement. Medical researchers believe that 
embryonic stem cell research has the potential to change the face of 
human disease. A number of current treatments already exist, although 
the majority of them are not commonly used because they tend to be 
experimental and not very cost-effective. Medical researchers 
anticipate being able to use technologies derived from stem cell 
research to treat cancer, Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries, 
and muscle damage, amongst a number of other diseases, impairments and 
conditions.
  Current federal policy on human embryonic stem cell research allows 
federally funded research be conducted on those stem cells derived 
before August 9, 2001. Today, only 22 stem cell lines are available to 
federally funded scientists. The United States Congress has passed 
legislation which would lift the date restriction and allow federally 
funded scientists to research a greater number of stem cell lines; 
however, the President has vetoed this legislation. The legislation 
would also provide stronger ethical requirements on those stem cell 
lines eligible for funding including donor consent, certification that 
embryos donated are in excess of clinical need, and that the embryos 
would be otherwise discarded.
  While I disagree with the creation of human embryos for scientific 
purposes, I agree that embryos created as a by-product of in vitro 
fertilization, which would otherwise be destroyed, should be allowed to 
provide greater insight into the myriad afflictions that can 
potentially be alleviated through stem cell research.
  As with all scientific endeavors, we must ensure that the limitless 
bounds of science do not infringe on the beliefs that we hold as 
ethical human beings. For this reason, I categorically oppose the 
harvesting of embryos for scientific research as well as any attempt to 
use our scientific knowledge to clone human beings.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3, Expanding Stem Cell Research.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, a founder and co-chair of the 
Congressional Working Group on Parkinson's Disease, I rise in strong 
support of H.R. 3, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 11, 2007--On Page H384 the following appeared: Mrs. 
MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, a founder and co-chair
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: Mrs. MALONEY of 
New York. Mr. Speaker, a founder and co-chair


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  This bill expands current policy by providing for federal funding of 
embryonic stem cell research on lines derived after August 9, 2001 
while still requiring strong ethical guidelines for research.
  I am grateful to the new Democratic Leadership for bringing up this 
legislation during the first 100 hours after both the House and Senate 
passed the bill last summer, only to see the President veto it, without 
regard for the millions of suffering Americans and their families.
  An overwhelming 72% of the American people support federal funding 
for stem cell research because they know that by lifting the arbitrary 
ban that the President put in place in 2001, research will move forward 
and mil1ions of Americans will benefit.
  Let's be clear: this bill is very simple--it's about saving lives.
  It's about preventing devastating diseases from ravaging and ending 
people's lives.
  I urge my colleagues to think about their loved Ones when deciding 
how to cast their vote. It's literally a matter of life and death.
  According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), of the 78 stem 
cell lines that were declared eligible for federal funding in the 
President's executive order of August 2001, only about 22 lines are now 
still available for researchers.
  And many of these 22 ``available'' stem cell lines are contaminated 
with ``mouse feeder'' cells, making their therapeutic use for humans 
uncertain.
  Just this week, a new study was released noting that scientists see 
potential in Amniotic Stem Cells.
  This is extraordinary new finding highlights the importance of 
continued research in all types of stem cell research and regenerative 
medicine.
  It does not lessen the need to increase the number of embryonic stem 
cell lines which will ultimately lead to therapy and treatment.
  Instead, it demonstrates the relative infancy of this area of 
research and the need for a significant federal commitment.
  Today, we have the opportunity to make a difference in the lives of 
millions of afflicted people and their families.
  Let's each do the right thing. I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 3.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3, the 
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, a bill that is both morally and 
ethically compromising. H.R. 3, sponsored by Rep. Diana DeGette, would 
expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Supporters of 
this legislation are encouraging the destruction of human embryos in 
the hope of one day treating diseases.
  The timing of this bill is especially ironic as we learned on January 
7, 2007 that amniotic fluid stem cells were found to have pluripotent 
properties and grow as fast as embryonic stem cells. This is yet 
another example of a successful ethical alternative to embryonic stem 
cell research.
  To date, there are 72 diseases and injuries that have been 
successfully treated with adult stem cells unlike embryonic stem cells 
which have yet to yield a single successful human treatment. Proponents 
of embryonic stem cell research would like you to believe there is no 
ongoing federal research using embryonic stem cell lines approved by 
the NIH, however, the United States leads the world in embryonic stem 
cell research.

[[Page H385]]

