[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 91 (Thursday, June 7, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H6115-H6143]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STEM CELL RESEARCH ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2007
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 464 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 464
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (S. 5) to
amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for human
embryonic stem cell research. All points of order against the
bill and against its consideration are waived except those
arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be
considered as read. The previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce; and (2) one motion to
commit.
Sec. 2. During consideration of S. 5 pursuant to this
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous
question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the
bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McDermott). The gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Matsui) is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All
time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
General Leave
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on the resolution and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 464 provides for consideration of S. 5,
the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. The closed rule
provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
The rule waives all points of order against the bill and against its
consideration except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. The
rule also provides one motion to commit.
Mr. Speaker, today's debate on stem cell research should be about the
hope of science. It should be about how our society has always valued
ethical medical research.
Many Americans awoke this morning to a news story about a potential
new stem cell research technique using skin cells from mice. It was on
the front page of many newspapers precisely because our society values
hope and scientific advancement when done in an ethical manner.
The bill made in order under this rule maintains that tradition. With
the House's approval, expanded Federal embryonic stem cell research
again will be one signature away from becoming law.
Mr. Speaker, we already know that embryonic stem cell research has a
potential to cure many debilitating conditions like diabetes,
Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, spinal cord damage, and maybe even
bone marrow failure. These ailments affect the young and the old, the
rich and the poor.
Families from all walks of life have had firsthand experiences with
these tragedies. Sad but true, disease is one of life's great
equalizers. Research and medical ingenuity are our society's tools to
fight these diseases.
This shared experience, the hope that stem cell research brings, may
be one reason why it enjoys such bipartisan support. Polls indicate
that three out of every five Americans support stem cell research,
including 54 percent of Republicans.
But there are many other reasons to endorse expanded Federal stem
cell research. Earlier this year, Congress and the world heard support
from an unexpected source. In testimony before Congress on March 19,
the Director of the NIH made a high-profile break with the
administration on shortsighted stem cell policy. He said: ``It is clear
today that American science would be better served and the Nation would
be better served if we let our scientists have access to more cell
lines that they can study.''
The United States has always led the effort to push the frontiers of
medical research. But as the NIH Director's testimony indicates, Mr.
Speaker, on this issue the United States is falling behind for no good
scientific or moral reason.
His testimony is in line with the consensus within the wider
scientific community as well. The American Association for the
Advancement of Science, the Cancer Research and Prevention Foundation,
the UC Davis Medical Center in my hometown of Sacramento, the
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas in my
colleague's district, the Lance Armstrong Foundation, all of these and
hundreds of others support ethical embryonic stem cell research.
Mr. Speaker, it is abundantly clear that we must update our national
stem cell research policy. A bipartisan majority in Congress has tried
several times. Last year, both Chambers voted by wide bipartisan
margins to expand ethical Federal stem cell research. Unfortunately,
the President blocked that progress, that hope, that good science. But
his veto only delays the issue temporarily because support for this
responsible research continues to grow.
Earlier this year, the new Democratic majority acted swiftly to
reconsider the issue. The bill before us is a result of that
bipartisan, bicameral leadership; and it passed by a greater margin
than in the last Congress.
[[Page H6116]]
We should act now to forward that proposal on to the President. We
should give him another chance to do what is right by signing this bill
into law.
Mr. Speaker, there is little disagreement about the science of stem
cell research or what ethical rules should govern it, so let's stop
delaying a commonsense proposal. I urge all Members to support this
rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule
and to this seriously flawed underlying legislation. While the process
involved with bringing bills to this floor is very slightly improved
over this past January when the Democratic leadership bypassed long-
standing bipartisan regular order and used their rules package to
create a closed process that skipped even bringing their flawed stem
cell bill to the Rules Committee for its consideration, it is still
overwhelmingly flawed and directly contradicts widely reported Democrat
campaign promises to run the most open and ethical Congress in history.
Yesterday, the Rules Committee met and the majority Democrats
reported out two completely closed rules, one which will completely
lock down this important debate today regarding the Federal funding of
stem cell research upon which a great deal of honest and heartfelt
moral and scientific disagreement exists on both sides of the aisle.
In this exclusive and rushed process, it feels very familiar for the
Members. If it does, it should. Because, back in January, the Democrat
leadership forced a similar hastily written and politically motivated
stem cell bill through the House without any input from the Members.
Their purpose then was the same as it is today: to attempt to score
some political points at the expense of sound science, openness, and
transparency, not to mention feedback from its Members.
Because they knew that their crass political move would never pass
the Senate, today we are forced again to take up yet another flawed
stem cell bill for political purposes under yet another completely
closed rule that provides no Member of this body with the opportunity
to amend or improve it.
Worst of all, rather than taking this second chance to work in a
bipartisan fashion to create a bill that balances cutting-edge medical
research with the serious ethical implications created by stem cell
research, this rule simply advances the Democrats' cynical agenda to
send a flawed bill to the President for his veto, despite the
legislation not even achieving a veto-proof majority in the Senate.
Unfortunately, judging by their performance on recent supplemental
funding measures for our troops, it seems like the Democrats need to be
vetoed once or twice before they realize that they simply cannot pander
to their liberal blogs. They actually need to work together to reach
across the aisle to deliver workable bills that are in the interest of
the American people.
Mr. Speaker, not only is this a bad way to handle this process, I
think it is an embarrassment to the institution that the Democrat
leadership would fail to work openly with the over 400 duly elected
Members of this legislative body to find common ground that balances
the multiple grave concerns surrounding this legislation.
This legislation forces taxpayers to fund research requiring the
destruction of human embryos rather than seeking a middle ground on
which researchers can be provided with the embryonic stem cells that
they need to advance science while not violating the sanctity of life.
This legislation fails to specify whether these embryonic stem cells
that will now be eligible for Federal funding can be taken from embryos
that still retain the potential for implantation or if they would be
taken from embryos that no longer have the potential for further
cellular division.
This lack of clarity is not a function of a lack of ideas or debate
on the matter. A compromise measure, introduced in the Senate by
Senators Isakson and Coleman, already exists which provides for
research only on those embryos which no longer have the potential for
cellular division.
Here in the House my colleagues, including my friend from Georgia,
Dr. Gingrey, also offered a thoughtful amendment that was rejected by
the Democrat Rules Committee which would have provided for the Federal
funding of pluripotent stem cells which can specialize in any bodily
tissue but cannot develop into a human being.
{time} 1030
And despite the near-certain protests to the contrary that will be
made by some Members of this body, this legislation also fails to
contain language to prohibit or even propose ethical regulations for
cloning or egg farming.
Finally, rather than allowing science to progress based on merit,
this legislation picks winners and losers in the research community by
choosing which research methods would be funded. It diverts research
funds from very promising areas, such as adult stem cells and cord
blood, despite the fact that adult stem cells have already been proven
to work over and over.
But don't take my word for it. James Thompson, the first scientist to
derive stem cells from a human embryo, was quoted in The Wall Street
Journal saying, ``I am not entirely convinced that embryonic stem cells
will, in my lifetime and possibly anybody's lifetime for that matter,
be holding quite the promise that we desperately hope they will.''
Mr. Speaker, this debate has been so politicized that the American
public can no longer even hear above the political fray about the
miraculous and leading-edge technologies and therapies being derived
today from adult stem cells, amniotic fluid and human umbilical cords,
all without the moral and ethical controversies created by this bill.
Treatments for injuries and chronic illnesses as diverse as spinal
cord and heart tissue regeneration, bone marrow and vision therapies
and diabetic management are all emerging as we speak, and this Congress
should not be in the business of politically allocating scarce
resources away from these technologies and methods as researchers
continue to perform scientific miracles, such as creating embryonic-
like stem cells without using eggs or destroying embryos, like the
scientists at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in
Cambridge, Massachusetts, have already accomplished in laboratory
tests.
The point, Mr. Speaker, is that the process provided for under this
rule does not allow for debate on the central issue: Does a middle
ground exist that can provide scientists with the stem cells that they
need to continue their cutting-edge research while at the same time
respecting the sanctity of life?
Unfortunately, once again, the graveyard of good ideas in the House,
the Democrat Rules Committee, has provided this body with a rule that
allows none of this debate. Instead, Members of this body are being
asked to vote up or down on a very blunt measure that fails to
recognize the vast complexity of this issue.
This is no way to run the people's House, Mr. Speaker, and it is
certainly no way to run a self-proclaimed most open and ethical
Congress in history. I urge all of my colleagues to defeat this rule
and the underlying legislation so that the House can have a real and
meaningful debate on this issue and not allow something as important as
the fate of stem cell research to be determined by bumper-sticker
politics. This House does deserve better and the American people
deserve better.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California (Ms.
Matsui) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this ground-breaking
legislation, S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, and
I want to commend the bipartisan leadership of Senator Reid and Senator
Harkin and Senator Orrin Hatch for their hard work in crafting and
passing this legislation. And I also want to thank the bipartisan
leadership of Congresswoman Diana DeGette and Congressman Mike Castle
for their tireless work on stem cell research funding.
Mr. Speaker, Democrats have fought long and hard in the name of
science
[[Page H6117]]
and innovation. Here in the House of Representatives on January 11 of
this year, as part of the 100 hours legislation led by Speaker Pelosi,
we saw the unlocked potential held in stem cell research. We saw the
potential to cure the diseases that affect 100 million Americans,
debilitating diseases such as Parkinson's, diabetes, Alzheimer's, Lou
Gehrig's, multiple sclerosis and cancer, and I could go and on and on
and on.
In my district of Massachusetts, my constituents see the value of
progress and want to invest in the life sciences. As part of the life
science initiative by the State, a stem cell bank will be created at
the University of Massachusetts Medical Center in Worcester. It will be
part of the largest repository of stem cell lines in the world.
Mr. Speaker, embryonic stem cell research has the support of over 500
organizations, including the American Medical Association, AARP, the
Association of American Medical Colleges, American Diabetes Association
and Paralyzed Veterans of America, and I could go on. I believe we owe
the American people the promise of science and medicine.
The legislation before us reflects the best science in the world. The
legislation before us holds out the hope for a better life for millions
of people all throughout the world.
It is time that President Bush stop being an obstructionist on this
issue. It is time that he gets out of the way and listens to the will
of the American people.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), my colleague, says that this
is about politics. It is not about politics. This has nothing to do
with politics, and it is sad that so many people who oppose this want
to politicize this issue. It isn't about politics.
It is about life and death. It is about improving the quality of life
through the best science that is available to us.
So it is time for this Congress to at long last do the right thing.
We have debated this issue over and over and over and over and over. It
is time for this Congress to do the right thing, to listen to the will
of the American people, to listen to the best science and finally pass
this bill.
Governor Patrick Announces Massachusetts's New Life Science Initiative
Boston.--Tuesday, May 8--Governor Deval Patrick today
announced his plan to make Massachusetts the global leader in
life sciences, unveiling for the first time ever a
comprehensive, collaborative Massachusetts Life Science
Strategy.
The plan, outlined during a speech at the BIO 2007
convention, includes a 10 year, $1 billion investment package
that will both enhance the state's already nationally
recognized assets in the fields of medicine and science and
fill gaps in federal funding to ensure the state's ability to
support life science progress from the idea stage through the
production stage. The Patrick Administration's strategy
brings together industry, academic research hospitals, and
public and private colleges and universities to coordinate
these efforts, spur new research, strengthen investments,
create new jobs and produce new therapies for a better
quality of life.
``There is no place in the world with as much talent in
life sciences and biotech as here in Massachusetts,'' said
Governor Patrick. ``Now is the time for us to invest in that
talent and bring together the resources of our unparalleled
research universities, teaching hospitals, and industry to
work towards a common goal--to grow ideas into products to
create cures and jobs.''
Key to the Governor's Life Science Initiative is new
legislation that will strengthen the Massachusetts Life
Science Center and charge it with the execution of a life
science mission focused on science and economic development,
strategic investments at critical stages of the development
cycle, and collaboration with the private sector to create
innovation infrastructure critical to both researchers and
companies. The Governor also announced his commitment to
making targeted investments in companies that encourage life
science economic development in the Commonwealth.
``I commend the Governor for reaching out to all sectors of
our life science cluster in order to craft a stem cell/life
science package that recognizes the unique institutional
assets and intellectual firepower in our region,'' said
Steven Hyman, Professor of Neurobiology at Harvard Medical
School and Chairman of the Massachusetts. ``The Governor
allocates state resources in effective ways to enhance our
traditional strengths, buttress areas that need attention,
and encourage powerful collaborations between our leading
edge institutions.''
Today's announcement at the BIO 2007 Convention highlighted
the following:
A $1 billion investment package that includes funds to:
Bridge the NIH funding gap--A competitive grant program
during the current downturn in federal support to sustain key
programs in the state. Our collective success during the
1998-2003 period when the NIH budget doubled from $14 billion
to $28 billion only solidified Massachusetts' dominance in
the area of biomedical research. However, the subsequent four
years of flat funding since 2003 has caused a 13 percent loss
of funding power by NIH and a 35 percent reduction in support
for clinical trials. The Patrick administration will make
surgical investments during the downturn to sustain key
programs here in Massachusetts in order that our position is
sustained to once again capture large percentages of new
funding when it materializes.
Create the Massachusetts Stem Cell Bank--A first in the
nation centralized repository of new stem cell lines
available to all sectors, public and private, of research
enterprise. Boston University, Brigham & Women's, Children's
Hospital, Harvard University, Massachusetts General Hospital,
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Partners
HealthCare and the University of Massachusetts have already
agreed to participate in the Bank when it is completed.
Establish Massachusetts Life Science Fellowship Grants--
Grant packages for research institutions in Massachusetts to
attract and retain the rising stars of life sciences research
in the Commonwealth, and ensure Massachusetts is competitive
with other states and nations.
Establish Massachusetts Life Science Innovation Centers--
Centerbased research facilities that streamline technology
transfer, development time and funding opportunity.
``As the president of the University of Massachusetts, the
leading public academic research institution in the
Commonwealth, I applaud Governor Patrick for making such a
strong commitment to the life sciences, particularly stem
cell research and RNAi-related research and development,''
said University of Massachusetts President Jack M. Wilson.