  Embryonic stem cell research received no federal funding through the 
NIH prior to 2001 when President Bush established a policy to allow for 
embryonic stem cell research on a line of existing cells. This was the 
first time the federal government had ever made funding available for 
embryonic stem cell research. Since then, more than $130 million of 
federal money has been spent on human embryonic stem cell research and 
over $3 billion has been spent on all stem cell research. This does not 
include the billions of dollars raised in the private sector for stem 
cell research.
  While bioethics and science have brought about medical advancements 
and breakthroughs, our society should promote the protection of human 
life and dignity in all its forms. We can promote science and 
technology while applying ethical and moral guidelines that err on the 
side of life. Science can and should be used to improve the quality of 
lives, to save lives, cure fatal diseases and bring hope to those who 
are suffering, yet I cannot support legislation that would require the 
destruction of human embryos. Adult stem cell research has provided 
treatments of diseases while applying ethical standards.
  I will continue to support legislation that promotes ethical science 
and produces an uncompromised standard that values all human life. H.R. 
3 would only further expand the destruction of human life.
  I will vote against this unethical and morally compromising bill, and 
I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the issue of government funding of embryonic 
stem cell research is one of the most divisive issues facing the 
country. While I sympathize with those who see embryonic stem cell 
research as providing a path to a cure for the dreadful diseases that 
have stricken so many Americans, I strongly object to forcing those 
Americans who believe embryonic stem cell research is immoral to 
subsidize such research with their tax dollars.
  The main question that should concern Congress today is does the 
United States Government have the constitutional authority to fund any 
form of stem cell research. The clear answer to that question is no. A 
proper constitutional position would reject federal funding for stem 
cell research, while allowing the individual states and private 
citizens to decide whether to permit, ban, or fund this research.
  Federal funding of medical research guarantees the politicization of 
decisions about what types of research for what diseases will be 
funded. Thus, scarce resources will be allocated according to who has 
the most effective lobby rather than allocated on the basis of need or 
even likely success. Federal funding will also cause researchers to 
neglect potential treatments and cures that do not qualify for federal 
funds.
  In order to promote private medical research, I will introduce the 
Cures Can Be Found Act. The Cures Can Be Found Act promotes medical 
research by providing a tax credit for investments and donations to 
promote adult and umbilical cord blood stem cell research and providing 
a $2,000 tax credit to new parents for the donation of umbilical cord 
blood from which to extract stem cells. The Cures Can Be Found Act will 
ensure greater resources are devoted to this valuable research. The tax 
credit for donations of umbilical cord blood will ensure that medical 
science has a continuous supply of stem cells. Thus, this bill will 
help scientists discover new cures using stem cells and, hopefully, 
make routine the use of stem cells to treat formerly incurable 
diseases.
  The Cures Can Be Found Act will benefit companies like Prime Cell, 
which is making great progress in transforming non-embryonic stem cells 
into any cell type in the body. Prime Cell is already talking to health 
care practitioners about putting its findings to use to help cure 
diseases.
  Companies like Prime Cell are continuing the great American tradition 
of private medical research that is responsible for many medical 
breakthroughs. For example, Jonas Salk, discoverer of the polio 
vaccine, did not receive one dollar from the federal government for his 
efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no question that forcing taxpayers to subsidize 
embryonic stem cell research violates basic constitutional principles. 
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against HR 3, and support the 
Cures Can Be Found Act.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Stem 
Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 (H.R. 3).
  This bipartisan legislation will provide countless number of 
Americans hope of finding cures for many life-threatening diseases. I 
strongly 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. For these patients and 
their families, stem cell research is the last hope for a cure.
  I wholeheartedly believe we should allow the expansion of federally 
supported research of human embryonic stem cell lines. The Stem Cell 
Research Enhancement Act of 2007 would provide federal for a wider 
range of stem cell research while establishing ethical guidelines. In 
addition, the legislation would provide that embryos that are otherwise 
likely to be discarded can be used to develop treatments for 
debilitating diseases and life-saving cures.
  I was extremely disappointed that the President exercised his first 
veto on a piece of legislation that has bipartisan support. A majority 
ofthe American people support stem cell research. In the last election, 
Missouri voters approved a ballot measure to allow stem cell research 
in that state.
  It is expected that the Senate will pass H.R. 3. If that is the case, 
I hope the President will listen to Congress and the American people 
rather than to the extreme right of his own political party and not 
wield his veto pen on this promising legislation. We must put the 
health of the American people over politics.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that affects every family in America. I 
strongly urge my House colleagues to support this bipartisan 
legislation.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, this bill to allow federal funding for stem 
cell research involves a simple question: should we use frozen cells to 
help millions of Americans with Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and diabetes, 
or throw them away and claim moral superiority?
  A supermajority of the American people wants to advance medical 
science. Congress has already passed this same legislation only to be 
met with President Bush's veto. Because we know that the President 
never lets the facts get in the way of his decisions, we know he won't 
change his mind. It is up to a handful of Republicans to say yes to the 
voters and no to the Christian Right so we can pass this bill by a 
veto-proof majority.
  I urge my colleagues to prove that they heeded the message of the 
recent election to stop posturing and start passing common-sense 
legislation.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I'm so pleased to have another opportunity 
to support this stem cell research bill today. But let me say that we 
cannot allow this crucial legislation to once again come so close, only 
to--in the end--be kept so far from those who would benefit from its 
outcome on a daily basis.
  Change does not come easily. This is a big step in providing 
America's world-class researchers with the resources they need to make 
a difference in the lives of those with serious illnesses. But let us 
take a moment to weigh the kind of change in federal policy it would 
take to provide researchers with access to new embryonic stem cell 
lines, with the kind of change a person faces when he or she hears the 
words Parkinson's, or diabetes, or spinal cord injury.
  The debilitating symptoms of these diseases can alter the course of a 
person's life--not to mention their family's--and change their day-to-
day lives in ways it is impossible for most of us to even imagine. I 
ask you to take a moment to think of the changes you would have to make 
to accommodate a chronic illness in your life.
  Our scientists and researchers need new cell lines so they can move 
beyond the contaminated, and often unusable, lines that were in 
existence before 2001. Let's transform the way we experience disease in 
this country and take the first step today by supporting H.R. 3.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, time and time again, the American people 
have spoken on this issue--they overwhelmingly support the expansion of 
embryonic stem cell research. And today, Congress has the opportunity 
to take heed and do the bidding of the people by passing H.R. 3.
  Recent developments have proven that we are not far off from 
recognizing the true potential of embryonic stem cell research. In 
meetings with researchers at ViaCell and New World Laboratories, two 
small biotech companies in my home state of Massachusetts, I have seen 
first-hand the notable progress made in their research on spinal cord 
injuries and tissue regeneration. All around the world, researchers are 
gaining similar ground. However, our nation's current policy stands to 
limit such critical advancements.
  And that is why I am proud to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 3. It 
marks the way for an increased number of embryonic stem cell lines 
while also developing strong ethical guidelines to protect the 
integrity of this research.
  We have the rare opportunity to help spur scientific innovation that 
could, with the proper research and development, produce better 
treatments--or even cures--for diseases like diabetes, Parkinson's 
disease, and cancer. But absent a federal investment in embryonic stem 
cell research, we will never witness its true potential. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
3, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. I do so not because

[[Page H386]]