``The announcement today is an important step in developing a
world-class life sciences strategy for the Commonwealth that
will foster scientific innovation, including unlocking the
mysteries of debilitating diseases, and spur economic growth.
The University of Massachusetts is proud to be able to play
an important role in this strategy and I truly believe this
proposal is far-reaching, comprehensive and of sufficient
scope and scale to enable Massachusetts to continue and
expand its national and global leadership in biotechnology
and the life sciences.''
``It is clear to me that scientific innovation and cutting-
edge research help set Massachusetts apart in the eyes of the
life sciences and greater scientific community. Today's
announcement of this significant, new state funding is an
important signal that the opportunities to do cutting-edge
research in this state are expanding. I am proud that RNAi is
already changing the scientific landscape, offering new tools
in the effort to better human health; my colleagues at the
UMass Medical School and I see great promise in our continued
work with RNAi and RNAi Therapeutics. Support of this type
from the government, academic institutions and society allows
us to further advance science and to conduct important basic,
clinical and translational research,'' Nobel Laureate Craig
Mello, Ph.D. of the University of Massachusetts Medical
School said.
``The future of life sciences is here in Massachusetts.''
Governor Patrick said. ``We have the talent. We have the
entrepreneurial spirit. Now let's seize the future.''
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the ranking member of the
Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to stand here as someone who is
supportive of embryonic stem cell research. I have voted in support of
this research in the past, and I plan to vote for it again today when
this measure is brought up.
But I have to say that as I listened to my very good friend from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) speak on this issue, and I will say again
to him that, as he knows, I am a supporter of stem cell research and I
will be voting in support of this bill, I'm absolutely horrified by the
remarks that were just made by my colleague from Massachusetts. Why?
Because just yesterday he stood here during the debate on the
Afghanistan Freedom Act rule and said there that we're now enjoying a
new day in the House of Representatives, and yet, we today are
considering this rule under a completely closed process, shutting out
all Members, Democrats, Republicans alike, who might want to have an
opportunity to make some kind of amendment or modification to this
process.
Further, Mr. McGovern went on to talk about the fact that there is a
very important institution in his congressional district that will be
the beneficiary of the funding that is provided
[[Page H6118]]
for this research, and that gets right to the point that I believe is a
very important one for us to make.
Well, we continue, Mr. Speaker, to hear this argument that it's a new
day in this Congress. I am very, very troubled over a number of issues
and over the fact that nothing, nothing could be further from the case.
Now, we've heard both sides of the aisle talk about the need for
earmark reform, and that's the reason that I just raised the issue of
Mr. McGovern's hospital to be a beneficiary of this bill. I'm wondering
whether or not that's an earmark that we're considering.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm very proud of the fact that, in the 109th
Congress, we passed major earmark reform legislation. It was earmark
reform legislation that had enforceability and full accountability, and
we heard Democrats say that they wanted to, quote/unquote, improve on
the earmark reform that we proudly put into place in the 109th
Congress.
The real tragedy here, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that we not only have
seen no improvement on the issue of earmark reform, but what has
happened? We have seen a retrograde step taken on the issue of
accountability and enforceability.
And let me explain that to my colleagues and then proceed to say that
Mr. Sessions will be moving to defeat the previous question, and if the
House sees fit to defeat the previous question on this issue, Mr.
Speaker, what we will do is we will offer an amendment, an amendment
that will finally bring about the kind of enforceability that we passed
in the 109th Congress but, through sleight of hand by the House
Committee on Rules, has been denied every Democrat and every Republican
in this institution.
And so let me make it very clear, as we complete this debate and go
into a vote on the previous question, any Member of this institution
who votes in favor of the previous question to end debate will be, in
fact, denying an opportunity for us to have accountability,
enforceability and transparency on this issue of earmark reform.
Now, what is it that we've seen reported to us on this earmark
process that is going to be moving ahead in the days and weeks and
months ahead? We've already seen abuse in the Intelligence
authorization bill that we had, and I'm not going to get into the
details of that. Everyone knows we had a major clash that took place
here between our colleague from Michigan (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha). We all know about that.
But what is on the horizon for us, Mr. Speaker? What's on the horizon
is the fact that the very distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin, the
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, has already announced,
when it comes to the issue of earmarks, we're not going to be doing it
in the appropriations process. How is it that earmarks are going to be
able to get into the bill? They're going to be air dropped into
conference reports. Now, it's very difficult to imagine a more
secretive process for earmarks than to have them air dropped into
conference reports.
But now let's again look at what we did in the 109th Congress and
what we're going to propose if Mr. Sessions is successful at defeating
the previous question.
What is going to happen, Mr. Speaker, is we're simply going to say
that there should be an opportunity for enforcement. Again, we had that
enforcement provision in the earmark reform that we passed in the 109th
Congress, but that has been completely denied. Mr. Speaker, no
Democrat, no Republican can stand up, and if a list is not provided of
those earmarks, raise a question about that. If the chairman has simply
said, there are no earmarks, there is no opportunity today under the
action that has been taken by this Democratic Congress, whether they
have said they're for earmark reform and accountability and
transparency, they, in fact, deny that.
And so all we're saying, Mr. Speaker, is let's give Democrats and
Republicans an equal opportunity to do what it is that the American
people have said should be done. We want to bring an end to wasteful
spending and abuse of this so-called earmark process.
So there's going to be an opportunity. There's going to be an
opportunity in just a few minutes for every single Member of this
institution, Democrat and Republican alike, to decide whether or not
we're going to build on the success that we had in the 109th Congress
with accountability, enforceability and transparency on earmark reform,
or will we, in fact, allow a secretive process which encourages abuse
to proceed.
Now, I'm old enough, Mr. Speaker, to have served here when Ronald
Reagan was President of the United States. In his negotiations with the
Soviet Union, he used a Russian expression. ``Doveryai, no proveryai,''
was the Russian expression that he used. And what did that translate
to? ``Trust, but verify.'' And that's exactly what this debate comes
down to, Mr. Speaker: Trust, but verify, because I hear Democrats and
Republicans alike say that we need to have full accountability and we
need to bring an end to abuse of the earmark process. But we need to
have a process of verification. We need to have a process that will
allow us to ferret out the kind of abuse that we've already seen in the
110th Congress to this earmark process.
{time} 1045
Again, I am going to encourage a ``no'' vote on the previous
question. Mr. Sessions will be encouraging that at the end. When,
because I am an eternal optimist, like Ronald Reagan, when we defeat
the previous question, all we will be doing is saying that we should
come back to the kind of accountability, transparency, and
enforceability of the earmark reform to which everyone seems to be so
strongly committed.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind everybody today that we are
talking about embryonic stem cell research.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Arcuri), a member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. ARCURI. I thank my colleague and good friend, the gentlelady from
California, for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in very strong support of this rule and the
underlying bill, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.
I have listened to stories from around my upstate New York district
from families affected by life-threatening and debilitating illnesses:
children with childhood diabetes, men and women with spinal cord
injuries, lupus, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. Every day, these brave
Americans fight the odds with the hope that stem cell research will one
day give them a new lease on life.
The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act will ensure that our Nation's
scientists are able to work towards making that hope a reality. Most
importantly, this bill creates an ethical framework, stronger than the
President's current policy, which must be followed in conducting this
lifesaving research. The bill only authorizes the use of stem cell
lines generated from embryos that would otherwise be discarded by
fertility clinics and requires written, informed consent from the
donating women.
My constituents support this ethically responsible lifesaving
research, and I stand with them today to give hope to millions of
people around the country.
Opponents say they believe life is sacred, and I agree. It is. So let
us leave no stone unturned to give as many people the opportunity, the
chance to live, people with lupus, with Alzheimer's, with Parkinson's,
with diabetes. Let us pass this stem cell bill.
The message from the American people is clear. It is time for this
administration to do the right thing and sign this critically important
law.
My colleague talks about bumper sticker policies and pandering to
liberal blogs. This is not about pandering to liberal blogs. This is
about listening to the American people. It is time this administration
listens to the American people and signs a stem cell research bill.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr.
Gingrey, 5 minutes.
Mr. GINGREY. I thank my former colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr.
Sessions, for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in very strong opposition to the rule and
the
[[Page H6119]]
underlying legislations, S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.
Once again, the Democratic majority brings to the floor a closed rule
on a bill that Members of this body would love to have the opportunity
to make better through the amendment process. This legislation has not
been given a committee hearing or even vetted in a markup. Instead, the
Democrats in the House have said that they know best, period, in the
110th Congress.
Over 45 percent of the bills have come up under our closed rule, and
less than 2 percent have enjoyed what we call an open rule that allows
for full and honest debate, whether it's debate from a Democrat or a
Republican.
Now their legislation was sent over to the other body in January,
where they changed it, they amended it. So why, I don't understand, why
do the House Democrats insist on shutting their colleagues in the
people's House out of the process? It's okay in the other body, but
it's not okay here.
Well, this new majority has sent a clear message when it comes to
valuing the input of their colleagues. They don't.
On bills that clear committees unanimously, bills where both parties
rush to the floor to applaud the final legislative process, the
Democrats allow amendments on those. Let them offer them and be
debated. But on an issue where the American people hold deeply
differing views, the Democrats shut out ideas and debate.
By once again debating this stem cell legislation under the same
closed rule, the Democratic leadership is saying to the American people
this issue is the same today as it was in January, as it was last
summer in the 109th Congress, as it was, indeed, back in August of
2001.
However, the reality is that this issue has fundamentally changed.
Science is moving faster than bureaucracy and, yes, even faster than
politics. Scientific breakthrough after scientific breakthrough shows
that there are other ways to achieve the hope, the hope of medical
cures, the new therapeutic treatments without any collateral damage
mandated by the legislation that we are debating today.
Science has, indeed, outrun politics, and the American people, they
deserve a full and comprehensive debate on a morally contentious issue
such as this.
That's the reason that I offered an amendment, my colleague referred
to it earlier, to the Rules Committee yesterday that would have
replaced this ethically divisive legislation with a bill introduced by
Representative Roscoe Bartlett, the gentleman from Maryland, and
myself. We call it the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapy
Enhancement Act.
This amendment would authorize the use of Federal funds to research
alternative and ethical ways to extract embryonic life or pluripotent
stem cells. My amendment would authorize the use of Federal funds to
research alternative and, yes, ethical ways to extract these embryonic-
like, or we call them pluripotent, stem cells; and that's what we
should be debating on the floor of this esteemed body today,
legislation that sidesteps the ethical questions of embryonic stem cell
research altogether.
We don't have to go down this road that totally divides us. Some on
the Republican side, some on the Democratic side, pro-life, pro-choice,
if we can avoid that division, I think we ought to embrace the
opportunity to do so.
That's why, reluctantly, I have to come and stand and oppose a rule.
I have great respect for my colleagues on the majority side of the
Rules Committee that I worked with for the last 2 years, but I think
it's wrong to close a rule or a question of this importance.
So I do, I ask my colleagues, oppose the rule and oppose the
underlying legislation. That's exactly what we need to do, because we
can do this better, and we don't have to divide one another.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, before I yield, I just want to make a point
that this bill sets stringent ethical guidelines for an expanded
Federal embryonic stem cell research program, and it encourages new
alternative sources of stem cell research, like what made the news
today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio, a member
of the Rules Committee, Ms. Sutton.
Ms. SUTTON. I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership on this rule
and on this very, very important issue and for the time to speak.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favor of the rule and in favor of S. 5,
the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.
As the elected representative of diverse constituencies, we face many
challenges in this House. We face challenges that affect the lives,
finances, work and health of all Americans. As we face these
challenges, we are called to do everything in our power to create
solutions and find relief for the problems that plague our
constituents. We are called to fight. We are called to work creatively.
We are called to open doors and explore new avenues. We do everything
in our power to relieve suffering, to bring relief, to create
opportunity and to enhance lives.
Today, I rise in favor of continuing that mission to do everything
that we possibly can to relieve the suffering of the people of Ohio's
13th District and districts across the United States.
During my campaign, I had the good fortune to meet a business owner
by the name of Fred Martin. For the past 33 years, Fred has lived with
diabetes. Diabetes has no cure. Despite diligent care, a precise diet
and insulin, shots that he takes over and over throughout the day, the
best that Fred can hope for is that his disease not get any worse. He
has worked meticulously over the past 33 years to manage his disease so
that he could be there for his children and attend to his business, but
he wonders how his life could be different.
Fred endures seven insulin shots every day, two before breakfast, two
before lunch, two before dinner and one before bed. He pricks his
finger to check his insulin levels 8 to 10 times every day. He says
that he's glad that he's still here. He's grateful for all that science
has done for him that has allowed for him to be around to raise his
children. But he adds, please, don't stop now.
When discussing the potential that stem cells hold, he says, ``To
deny our scientists the right to make the people in our society
healthier and to help them lead better lives is really a crime! . . . I
expected more of my government.''
If we do not change our policies soon, we will continue to drive this
cutting-edge research overseas. Just this week, newspapers report that
British scientists are embarking on research which could deliver the
world's first stem cell treatment for blindness. The 4 million pounds
that were donated to the project came from an anonymous American
philanthropist. This country cannot afford to be a hostile environment
for scientific research and development.
Today, we have a chance to unlock a world of potential. Our
researchers will no longer have to fight with one hand tied behind
their back.
I believe that we have a duty to our constituents to do everything we
can to make their lives better, to relieve their suffering and to use
our government and its resources effectively and efficiently to heal,
help and explore.
Fred Martin was right. Our constituents expect more. Today, they will
get it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his strong and
clarion remarks on this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule and rise to oppose the underlying
bill as well.
I must tell you, as I listened to the gentlelady from Ohio bring her
remarks to the floor, I want to say, there they go again. There they go
again, telling the American people that this is a debate between
science and ideology when, in fact, destructive embryonic stem cell
research, despite my strong moral objections, is completely legal in
the United States of America.
The debate today is not about whether embryonic stem cell research,
research that destroys a human embryo for scientific research, should
take place. This is just about who pays for it.
I can understand why Members of the majority want to focus on this
false choice between science and ideology.
[[Page H6120]]
The language like America becoming a hostile environment for medical
research is amusing me, because destructive embryonic stem cell
research, and I say this with a heavy heart, is legal in all 50 States
in America. It is simply that liberals in this country are not content
to simply have research that destroys human embryos for unproven human
science, but they want me to pay for it. They want tens of millions of
Americans who, like I do, believe that life begins at conception to see
their taxpayer dollars used to fund research that they find morally
objectionable. That's really the issue.