I oppose embryonic stem cell research but because as an OB/GYN 
physician I oppose federally funded embryonic stem cell research that 
destroys life. And the truth of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, I am not 
alone in this belief; in fact I am joined by nearly half of the 
American public.
  Let me say that again, nearly half of the American public opposes 
using taxpayer dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research when a 
human embryo is destroyed in the process.
  I know that the supporters of this bill claim that an overwhelming 
majority of Americans whole-heartedly endorse their bill. However, when 
individuals in our society are asked specifically whether or not they 
would like the Federal Government to fund research that destroys a 
human embryo, the survey results are absolutely divided.
  And that Mr. Speaker is what we are actually debating on the floor of 
the House today. We are debating the question of whether or not the 
American taxpayer should pay for research that encourages the 
destruction of human embryos.
  We are not debating whether or not embryonic stem cell research is 
legal in this country, because, of course, it is not only completely 
legal but also well funded in both the private and public sector. In 
fact, between state governments and the private sector there is nearly 
$4 billion committed to embryonic stem cell research over the next 10 
years.
  I also want to dispel the myth that the Federal Government currently 
does not fund human embryonic stem cell research. In actuality, by the 
end of 2007, the Federal Government will have spent over $160 million. 
When President Bush signed the Executive Order in 2001, he made 
possible the federal funding of embryonic stem research. His executive 
order merely limited federal funds to support research which utilized 
already established stem cell lines. This decision removed any backdoor 
federal incentive and separated the United States government from the 
business of encouraging the destruction of human embryos.
  Mr. Speaker, another policy issue we are unfortunately not debating 
today, is the use of federal funds to research alternative and ethical 
ways to extract embryonic-like or pluripotent stem cells. The fact of 
the matter is the hope held dearly by many individuals of this country 
with respect to embryonic stem cell research is not grounded solely in 
the fact that these cells are embryonic. Rather, researchers are 
interested in embryonic stem cells because they are flexible, that is 
they can specialize into any type of human tissue. This characteristic 
is also true of pluripotent stem cells, and the good news is that 
pluripotent stem cells can be obtained in a variety of ethical and 
scientifically promising ways.
  Mr. Speaker, this point cannot be illustrated anymore clearly than in 
the study made public this weekend by researchers at Wake Forest and 
Harvard. This study shows not only the capability of researchers to 
obtain pluripotent stem cells from amniotic fluid but that these stem 
cells grow fast and show great flexibility.
  This new, cutting edge research has great relevance in the debate we 
are engaged in today. The fact of the matter is that this study is yet 
another reminder that science moves faster than the Federal Government. 
We no longer need to engage in a passionate debate that divides our 
country in half. We no longer need to contemplate a unilateral decision 
to spend taxpayer dollars on research methods that nearly 50 percent of 
the public oppose.
  No, Mr. Speaker, let us instead bring to the floor legislation that 
unites this country and does not divide. Let us examine and debate the 
multitude of alternative and ethical methods of obtaining pluripotent 
stem cells, methods similar to the research recently published 
regarding amniotic stem cells.
  Representative Bartlett and I have introduced such a piece of 
legislation, it is bill H.R. 322. Today, on the hallowed floor of the 
House of Representatives, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to join with us and half of the American public, in supporting a 
bill that promotes lifesaving medical research that does not sacrifice 
life in the process.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 3, 
a bill authorizing taxpayer funding for human embryo-destroying stem 
cell research. This bill would reverse the reasonable embryonic stem 
cell policy, set in place by the President in 2001, which allows 
federal funds to be used for research on existing stem cell lines where 
the life and death decision has already been made.
  There have been exciting and dramatic developments in adult stem-cell 
research that hold great promise for medical advancements. I strongly 
support the need to pursue new treatments and cures to the diseases 
affecting millions of people world wide. However, in this pursuit we 
must be careful not to compromise our values of respecting human life. 
Embryonic stem cell research destroys human life at its earliest stage 
for experimental research purposes.
  There are many types of stem cell research that are worthwhile and 
that do not raise such ethical and moral concerns. Alternative sources 
such as umbilical cord and adult tissue cells are currently being used 
to treat people, and successfully. Earlier this week, scientists 
reported that amniotic non-embryonic stem cells may offer the same 
research possibilities as stem cells obtained through the destruction 
of living human embryos. Not only are these cells highly versatile, 
they are readily available. Such alternatives make clear that we are 
capable of achieving successful stem cell research without the 
intentional destruction of human embryos.
  The debate today is not about blocking embryonic stem cell research. 
There are vast financial resources available to fund this controversial 
research and any company or organization that wants to conduct or fund 
embryonic stem cell research may do so. And yet, despite extensive 
private research, there have been no successful therapeutic treatments 
with embryonic stem-cell research--none. With adult stem cells, 
physicians have successfully treated patients with diabetes, multiple 
sclerosis, sickle cell anemia, heart disease, Crohn's disease and 
rheumatoid arthritis, among many others. These examples are a strong 
testament to the amazing power of adult stem cells.
  By voting against this bill, we can avoid not only the ethical and 
moral questions that are raised, but we can make sure that taxpayer 
dollars are invested wisely.
  Congress can provide and must help scientists realize the promise of 
embryonic stem cell research without authorizing the destruction of 
human life in the process. Once again, I urge my colleagues to support 
ethical stem cell research and to vote against this bill.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3, the 
bipartisan DeGette-Castle bill on stem cell research that is identical 
to legislation passed by the Republican 109th Congress and vetoed last 
year by President Bush.
  This bill allows federal funding for stem cell research that gives 
hope to 100 million Americans and their families afflicted by 
debilitating or life-threatening diseases. This research is critical to 
find new treatments and possible cures to terrible diseases like 
diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, ALS, multiple sclerosis, 
and cancer.
  It is important to note this bill's ethical safeguards, including 
requirements that forbid financial inducements for donations, mandate 
informed and written consent for donation, and requires HHS and the 
National Institutes of Health to produce ethical guidelines. DeGette-
Castle promotes the most ethical use of discarded fertility clinic 
products because rather than flushing them down the drain, ethically-
monitored scientists can utilize them to promote life-saving research.
  Mr. Speaker, this is important policy matter, but for me, it's 
personal. My college basketball coach, a friend and mentor for several 
decades is a victim of Alzheimer's disease. Others I am close to suffer 
from Lou Gehrig's disease. After prayerful consideration, I have 
arrived at the strong conclusion that we must allow the ethical advance 
of research to relieve human suffering.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in passing H.R. 3, and I urge the 
President to sign it into law.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3, 
legislation to expand Federal research on devastating diseases like 
Alzheimer's, diabetes, spinal cord injuries, and various cancers.
  When President Bush announced in 2001 that Federal funds would be 
available for research performed using currently existing embryonic 
stem cell lines, I truly believed we had begun to open the door for 
life-saving research. Unfortunately for all Americans, less than a 
quarter of those lines proved suitable for research. As a result, 
research conducted in the United States has slowed considerably.
  Federal restrictions on new lines have dashed the hopes of millions 
of Americans who are impacted by life-threatening illnesses stem cell 
research may cure. In addition, America is losing top medical 
researchers and scientists to other nations without such restrictions.
  A handful of States have stepped in where the Federal Government has 
failed. My home state of California was the first to act, passing a 
ballot initiative in 2005 that authorized $3 billion in funding for 
embryonic stem cell research. I strongly supported that ballot 
initiative, and I would like to acknowledge the other States that have 
stepped up to the plate in a similar fashion.
  Last year, I voted with 237 of my colleagues in the House and 63 
Senators to pass Federal legislation to fund stem cell research. 
Tragically, the President ignored the will of the Congress and the 
American people by casting the only veto of his administration against 
this bill.
  I am very proud that the Democratic majority has made facilitating 
this life-saving research a cornerstone of our agenda. Today's