The debate is not about whether we should do embryonic stem cell
research, would that it was, would that we were here on the floor
actually debating along the fault lines of science and morality. I am
ready for that debate. Forty-eight years and nine months ago today, I
was an embryo. I am ready to have the debate about the sanctity and the
value of human life. But we are not having that debate today.
America since Roe v. Wade has moved past the issue that was framed so
eloquently by the late President Ronald Reagan. He said, we cannot
diminish the value of one category of one human life without
diminishing the value of all human life.
{time} 1100
But our Supreme Court made a decision decades ago that we would put
choice above life. But I will stay in that moral debate. But, again,
it's not what we're about today. And any one of my colleagues here on
the floor and anyone listening in, let's at least be honest about what
we're talking about. And that is, this debate is not about whether we
should do embryonic stem cell research. And I know we've heard from
wonderful scientists on our side of the aisle who've reminded us,
inconvenient for the majority, that 100 percent of the scientific
breakthroughs that have taken place in stem cell research have taken
place in adult stem cell research. There's not been a single therapy
developed from embryonic stem cell research, and there are scientific
reasons why we can expect that there never will be, given the
instability of nascent human life at that stage. But I'm not an expert
in that area.
You know, I'm a guy; I come from south of Highway 40 in Indiana. I
keep things real simple. This is just a debate about who pays for
research that destroys human embryos. And I simply want to say again,
this debate is not really about what an embryo is. This debate is about
who we are as a Nation; whether or not Congress will, as they did
before, send legislation to the President of the United States that
will take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and
use it to fund research that they find morally objectionable. But I can
count, Mr. Speaker. I expect this legislation will pass again. But I
thank God that we have a President in the White House who will, I have
every confidence, veto this legislation just as he did before, and that
we have a tenacious pro-life minority in this House that will defend
the President's veto.
Let me say, again, I believe that life begins at conception. And I
believe it's morally wrong to create human life to destroy it for
scientific research. But that is not what this debate is about. This
debate is not about whether we should do embryonic stem cell research;
it's about who pays for it. And liberals in this Congress are not
content simply to have embryonic stem cell research legal in all 50
States. They want pro-life Americans like me to get our wallets out and
finance it, and I'm not having that, Mr. Speaker.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the next speaker, let me
just say that Mrs. Reagan was in favor of stem cell research, embryonic
stem cell research. And we know that President Reagan had a very
debilitating disease, and I feel that that's the reason why she has
supported it.
So with that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania
(Ms. Schwartz).
Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Stem Cell
Research Enhancement Act.
My own State, Pennsylvania, is in the forefront of science and
medicine. Our hospitals, medical schools, biotechnology and
pharmaceutical institutions are home to some of the best and brightest
scientists who are working every day to provide new medicines and
diagnostics. These scientists need access to all of the tools available
to do their vitally important work.
The science is clear. Stem cell research offers hope for better
treatments and possible cures for cancer, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's,
diabetes, spinal cord injuries and so many other debilitating diseases
and disorders that directly affect 100 million Americans and their
families.
Yet President Bush continues to let politics, not science, not the
health and well-being of American families, and not the will of the
majority of Americans dictate his decision-making.
American families want cures, not politics. They want hope, not lost
opportunities. That is why it is so important that we are, again,
bringing this proposal to the floor of Congress.
Today, with bipartisan support, Congress will again seek to offer
hope to millions of Americans battling disease and injury. Today,
Congress will, once again, vote to maintain the United States' stance
as a world leader in medical research and scientific advancement. And
today, we will stand up to the President and, again, choose to advance
scientific discovery in an ethical and responsible manner.
I urge my colleagues to support ethical scientific research and to
support hope. We should vote ``yes'' on this rule. We should vote
``yes'' on the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to inquire upon
how much time is remaining on both sides, please.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 3\1/2\ minutes.
The gentlewoman from California has 14.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this is a very personal
debate, and it is a serious one. But I would only ask my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle to entertain the thought that we are,
today, addressing the lives of Americans, and we can't fool around with
life and death issues that impact on the lives of Americans. Millions
of Americans today, a collective number of 110 million, are dealing
with the diseases of diabetes, Alzheimer's, some with spinal cord
injuries, and many others impacted by the inertia of this body. And so
let me applaud my colleague, Congresswoman DeGette, because this
legislation, as my colleagues realize, is imperative for it to move as
S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. We know that if
this bill does not pass, it does not get to the President's desk, and
lives of millions of Americans will be impacted. It is a simple bill.
It says that ``the stem cells were derived from human embryos that are
donated from in vitro fertilization clinics for the purpose of
fertility treatment and were in excess of the needs of individuals
seeking such treatment. The embryos would never be implanted in a woman
and would otherwise be discarded. Such individuals donate the embryos
with written informed consent, and receive no financial aid or other
inducements.'' These embryos otherwise would be discarded.
What is our challenge in America? To rise to our higher angels?
This rule is constructed to save lives. Our friends will have the
privilege of a motion to recommit, but we have the responsibility of
saving the lives of 110 million Americans, children, family members of
yours, loved ones, husbands and wives and others. Some are our soldiers
on the front lines of Iraq and Afghanistan. We can do no less today.
Pass S. 5. Vote for the rule, and vote against the motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 5, the ``Stem Cell
Research Enhancement Act of 2007,'' which the House passed in
substantially similar form by a vote of 253-174 on January 11, 2007.
The legislation passed the Senate by a nearly veto-proof majority of
63-34. The only difference between the version passed by the House and
the Senate is that
[[Page H6121]]
the Senate version contains a provision directing the Secretary of HHS
to conduct and support research on alternative human pluripotent stem
cells.
Mr. Speaker, once again we find ourselves in a position to pass
legislation 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. The President should put
away his veto pen and listen to the American people. They want him to
sign this bill. Signing this bill will help bring about the new
direction in leadership and responsiveness that American people voted
for last November.
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.
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 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 scientists the opportunity to
do so.
It is understandable that many Americans may have moral conflicts
with this issue if they believe that embryos need to be destroyed in
order for this research to be implemented, but this is not the case. 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, S. 5 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.
Mr. SESSIONS. I continue to reserve my time, Mr. Speaker.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to express my enormous
appreciation to Congresswoman Diana DeGette.
This morning Speaker Pelosi said, this is really a great day, not
only in the United States Congress but for the American people around
the country. Many times we deal with issues that are either sort of
lower on the list of importance. We name post offices. We give certain
honors to individuals. That's all good. But today we're dealing with an
issue that affects millions, over 100 million Americans, really not a
family that's not touched by Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease,
diabetes, as Diana DeGette's daughter is. And like many mothers who
come to the Congress and ask us to address issues that have affected
their children, Diana DeGette is in a position to actually make
something happen, and she has, in the most educated, illuminated,
compassionate way, to bring this legislation to the floor of the House
of Representatives today.
I also rise in the name of our beloved friend and part of our
congressional family, Lane Evans. Lane is one of the million Americans
who suffers from Parkinson's disease, who has had to cut his career
short. His leadership and dedication to making progress with stem cell
research was inspiring. He understood the hope that embryonic stem cell
research holds for so many like him. It's time that we pass this bill
for people like Lane Evans; a hero, a Marine, someone who has fought
all his life. And now we need to fight for him.
I also rise in support of this bill for my friend, Bonnie Wilson, and
her daughter, Jenna, who's one of the 7 million American children
living with diabetes. Stem cell treatment may be her only hope. It's
time that we finally make progress, put aside ideology, and, yes, it is
about ideology versus science, and pay attention to the science. And I
want to thank all the children and parents, the children who have
diabetes who have come to me year after year after year after year to
my office, told me about the shots that they take, the parents waking
up several times during the night to check the levels on their
children; worrying day and night that they are going to get that phone
call that there has been some disaster. It's for them that we do this.
And so we're standing today on the brink of incredible scientific
breakthroughs that are going to address the issues that plague all our
families. My family has been plagued by the early loss of my daughter-
in-law, Fiona, to cancer.
Let me just say then, for Fiona and for my grandchildren who were
left motherless at a very, very young age, and all the families, I'm
not alone. No one's alone in this; that we stand together today to say
we believe in a cure. We want to support a cure. We, the American
people, through our taxpayer dollars, what could be a better
expenditure of that? Should we throw away unused embryonic stem cells?
Should we toss in the garbage, literally, the possibility of these
cures? I don't think so. Let's take that leap today for our children
and future generations.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 2 minutes
to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Every week, Mr. Speaker, medical journals,
science periodicals, as well as the mainstream media, announce and
report on yet another promise and advance in adult stem cell research
and clinical application. Unlike embryonic stem cell research, which
has had a poor track record, adult stem cell therapies are not only the
present, they are the future as well. Cord blood stem cells, for
example, are healing and mitigating a myriad of diseases today and
promising research that suggests better therapies to come.
Let me just say a word about embryo destroying stem cell research. It
has at least three strikes against it. First, it has an incredible
propensity to morph into tumors. Secondly, if embryonic stem cells are
ever successful and transplanted into humans, embryonic stem cells
carry an enormous proclivity for rejection. And third, embryonic stem
cell research requires the killing of human embryos. If it ever worked,
the limited supply of so-called spare embryos, and that's a very
offensive word, let me just say. Those children who have been adopted
from cryogenic tanks--snowflake babies--are a witness against this idea
of saying somehow there's a spare embryo. But just take that for what
it is. If it ever worked, there would be a near insatiable demand for
freshly killed human embryos.
[[Page H6122]]
On that last point, let me ask my colleagues to consider what Dr.
Robert Lanza, vice president of research and scientific development at
Advanced Cell Technology said, and he said, ``creating that many
lines,'' talking about to meet what would be the need, ``would require
millions of embryos from IVF clinics.''
{time} 1115
In the March 16, 2006, edition of Stem Cells, Civin and Rao
calculated how many embryos would be needed for clinical applications,
and they said that embryonic stem cell lines could reach into the
millions if the therapies live up to their potential. Millions of human
embryos would be killed. That's unconscionable.
So this is the tip of the iceberg. You are talking about spare
embryos now in this debate but if it ever did work, especially when we
have an ethical alternative that does work, but if it ever did work, it
would mean requiring the killing of millions of embryos, and I don't
think enough Members have looked forward enough to realize where this
could take us. That is a brave new world. This is the tip of the
iceberg today, and hopefully we will not go that way. We must do
ethical stem cell research instead.
And let me say one last thing. The Bush administration doubled from
300 to 600 million dollars the amount of money that we are spending on
stem cell research. We are passionately in favor of stem cell research,
but only the ethical kind.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman on the Rules
Committee for yielding to me.
I rise in support of this bill and in support of the promise that
comes with funding embryonic stem cell research.
Millions of Americans suffer from diseases for which we might
actually find a treatment. Millions more watch family and friends
suffer while we deny a chance for a cure. How can we tell a parent
watching a child suffer from cancer that we aren't going to do every
single thing possible to save that child? How can we tell a child that
we won't try to put a halt to the ravages of the Parkinson's disease
from which a father or mother is suffering? How can we tell a teenager
that there is a chance we could repair a damaged spinal cord so that
the teen can walk again but we aren't going to pursue it? How can we
tell someone with a family member with Alzheimer's disease that we
won't try every single thing possible to fight it?
In my own district, the Buck Institute on Aging is doing great
research into lifesaving research with embryonic stem cells. Just
recently, they received a grant from the State of California to
continue their great work. Private research facilities and States are
on the forefront of research, and the Federal Government must join
them.
Today, we have an obligation. We have an obligation to the people of
this country to support research that could prevent suffering, that
could save countless lives. Federal funding for research in stem cells
is vital. It is vital to making real progress as quickly as possible to
find real cures.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill that will
certainly have long-lasting effects in improving the health and the
well-being of millions of Americans; and I, too, want to thank
Congresswoman Diana DeGette from Colorado for being such a leader in
the stem cell debate.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party, this President, is completely in
favor of spending money in doing stem cell research. We, however, are
not in favor of putting an olive branch out that is unproven, untested,
and up to today has produced no results from embryonic stem cell
research.
The real problem with it is that it takes someone else's stem cells
and puts them into someone else's body and there is a rejection rate.
We know what works best is when a researcher uses stem cells from a
person's own body and puts them back into their own body. This is
called stem cell research for adults. This is what will lead this
country to where it needs to go.
We are simply saying, rather than spending Federal money on untested
and unwise decision-making processes that have not led forth to any
research that is meaningful, we should spend the money which will yield
the best results.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment and extraneous material into the Record immediately prior to
the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the
previous question so that we can amend this rule and allow the House to
consider a change to the rules of the House to restore accountability
and enforcement to the earmark rule.
Mr. Speaker, before I yield back the balance of my time, I want to
say thank you very much for your cautious and careful rulings and
administration today as the Speaker. I appreciate and respect the way
you have conducted yourself in this debate.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I include the following statements in support of S. 5:
Cancer Research and Prevention Foundation
Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Regenerative Medicine
June 7, 2007.
The Cancer Research and Prevention Foundation (CRPF)
strongly supports efforts to expand the current, restrictive
policy governing embryonic stem cell research, under strict,
ethical guidelines. The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act,
S. 5, will accomplish the expansion, while maintaining strong
ethical standards. Enactment of S. 5 will provide hope to the
estimated 1.5 million men, women and children diagnosed with
cancer each year.
The House and Senate have both passed legislation in the
110th Congress that will expand the current policy by
allowing Federally-funded research to be conducted on embryos
derived after August 9, 2001, on leftover embryos that will
be otherwise destroyed or discarded by fertility clinics. The
legislation ensures that no Federal funds will be used to
create or derive embryos for research purposes, nor will any
individual be compensated for donation of an embryo for
research purposes.
According to a poll recently released by the Coalition for
the Advancement of Medical Research, nearly sixty (60)
percent of Americans want President Bush to sign the Stem
Cell Research Enhancement Act into law. More than 500 disease
advocacy organizations, universities, professional societies
and other organizations have endorsed S. 5 and the Stem cell
Research Enhancement Act.