[[Page H387]]

vote signifies a Federal commitment to exploring every possible option 
available for curing these terrible illnesses.
  Today, we cast a vote for hope. I urge my colleagues to vote in 
support of H.R. 3, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3, 
legislation to expand taxpayer funding of human embryonic stem cell 
research and give a ``stamp of approval'' from the Federal government 
for scientists to destroy human embryos to harvest stem cells for 
medical experiments.
  The pain and suffering of citizens afflicted with debilitating 
diseases concerns me greatly. I served for 7 years on the board of 
directors for the Great Plains Region of the American Diabetes 
Association because I am committed to finding a cure for people 
afflicted with this disease.
  I strongly support scientific research to find cures and effective 
treatments to relieve human suffering. I voted to double the Federal 
investment in biomedical research from $13.6 billion in fiscal year 
1998 to $27.1 billion in fiscal year 2003. The National Institutes of 
Health received $28.5 billion from Congress last year to do research on 
new cures for diseases.
  Embryonic stem cell research is not the ``silver bullet'' for every 
disease. The potential benefits of this research have been blown out of 
proportion by eager scientists and some in the news media. The fact is 
that 25 years of human embryonic stem cell research have not produced 
even one treatment for suffering Americans.
  Adult stem cell research, on the other hand, is producing real and 
tangible results with no ethical concerns. In fact, adult stem cells 
have produced treatments for 72 serious diseases and conditions in 
humans, and shown strong potential for permanent reversal of severe 
diseases such as diabetes and Parkinson's.
  Research has consistently shown that human embryonic stem cells grow 
tumors once implanted in an animal, became uncontrollable, or form 
various and wrong types of tissues. Some studies have shown moderate 
improvement in rats with spinal cord injuries, but some of those rats 
were not kept alive long enough to see if tumors formed. Many 
scientists argue this is a new medical field and limitations such as 
cancerous tendencies can be overcome through additional Federal funding 
and more time in the lab.
  These arguments callously gloss over the fact that embryonic stem 
cell research requires the destruction of human embryos--and 48 percent 
of Americans surveyed last year opposed this type of research after 
being informed of that fact. We have a responsibility as public 
officials to direct limited Federal dollars toward the most promising 
and ethical research possible.
  The strongest potential for cures at this time is not in embryonic 
stem cells, but in ethical research using adult stem cells, umbilical 
cord blood stem cells, and most recently, amniotic fluid stem cells, 
all of which uphold and support human life. These ethical approaches 
show promise that rivals the potential of embryonic stem cells without 
forcing many American taxpayers to fund research that threatens the 
dignity of human life.
  Amid all the scientific jargon in today's debate, let us not forget 
the fact that each one of us started life as a human embryo. There is 
no way around that basic fact, no matter how many scientific terms are 
used to conceal or confuse it. Embryos are the tiniest of human lives, 
but they are nevertheless human lives, and we must defend the 
defenseless.
  If embryos are not fundamentally human lives, how can you explain the 
fact that frozen embryos from in vitro fertility clinics grow into 
children once they are implanted in a woman's womb? Does an embryo 
somehow become less of a human being if we choose to donate it to a 
scientist to be experimented upon and ultimately destroyed? Those same 
human embryonic stem cells lying in a cold Petri dish will undeniably 
grow into a human child if given a chance at life. We must not allow 
scientific terminology to desensitize us to the miracle and sanctity of 
human life.
  Here are some published examples of the differences between embryonic 
stem cell research and adult stem cell research:
  Numerous attempts over the last 5 years to use human embryonic stem 
cells to cure diabetes repeatedly produced tumors or failed to generate 
insulin to reverse the disease. In the most successful experiment, 
human embryonic stem cells produced only one-fiftieth the amount of 
insulin needed to sustain life, and the mice died.
  For Parkinson's disease, researchers found that human embryonic stem 
cells grew uncontrollably in 100 percent of rats with the condition. 
All the animals showed indications of early tumor formation. These 
findings were duplicated by scientists in Sweden and Japan.
  Adult stem cells, on the other hand, have treated multiple types of 
cancers, including breast cancer and Leukemia, as well as autoimmune 
diseases, heart defects, heart disease, osteoporosis and spinal cord 
injuries, and demonstrated excellent potential to treat diabetes and to 
reverse Parkinson's.
  In 2003, researchers used adult stem cells to help regenerate 
pancreatic islet cells that produce insulin, permanently reversing 
diabetes in mice. The lead researcher stated that: ``Patients with 
fully established diabetes possibly could have their diabetes 
reversed.'' The FDA has approved a human clinical trial for diabetes 
based on this successful research. In 2005, a mother donated live stem 
cells for her diabetic daughter, alleviating the diabetic symptoms. 
Human umbilical cord blood stem cells can also generate insulin to 
reverse diabetes.
  Just last year, scientists used adult umbilical cord stem cells to 
treat rats with Parkinson's, and found significant recovery in motion 
and behavior. In 2002, a Parkinson's patient testified that his 
symptoms were 80 percent reversed after being treated with his own 
adult neural stem cells. British researchers in 2003 injected a natural 
protein into the brains of five Parkinson's patients and found that it 
stimulated existing adult neural stem cell growth, yielding a 61 
percent improvement in motor function. University of Kentucky 
researchers treated 10 Parkinson's patients with similar results.
  And just this week, researchers at Harvard University and Wake Forest 
University reported a breakthrough discovery that stem cells found in 
amniotic fluid show incredible promise for cures without concerns for 
tumor growth or immune system rejection.
  Amniotic stem cells can be safely and easily extracted from pregnant 
women, and are ``pluripotent'' like human embryonic stem cells, meaning 
they have the ability to transform into each of the three major types 
of tissue found in the body. The researchers stated: ``We conclude that 
amniotic fluid stem cells are pluripotent stem cells capable of giving 
rise to multiple lineages including representatives of all three 
embryonic germ layers.''
  Using amniotic stem cells, the research team created nerve cells, 
liver cells, endothelial cells that line blood vessels, and cells 
involved in the creation of bone, muscle and fat. In fact, the nerve 
cells successfully generated a neurotransmitter crucial to forming 
dopamine, which is lacking in Parkinson's patients. In testing on mice, 
amniotic stem cells were shown to re-grow and repair damaged areas of 
the brain.
  The incredible promise of such ethical stem cell research is worthy 
of taxpayer funding. It holds real promise and real hope for citizens 
needing cures and tangible relief from pain and disease.
  This debate today is not about whether we should fund stem cell 
research with tax dollars. The National Institutes of Health spends 
about $600 million every year on stem cell research, and almost $40 
million of those funds are unfortunately being spent on research 
involving human embryonic stem cells.
  The real debate today is about whether scientists will be able to 
create more embryonic stem cell lines by destroying more embryos. The 
next thing these scientists will be asking for is the ability to clone 
embryos because they cannot get enough stem cells from frozen human 
embryos at in vitro fertility clinics. This is no ``slippery slope,'' 
it is the ethical equivalent of jumping off a cliff.
  As public officeholders sworn to uphold the United States 
Constitution, we will have failed in our duty if we fail today to 
protect the right to life of the youngest homo sapiens--human embryos. 
We cannot fail in defending the defenseless, and we must keep faith 
with American taxpayers by funding the most ethical research to relief 
the suffering of ailing Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to join me today in voting against this 
unethical bill that would exploit human life while preying on the 
emotions of suffering American citizens.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 
support of H.R. 3, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007.
  I am proud to have been an original co-sponsor of this legislation in 
both the 109th and 110th Congresses.
  H.R. 3 will increase the number of embryonic stem cell lines that are 
eligible for use in federally funded research while maintaining strict 
ethical standards ensuring that only stem cells from embryos that would 
otherwise be discarded by fertility clinics can be used for research.
  My home State of California has taken the lead in stem cell research.
  In Orange County, California, the University of California-Irvine's 
Reeves Center is the home to spectacular research that is utilizing 
stem cells to work towards finding new treatments for spinal cord 
injury.
  I hope that any Member who has questions about stem cell research 
will seek out a research center like the Reeves Center to learn about 
the amazing progress that researchers are making towards finding 
treatments and cures for spinal injury, diabetes, Parkinson's