Embryonic stem cell research may hold great potential to
improve the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of cancer.
Scientific evidence indicates that stem cells provide
powerful models of the cellular and molecular origins of many
cancer types, helping us better understand the disease and
provide insight into critical aspects of cell growth and
differentiation altered during tumorigenesis. This work may
also improve pre-clinical evaluations of drug toxicity and
efficacy, identify markers for early cancer detection and aid
in the discovery of novel treatment targets.
The Cancer Research and Prevention Foundation supports
embryonic stem cell research, as well as other forms of stem
cell research such as bone marrow stem cells, adult stem
cells and stem cells derived from cord blood.
Embryonic stem cell research has the potential to benefit
millions of Americans suffering from cancer, diabetes,
Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, spinal cord injury, heart disease
and beyond. In order to realize the full potential of
embryonic stem cell research, the Federal Government must act
quickly to ensure that research is being conducted with the
most scientifically viable stem cell lines available, that
the best and brightest medical researchers and clinicians are
involved in the field, and that the United States and top
research institutions remain leaders in biomedical and
regenerative medicine research.
____
University of California,
Office of the President,
June 6, 2007.
Hon. Doris Matsui,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Matsui: On behalf of the University of
California, I urge your support for S. 5, the Stem Cell
Research Enhancement Act.
S. 5, the stem cell bill that you will consider this week
is similar to the House version (H.R. 3) in that it expands
the number of stem cell lines that are eligible for
[[Page H6123]]
federal funding. It passed the Senate on April 11, 63 to 34.
Like H.R. 3, this bipartisan bill also institutes strong
ethical requirements to govern stem cell research. S.5 has
been amended, however, to include the Alternative Pluripotent
Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, S. 2754. The additional
provisions from S. 2754 would direct the National Institutes
of Health (NIH) to conduct and support basic and applied
research to obtain stem cells using alternative methods that
would not result in the destruction of an embryo. The
University remains fully in support of S. 5 with these
changes.
Understanding and realizing the potential of stem cells
through the advancement of ethical scientific research is a
priority for the University of California and our world-class
research enterprise. Your support of S. 5, the Stem Cell
Research Enhancement Act, will enable the University to
continue its tireless pursuit of knowledge and scientific
breakthroughs that may lead to developing cures for many
devastating diseases and conditions and ultimately improve
the lives of millions of Californians.
Sincerely,
A. Scott Sudduth,
Assistant Vice President.
____
Lance Armstrong Foundation,
Austin, TX, June 5, 2007.
Hon. Doris Matsui,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Matsui: The Lance Armstrong Foundation
(LAF) respectfully urges you to vote in favor of S. 5, the
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. This legislation will be
scored by the LAF as a key vote for cancer survivors.
The LAF unites people to fight cancer. We engage the public
at large to pursue an agenda focused on preventing cancer,
ensuring access to screening and care, improving the quality
of life for people affected by cancer, and investing in
needed research.
The LAF supports exploring every avenue of research,
including embryonic stem cell research within specified
ethical limits, until a cure for cancer is found. The most
respected scientists in our field view embryonic stem cells
as an area of research that must be explored, and one that
our government must make a commitment to support.
S. 5 is identical to legislation that passed the House of
Representatives in January, except that the Senate-passed
bill contains an added provision that would direct the
federal government to conduct and support research on
alternative human pluripotent stem cells.
A vote in favor of S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement
Act, is a vote in support of people affected by cancer and
other serious and life-threatening illnesses.
Sincerely,
Lance Armstrong,
Chairman of the Board.
Doug Ulman,
President.
Mr. Speaker, ethical embryonic stem cell research is a reality. It
exists, and it can help save lives.
The Federal Government has two options. We can engage by
participating in the research and influencing the ethical debate within
the global community. Or we can ignore the issue and let others lead.
Again, this is not just my opinion. The Presidentially appointed
Director of the NIH said earlier this year, ``We cannot be second best
in this area . . . I think it is important for us not to fight with one
hand tied behind our back here.''
I could not agree more. America is the world leader in medical
research and development. We cannot cede that ground.
I am in support of this bill for my young friend Scott, 11 years old,
who is dealing with diabetes every single day; and for my good friend
Sybil, who has Parkinson's disease and asks me all the time to support
all stem cell research; and for those with blood or bone marrow cancers
or failures like my husband, Bob. It is too late for him but maybe not
for others.
The bill made in order under today's rule represents the bipartisan
consensus in America on how we combine hope, the scientific consensus,
and our values into a policy right for our society.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 464 Offered by Mr. Sessions of Texas
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
section:
Sec. 3. Clause 9(c) of Rule XXI is amended to read as
follows:
``(c) As disposition of a point of order under paragraph
(a), the Chair shall put the question of consideration with
respect to the bill, joint resolution, or conference report,
or amendment described in paragraph (a)(3). The question of
consideration shall be debatable for 10 minutes by the Member
initiating the point of order and for 10 minutes by an
opponent, but shall otherwise be decided without intervening
motion except one that the House adjourn.''.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting, if
ordered, on the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221,
nays 195, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 440]
YEAS--221
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
[[Page H6124]]
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--195
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--16
Andrews
Bilbray
Cantor
Conyers
Garrett (NJ)
Hastings (FL)
Holden
Jefferson
Kagen
Lampson
Marchant
Pickering
Pomeroy
Porter
Ryan (OH)
Tancredo
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2
minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1147
Mrs. MYRICK, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland and Mr. SOUDER
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. JACKSON of Illinois, GUTIERREZ and OBERSTAR changed their
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SESSIONS. 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 224,
noes 191, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 441]
AYES--224
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
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
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Price (NC)
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
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
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NOES--191
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costello
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Lincoln
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
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.
Mack
Manzullo
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
[[Page H6125]]
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rehberg
Reichert
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
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--17
Bilbray
Buyer
Cantor
Conyers
Garrett (NJ)
Hastings (FL)
Holden
Jefferson
Kagen
Lampson
Marchant
Pickering
Pomeroy
Porter
Ryan (OH)
Sestak
Tancredo
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2
minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1154
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I took a leave of absence until 12 p.m. on
June 7, 2007, as I was in my district on personal business. The
following list describes how I would have voted had I been in
attendance this morning.
``Yea''--Motion on ordering the previous question on the rule.
``Aye''--H. Res. 464--Rule providing for consideration of S. 5, to
amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem
cell research.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 464, I call up
the Senate bill (S. 5) to amend the Public Health Service Act to
provide for human embryonic stem cell research, and ask for its
immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The text of the Senate bill is as follows:
S. 5
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.''.
SEC. 3. ALTERNATIVE HUMAN PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL RESEARCH.
Part H of title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 284 et seq.), as amended by section 2, is further
amended by inserting after section 498D the following:
``SEC. 498E. ALTERNATIVE HUMAN PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL
RESEARCH.
``(a) In General.--In accordance with section 492, the
Secretary shall conduct and support basic and applied
research to develop techniques for the isolation, derivation,
production, or testing of stem cells that, like embryonic
stem cells, are capable of producing all or almost all of the
cell types of the developing body and may result in improved
understanding of or treatments for diseases and other adverse
health conditions, but are not derived from a human embryo.