[[Page H388]]

disease, Alzheimer's, ALS, multiple sclerosis, and cancer among others.
  Federal support for this groundbreaking research will help 
researchers find answers even faster.
  I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3 because 
revising the current Federal policy on stem cell research is completely 
unnecessary. Sadly, the ethical debate over human embryonic stem cell 
research has completely overshadowed the fact that the Federal 
Government is devoting $600 million each year for all types of stem 
cell research. The current policy does not ban stem cell research in 
the United States, nor does it ban Federal funding for embryonic-type 
stem cell research. It only limits federally funded embryonic stem cell 
research to stem cell lines existing before August 9, 2001. The 
National Institutes of Health, through its peer-review selection 
process, currently directs only about $39 million of the total to human 
embryonic stem cell research. While some conclude that the stem cell 
lines approved under the administration's policy are not adequate, 85 
percent of all the published research on embryonic stem cells, whether 
U.S. or foreign, was conducted using these stem cell lines. The fact 
is, despite these investments, embryonic stem cell research has yielded 
few and modest results in animals, and no clinical treatments in 
humans.
  In stark contrast, non-embryonic stem cells are showing far more 
potential to develop treatments. Just this week, it was reported around 
the country that researchers from Wake Forest University found that 
stem cells extracted from amniotic fluid have the same growth and 
differentiation capabilities as embryonic stem cells. These cells are 
shed by the developing fetus and are easily obtained during prenatal 
testing without destroying human embryos. Other research using stem 
cells from non-embryonic sources, such as existing adult cells, 
umbilical chord blood and human placentas, has resulted in 72 
experimental treatments for a number of diseases.
  According to a study by the RAND corporation, there are approximately 
400,000 frozen embryos at fertility clinics in the U.S., most of which 
have been set aside for future use. Only approximately 11,000 have been 
donated for research so far. If there is a breakthrough that provides a 
treatment using embryonic stem cells, the fact is that fertility 
clinics could never provide the number of stem cells needed for 
treatment: 50 to 100 eggs are needed to produce just one petri dish of 
cells. Donors would have to be solicited, which would put women all 
over the world at risk for coercion as well as the health complications 
associated with egg donation.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the United 
States is not alone in the world in addressing this issue; Italy, 
Austria, Ireland, Norway, and Poland have an outright prohibition on 
human embryo research. In other countries, such as France and Germany, 
human embryonic stem cell research is only permitted for stem cell 
lines created before a certain date, which is similar to the current 
U.S. policy. Federal resources should continue to be directed toward 
the most promising medical research. I urge my colleagues to uphold the 
current policy on stem cell research and vote ``no'' on H.R. 3.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3. Like 
my colleagues, I believe in the transforming and life-saving power of 
scientific progress. I've seen first-hand how cutting-edge research can 
impact the lives of Americans who suffer from all sorts of disease, and 
I understand the inherent value of federally supported research.
  As many of my colleagues have stated today, scientists at Wake Forest 
University and Harvard University reported 4 days ago that they've 
drawn incredibly promising stem cells from amniotic fluid.
  To quote Anthony Atala, the director of Wake Forest's Institute for 
Regenerative Medicine, ``They grow fast, as fast as embryonic stem 
cells. But they remain stable for years without forming tumors''.
  This means that if 100,000 women were to donate amniotic cells, 
scientists could have enough diverse cells to provide compatible tissue 
for most Americans.
  All of this without destroying embryos for research that hasn't 
proven it can cure a single ailment.
  Perhaps we're having the wrong debate today. If we can derive disease 
treatments from cells without destroying embryos, isn't this the best 
option for Federal funding?
  Embryonic stem cell research is legal in this country. Our debate is 
about the expansion of Federal funding to cover the destruction, and 
the eventual creation of embryos for the sole purpose of research.
  I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, particularly in 
light of new research that could provide an alternative.
  Mr. SIRES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3 and Federal stem 
cell research funding.
  The Federal Government is behind the times. Many States, including my 
home State of New Jersey, have already authorized State funding for 
stem cell research. In fact, just last month I stood next to Governor 
Corzine as he signed a bill authorizing $270 million for new 
laboratories and stem cell research facilities throughout New Jersey. 
The time has come for this Congress and the President to do the same.
  On the merits, embryonic stem cell research offers great promise to 
everyone suffering from a disease or illness. We all know someone or 
have ourselves been affected by diabetes, Parkinson's disease, 
Alzheimer's, cancer, or another disease that could be cured or treated 
with therapies formed from stem cells. Cures and treatments will not be 
found overnight, but we will never know what could be accomplished if 
we don't make a real commitment to this research. That is why it is so 
important that we pass H.R. 3 today.
  There are an estimated 100 million Americans waiting for us to take 
action. They don't believe this is a partisan or political issue. They 
just want hope for a cure. Let's give them that hope. I urge my 
colleagues to support H.R. 3.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlelady from 
Colorado and the gentleman from Delaware for their leadership in 
bringing this bill to the floor for a vote today. I must also extend my 
thanks to our distinguished Speaker for her commitment to returning the 
House to the hands of the American people during the first 100 hours of 
the 110th Congress.
  I rise today to join my colleagues in support of the Stem Cell 
Research Enhancement Act. Each year, dozens of health advocacy groups 
flood my Washington, D.C., office to discuss the importance of medical 
research. While all experiences are memorable, the difficulties faced 
by the children with Type I, or juvenile diabetes, really stay with me.
  Last year, a brother and sister, ages four and five, visited my 
office and shared with me their hatred of needles, and how much they 
would like to enjoy birthday cake and other foods with their friends. 
They didn't understand why they were chosen to be sick. They didn't 
understand why there are people in D.C. blocking bills that would help 
them get better. These children had one simple request, to pass a law 
to increase the most promising research tool available that may lead to 
a cure for their disease.
  Advancements in science and technology have put our Nation in the 
position to make breakthroughs for these children. How did the 
President respond to their request? He made this bill the first veto of 
his Presidency. Everyone in this Nation knows someone, or has a friend 
or family member, who could benefit from stem cell research.
  It is time for a new direction for America and it is time for the 
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act to become law.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3. 
We are all aware of the potential embryonic stem cells hold for 
mankind. It could very well be that these cells prove to be the Rosetta 
stone of medical research--allowing us to break the code on some of the 
worst afflictions: Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, juvenile diabetes.
  We must acknowledge, however, that there is much we don't know about 
embryonic stem cells, and we are mistaken if we believe great cures are 
right around the corner. But we will never know either the true 
potential--or the dangers of stem cell related treatments if our 
scientists are overly constrained.
  I understand the concerns of those who question the ethics of 
embryonic stem cell research, and agree that 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.
  That is a key reason why I support the Stem Cell Research Enhancement 
Act. It provides essential ethical guidelines to which federally funded 
researchers must adhere. It would be far preferable to have the Federal 
Government setting standards in this field rather than a hodge-podge of 
states and private entities. In fact, I believe that the National 
Institute of Health's rigorous ethical guidelines would prove to be 
more protective of human life than individual states or private 
entities. Remember, embryonic stem cell research is not illegal, and 
individual states have already moved forward on their own. It is 
crucial that the Federal Government lead the way.
  I supported President Bush when he announced his plan to allow 
federally funded research on 60 pre-existing stem cell lines. But we 
now know that only 21 stem cell lines are available for research. These 
21 have significant shortcomings that make them of dubious value.
  Federally funded U.S. researchers are at a technological disadvantage 
as they lack access to newer stem cell lines. This is causing concern 
that some of the top stem cell biologists will move into non-federally 
funded research, or even move overseas. We should not allow this to 
happen.

[[Page H389]]

  There are a great many difficult questions that attend this debate. 
However, I can not look in the eyes of a couple whose child is 
suffering from a debilitating disease and tell them that I am doing 
everything possible to stop their child's suffering without supporting 
this legislation.
  I believe expanded Federal funding of embryonic research is the right 
course to take--a view shared by increasing numbers in both parties.
  I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Stem Cell Research 
Enhancement Act of 2007.
  I believe this bill is an important step in making the United States 
a leader in all facets of the stem cell issue--both scientifically and 
ethically.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in general support of H.R. 3, 
the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. This bill would 
authorize the Department of Health and Human Services to support the 
expansion of research involving stem cells regardless of the date on 
which the stem cells are derived and under the principal condition that 
such research conforms to certain ethical standards that would be set 
forth by the bill.
  I have joined over 200 of my colleagues in cosponsoring this 
legislation to demonstrate my general support for ethically 
responsible, expanded, federally funded scientific research that stands 
to yield advances toward discovering treatments and cures for many 
terminal, debilitating diseases and physical impairments.
  It is true that research on the lifesaving qualities of stem cells 
predominantly remains in preliminary stages. But the potential for 
easing the suffering of individuals, curtailing illnesses, and 
protecting the general health and welfare of future generations that is 
offered by continuing and expanding this research is too great to 
ignore. Authorizing Federal support for the continuation and expansion 
of this research under strict ethical guidelines is an investment worth 
making today. We should pass legislation to enhance the abilities of 
and authorize funding for the scientific community to attain the most 
advanced scientific achievements possible that modern technology can 
bring and that we, as a society, can morally afford.
  I believe that this legislation provides for the ethical safeguards 
needed to ensure that government funding is not used to compromise the 
integrity and morality of the American people in exchange for 
supporting research that could lead to cures for many illnesses. I 
support H.R. 3 because it provides appropriate safeguards while 
promoting the lifesaving research that will make a profound difference 
in many lives in the future.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
3, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. Seventy-two percent of 
Americans and a bi-partisan majority of Congress strongly support 
embryonic stem cell research. The research could prove to improve the 
lives and ease the suffering of the over 100 million Americans who have 
juvenile diabetes, ALS, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, cancer, heart 
disease, spinal cord injury, muscular dystrophy, and other diseases.
  Parkinson's affects over 1 million people, including my close friend 
and our colleague, former-Rep. Lane Evans. During his time in Congress, 
Lane was dedicated to advancing stem cell research because he 
understands what it is like to struggle with an incapacitating disease, 
and he understands the hope that embryonic stem cell research held. Why 
would we want to destroy that hope?
  I would like to thank the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation and their 
young advocates for all the work they have done to raise awareness 
about the need to pursue embryonic stem cell research. The Juvenile 
Diabetes Foundation recognizes the need to allow embryonic stem cell 
research to transcend political lines and partisan fighting so that 
critical gains can be made in medicine in America and millions of human 
lives could be saved. I would also like to send a special thanks to my 
friend, Bonnie Wilson, whose daughter has juvenile diabetes.
  Since I have been in Congress, I have received an overwhelming number 
of calls and letters from my constituents detailing their daily pain 
and suffering from debilitating diseases. In March 2006, I received a 
letter from my constituent Liz O'Malley. In her letter, she described 
the daily struggles of her son, Seamus. Seamus has muscular dystrophy. 
He is only 11-years old. Stem cell treatment may be his only hope. Why 
would we want to destroy that hope?
  The opponents of this measure wrongly portray the decision on funding 
for additional stem cell research as a choice between one life or 
another. In fact, we are choosing between disposing of embryonic stem 
cells or using those cells to save countless lives and advance life-
saving science in previously unrealized ways. Embryonic stem cell 
research offers the hope of a better life. It is incomprehensible that 
anyone would allow politics and personal preference to trump hard facts 
and science. They wrongly portray amniotic fluid stem cells as the only 
legitimate form of stem cell research. While this method is promising, 
it should not be the only type of stem cell research conducted. Every 
type of stem cell is different, every type has a unique ability, and 
none are a replacement for another. Any strides made in one form of 
stem cell research may be essential to gains in another area. We must 
not act to prevent embryonic stem cell research and dash the hopes of 
so many families who are battling critical illnesses and disorders.
  America has always been on the cutting edge of innovation and now we 
stand on the brink of groundbreaking medical advancements that would 
dramatically alter the lives of people such as Seamus. We must not 
prohibit this promising research. States are already moving forward 
with this research by committing public funds. Illinois has already 
awarded $10 million in grant funding to research institutes and 
hospitals because Governor Blagojavich recognizes the advances 
embryonic stem cell research could make in science and medicine and the 
great potential it holds. I urge my colleagues vote to ``yes'' on H.R. 
3 and to follow the lead of Illinois and many other states and allow 
for Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 
strong support of H.R. 3, providing for embryonic stem cell research.
  The majority of Americans are in favor of stem cell research, as am 
I.
  Scientists in this country have been handcuffed by politicians who do 
not trust them to conduct research in an ethical manner.
  My colleagues, you have heard an argument that ``adult'' stem cells 
have yielded greater benefits than ``embryonic'' stem cells in clinical 
research.
  The fact is that adult stem cells receive much more Federal funding, 
while embryonic stem cells have received little.
  It's not right for legislators or the President to be telling 
scientists how to do their work. Researchers need freedom to pursue 
science that yields benefits.
  A vote for H.R. 3 is a vote for millions suffering from diabetes, 
Parkinson's, and other diseases.
  It is time to say ``no'' to the ultraconservative lobby that has 
blockaded stem cell research for so long, and it is time for a change.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to section 509 of House Resolution 6, the bill is considered 
read and the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


               Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Burgess

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. BURGESS. In its current form I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Burgess moves to recommit the bill (H.R. 3) to the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Page 4, line 11, strike the close quotation marks and the 
     period at the end and insert the following:
       ``(e) Preventing Federal Support for Human Cloning.--
       ``(1) Prohibition.--In conducting or supporting research 
     described in subsection (a), the Secretary may not award a 
     grant to, enter into a contract with, or provide any other 
     support to any entity (including any public or private entity 
     and any Federal, State, or local agency) for such research, 
     unless the entity provides assurances satisfactory to the 
     Secretary that--
       ``(A) the entity has not conducted or supported, and will 
     not conduct or support, any activity described in paragraph 
     (2) during any fiscal year for which the grant, contract, or 
     support is provided; and
       ``(B) any entity that controls, is controlled by, or is 
     under common control with such entity has not conducted or 
     supported, and will not conduct or support, any activity 
     described in paragraph (2) during any fiscal year for which 
     the grant, contract, or support is provided.
       ``(2) Activities.--The activities described in this 
     paragraph are any research utilizing all or part of human 
     embryonic stem cells from any cloned human.
       ``(f) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `asexual reproduction' means reproduction 
     not initiated by the union of oocyte and sperm.
       ``(2) The term `cloned human' means an organism produced by 
     human cloning.
       ``(3) The term `human cloning' means human asexual 
     reproduction, accomplished by introducing nuclear material 
     from one or more human somatic cells into a fertilized or

[[Page H390]]

     unfertilized oocyte whose nuclear material has been removed 
     or inactivated so as to produce a living organism (at any 
     stage of development) that is genetically virtually identical 
     to an existing or previously existing human organism.
       ``(4) The term `human embryo or embryos' has the meaning 
     given to that term in section 509(b) of the Departments of 
     Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 (Pub. L. 109-149; 119 Stat. 
     2833).
       ``(5) The term `human embryonic stem cell' means a cell 
     derived from a human embryo or embryos.
       ``(6) The term `somatic cell' means a diploid cell (having 
     a complete set of chromosomes) obtained or derived from a 
     living or deceased human body at any stage of development.''.

  Mr. BURGESS (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes in support of his motion to recommit.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of discussion today, 
and a lot of it good on both sides. I again remain disappointed we were 
not allowed in our committee to fully investigate and understand some 
of the new issues that surround this science.
  I think it is extremely important to know that nothing that we have 
done so far would preclude the cloning of human tissue, and that is 
something that needs to be addressed.

                              {time}  1430

  So for that, I have asked Dr. Dave Weldon to share some of his 
thoughts with us on this subject.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this motion to recommit, and 
I would encourage all of my colleagues to vote for it. Why are we 
offering this motion to recommit? It is really very, very simple. This 
institution, the House of Representatives, is previously on multiple 
occasions on record being in opposition to human cloning, both human 
cloning for the purpose of creating a baby and human cloning for the 
purpose of creating embryos for research purposes.
  Why do we bring this up? Why do we offer this motion to recommit in 
its current form? Well, it is very, very simple. Some of the labs that 
are going to get the money under this bill are currently pursuing an 
agenda of human cloning. I would encourage you all to go to the Harvard 
medical school Web site. You can pull this down. I have it right here. 
I would be very interested to share it with any of my colleagues how 
they are pursuing, through the process that they refer to as Somatic 
Cell Nuclear Transfer, which is human cloning, an agenda to create 
disease-specific cell lines for embryonic stem cells. That is their 
agenda through the process of cloning.
  Now, we are on record wanting to make it illegal, make it criminal, 
to do human cloning. This motion to recommit doesn't do that. This says 
something much milder than that, and this is why I think most people in 
this body should be very, very comfortable with this motion to 
recommit. It simply says, we don't want to be using Federal dollars in 
a lab that is engaging in human cloning. If we can't get through the 
Senate a ban, a total ban on human cloning, at least let's make sure 
that, as we move forward in this brave new world of using human embryos 
in research and discarding them, that at least we are not incentivizing 
cloning.
  I commend my colleague from Texas and the staff for developing this 
motion to recommit, and I would just again remind all of my colleagues, 
we are out of step with the civilized world. Canada, France, Germany 
and Italy have all completely banned embryo cloning. All the other G-8 
countries have serious restrictions on it. This is a restriction on 
human cloning, a simple, mild restriction that we won't allow Federal 
dollars to be going to a lab that is doing cloning.
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman from Florida. I will yield any 
time remaining to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman for yielding and appreciate 
the privilege to address this subject matter.
  This motion to recommit is a motion about cloning. Many of the other 
civilized nations in the world have taken a position against cloning. 
This Congress has taken a position against cloning, but there isn't a 
way in the laboratory to move forward with these experiments on embryos 
without cloning.
  We are asking for a moral standard here. The people say, on the one 
side of this argument, No, we're opposed to human cloning; we think 
that's abhorrent to us; that that is ethically something that we're 
opposed to. This motion to recommit allows a Member to take that stand 
and put that vote up and say, I'm opposed to cloning, whatever you 
believe about the research that is involved here.
  Mr. FEENEY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I would yield.
  Mr. FEENEY. I would say to my friend, Mr. King, yesterday in the bill 
there was a discriminatory provision that favored or discriminated for 
or against some territories or States as opposed to others in the 
minimum wage bill. Is there anything that the gentleman is aware of in 
this bill that would discriminate in terms of Federal funding for human 
cloning, helping some territories and treating some States and 
territories different from one another as, unbeknownst to the Members, 
occurred yesterday in the minimum wage bill?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Yesterday what happened in the minimum wage bill 
seemed to be discriminatory for some reasons that I think we all know. 
I am not aware that there is a political subdivision, a geographical 
area or even a subdivision of some university that might have 
assisted----
  Mr. FEENEY. Is it theoretically possible that people in American 
Samoa who do not make minimum wage----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida will suspend.
  The gentleman from Iowa has the time. If he wants him again to yield, 
he should ask him to yield, not simply speak.
  Mr. FEENEY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Florida.
  Mr. FEENEY. Is it theoretically conceivable if yesterday's minimum 
wage exemption for American Samoa becomes law and today's bill passes 
that people that make less than the minimum wage in American Samoa will 
be doing with Federal funds embryonic stem cell research?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I would say that I am not aware of a circumstance 
like that, of whether there happens to be a geographical area or a 
political subdivision or an interest that might be from a university 
that could be part of this bill.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, this motion does not ban human cloning. It 
does not ban reproductive cloning. What it is, is a desperate attempt 
to derail ethical scientific research on embryonic stem cell research, 
which is unrelated.
  Not a single person in this House supports reproductive cloning. But 
again, the motion doesn't ban reproductive cloning. What it does is it 
says, if you are an entity conducting research on Somatic Cell Nuclear 
Transfer, which is a way to look at these cells, with private dollars, 
not even with public dollars, you will be prevented from receiving 
Federal funding for conducting embryonic stem cell research. This will, 
frankly, tie the hands of some of the preeminent research entities in 
the world from conducting this life-saving research.
  The motion is a thinly veiled attempt to define human life in a 
manner that can have profound implications beyond the issues raised in 
H.R. 3. It contains vague terms like ``assurances'' and undefined terms 
such as ``satisfaction of the Secretary.''
  What the frank intent of this motion is, is to gut H.R. 3 by 
strapping it with undefined standards and terms that are extraneous to 
the bill. The motion is a procedural vote without meaning. It is a 
ruse, a red herring designed to frighten, to obfuscate and to distract.
  We all think that banning reproductive cloning is important, and that 
is

[[Page H391]]

why the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee has assured me 
that he will examine this issue further to see what legislation we can 
do to protect ourselves.
  And I will finally say, I do not know of one research institution 
which would be eligible for Federal funds through the NIH under H.R. 3 
that is conducting any experiments or attempts for human reproductive 
cloning; it is unethical, and our research institutions are not engaged 
in these efforts.
  Rather than a sincere attempt to legislate on matters of great 
importance, this motion is partisan, and it should be defeated.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I plan to vote ``no'' on this motion, I 
strongly encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  And I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman 
from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  This motion is a poison pill in the greatest way, and it goes a 
little beyond the normal poison pill. It has basically been designed by 
those who would oppose the legislation in a way of trying to knock it 
out because they know very well we have the votes for it on the floor 
here today. But it goes beyond that; it actually eliminates part of the 
research which may be essential in the implanting of the embryonic stem 
cells eventually in a human being called Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer, 
which really doesn't relate ultimately to the human reproductive 
cloning.
  I have discussed introducing legislation, I have co-sponsored 
legislation in the past on banning reproductive cloning. I happen to 
believe in that, with the gentlewoman from Colorado, we both believe in 
that very strongly; but the bottom line is that we need to be able to 
develop the research on embryonic stem cells in every way we possibly 
can.
  Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer is currently legal. It is just not 
funded by the Federal Government. This bill does not fund SCNT in any 
way whatsoever.
  The motion to recommit is shortsighted. It is very damaging to any 
possible future research. It should be opposed by anybody who plans to 
vote for this legislation. And I would hope that 100 percent of the 
individuals who are going to vote for our bill are going to oppose the 
motion to recommit which is being presented here today.
  I think in the names of those who are supportive of it, be it Senator 
Hatch or Nancy Reagan or Michael J. Fox or a lot of other people, but 
particularly all those people out there who are ill, who have some 
hope, and that is what it is, it is hope, will make absolutely sure 
that we do not vote for the motion to recommit, that we defeat it and 
then, right after that, we go on to pass the legislation which is so 
important and vital for the future of health of people in America.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to hear the remarks of 
the gentlelady from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) when she inferred that the 
vote on the motion to recommit was not a substantive or amendatory 
vote. This is simply not the case. The motion to recommit has been held 
as the opposition's, traditionally the Minority's, last opportunity to 
perfect the bill prior to its adoption. The motion to recommit was 
often denied the Republicans when they were in the Minority prior to 
1995. When the Republicans took the majority in the 104th Congress we 
had promised to protect the Minority's right to offer the motion to 
recommit and we kept our promise by instituting a rules change which 
prohibited the Rules Committee from denying that motion.
  And to simply make the point more clear that a motion to recommit is 
a substantive amendatory vote, I would like to refer the gentlelady to 
page H210 of the Congressional Record dated January 9, 2007. There she 
will find a series of parliamentary inquiries directed to the Chair by 
the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hensarling. In one of the inquiries the 
gentleman from Texas specifically asks the Chair, Does the special 
order provide for the consideration of any amendments? To which the 
Speaker replied, ``By way of the motion to recommit.'' So, unless the 
gentlelady would like to overturn the ruling of the Chair, clearly the 
motion to recommit is amendatory and therefore highly substantive.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on 
the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-minute votes on passage, 
if ordered; and on the motion to suspend the rules on H. Res. 15.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 189, 
nays 238, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 19]

                               YEAS--189

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costello
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--238

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell

[[Page H392]]


     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Bishop (GA)
     Buyer
     Davis, Lincoln
     Hastert
     Miller, Gary
     Norwood
     Radanovich
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1502

  Mr. BISHOP of New York changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. YOUNG of Alaska, REGULA, and ROHRABACHER changed their vote 
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 19, on Motion to Recommit 
with Instructions (H.R. 3), had I been present, I would have voted 
``yea.''


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. BURGESS. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Frank of Massachusetts). The gentleman 
from Texas may state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, would it be in order to inquire where we 
are in the 100 hours time? I see it is 3 o'clock in the afternoon; in 
Texas, that is 2 o'clock.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is the 
Speaker pro tempore, not the timekeeper.
  The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 253, 
noes 174, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 20]

                               AYES--253

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heller
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKeon
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--174

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costello
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Lincoln
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Walberg
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Bishop (GA)
     Buyer
     Gilchrest
     Hastert
     Miller, Gary
     Norwood
     Radanovich
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1511

  Mr. MELANCON changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 20, on passage of H.R. 3, 
had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________