``(b) Guidelines.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this section, the Secretary, after
consultation with the Director, shall issue final guidelines
to implement subsection (a), that--
``(1) provide guidance concerning the next steps required
for additional research, which shall include a determination
of the extent to which specific techniques may require
additional basic or animal research to ensure that any
research involving human cells using these techniques would
clearly be consistent with the standards established under
this section;
``(2) prioritize research with the greatest potential for
near-term clinical benefit; and
``(3) consistent with subsection (a), take into account
techniques outlined by the President's Council on Bioethics
and any other appropriate techniques and research.
``(c) Reporting Requirements.--Not later than January 1 of
each year, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to the
appropriate committees of the Congress a report describing
the activities carried out under this section during the
fiscal year, including a description of the research
conducted under this section.
``(d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed to affect any policy, guideline, or regulation
regarding embryonic stem cell research, human cloning by
somatic cell nuclear transfer, or any other research not
specifically authorized by this section.
``(e) Definition.--
``(1) In general.--In this section, the term `human embryo'
shall have the meaning given such term in the applicable
appropriations Act.
``(2) Applicable act.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the
term `applicable appropriations Act' means, with respect to
the fiscal year in which research is to be conducted or
supported under this section, the Act making appropriations
for the Department of Health and Human Services for such
fiscal year, except that if the Act for such fiscal year does
not contain the term referred to in paragraph (1), the Act
for the previous fiscal year shall be deemed to be the
applicable appropriations Act.
``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of
fiscal years 2008 through 2010, to carry out this section.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pastor). Pursuant to House Resolution
464, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Barton) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
General Leave
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous matter on the bill under consideration.
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 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, as we consider S. 5 as passed by the Senate, I am
pleased to report that both Houses of Congress have again found common
ground on stem cell research policy. This is a matter of utmost
importance. We have sent this legislation, or similar legislation on
stem cell research, to the President twice. The legislation has been
vetoed.
This is a bicameral bill and our actions are clear: We and the
American people will not be deterred from enacting potentially life-
saving legislation of this kind. For those suffering from diseases such
as Alzheimer's, autism, cancer, cystic fibrosis, heart disease,
Parkinson's or spinal cord injury, stem cell research offers both
promise and hope, and that is why we must continue this fight and
continue this research.
The legislation lifts the arbitrary date restriction and expands the
number of cell lines eligible for federally funded research. It
contains strong ethics provisions passed in H.R. 3, ensuring new stem
cell lines are only derived from unused embryos created for human
fertility treatments that would otherwise be discarded.
I want to be clear: S. 5 does not permit funding for creation or
destruction of embryos. This is a critical point. If
[[Page H6126]]
not used in research, these stem cells will be discarded as medical
waste.
Finally, I note that S. 5 includes the text of the Hope Offered
Through Principled and Ethical Stem Cell Research Act, or the HOPE Act,
which is Senate language.
At this time I wish to yield now and I ask unanimous consent that the
distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) be permitted to
control the time on this side. She has done a superb job in providing
leadership on this matter.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished physician from Denton and Flower Mound, Texas (Mr.
Burgess), a member of the committee.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the speed of scientific investigation certainly exceeds
that of the legislative process. Medical research, especially in the
field of regenerative medicine, holds great promise, and it is our
responsibility to strike an appropriate balance between that which is
ethical and the promise that regenerative medicine holds. Science is
resolving and providing answers to this ethical dilemma actually
without the help of legislation from this Congress, but really through
the hard work of dedicated medical researchers.
{time} 1200
Yesterday, in an article published in the scientific periodical
``Nature,'' several teams of researchers have been able to make stem
cells from a mouse skin cell, a mouse fibroblast, by genetically
modifying it with a special technique that they have developed.
So here we have a stem cell that was created from a skin cell without
destroying an embryo. These researchers have already shown success with
mice by reprogramming mature cells to act like stem cells. This field
of cell signaling is going to be very important in the field of
regenerative medicine in the decades to come.
These researchers are also working to see how these reprogrammed
cells may limit the growth of tumors, a problem identified when using
human embryonic stem cells from destroyed embryos.
When we had this discussion last January, Dr. Anthony Atala from Wake
Forest University and his Institute of Regenerative Medicine have found
that stem cells derived from amniotic fluid, no harm to the baby, no
harm to the fetus, cells derived from amniotic fluid have the same or
similar characteristics of stem cells derived from embryos. He has been
able to build on this research and regrow human organs, bladders in
mice, in a handful of cases to do the same thing in humans. Because
these stem cells are not from embryos but from the amniotic fluid or
from the placenta, there is much less risk of tumors developing than
there is in embryonic stem cells. Because these cells are not from
embryos but from the amniotic fluid, there is no harm to the embryo.
Over 40 cell lines are available in Dr. Atala's lab.
Mr. Speaker, I am extremely disappointed that we have brought this
bill to the floor without a hearing in our committee. The science has
moved tremendously. This is the same bill we debated 2 years ago on
this House floor. Not a single committee hearing, not a single
consideration of how the science has advanced in the past 2 years. That
is a shame, and for that reason this bill should be defeated. We should
go back to the committee and go through regular order.
Once again, we are debating a bill on the House floor which science
has lapped multiple times.
We all agree that medical research, especially in the fields of
regenerative medicine hold great promise, but our responsibility is to
strike an appropriate balance between the ethical challenges of stem
cell research and the promise that it holds.
Science is beginning to address this ethical dilemma without the help
of legislation from this Congress, but through the hard work of
hundreds of medical researchers.
I would like to call an article in the recent edition of Nature to
the Speaker's attention.
Several teams of researchers have been able to make stem cells from a
certain type of skin cell genetically modified with retroviruses,
without destroying embryos.
These researchers have already shown success with mice by
reprogramming mature cells to act like stem cells.
These researchers are also working to see how these reprogrammed
cells may also limit he growth of tumors, a problem identified when
using stem cells derived from destroyed embryos.
Dr. Anthony Atala, director of Wake Forest University's Institute of
Regenerative Medicine, has also found that stem cells derived from
amniotic fluid have the same or similar characteristics of stem cells
derived from embryos.
He has been able to build on this research and re-grow bladders in
mice and in a handful of cases do the same in humans.
Because these stem cells are not from embryos but from amniotic fluid
or placenta, there is less risk of tumors.
Over 40 lines are available in Dr. Atala's lab already, and he has
the ability to collect more of these very plastic cells in any birthing
center.
In fact, I am disappointed that instead of considering a bill that
actually does something, which I have cosponsored and introduced by
Congressman Lipinski, is not before us in place of S. 5.
This bill would provide funding to bank amniotic and placental cells
and make them available for research and at some point in the future
for actual medical treatments.
This Congress and its leadership has missed an opportunity to hold
hearings on this important field of medical research and bring
something to the floor that would actually move the science forward.
Instead, we have before us today, an uninformed, morally
objectionable bill designed to inflame political divisions when what
America needs is a Federal medical research policy that moves forward
in an ethical and responsible manner in real-time, adapting to the
needs of science.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express frustration, frustration that I
share with millions of Americans around this country. Every day,
millions of patients suffer from debilitating diseases and conditions.
For many, embryonic stem cell research is the most promising source of
potential cures and treatments. Unfortunately, because of the
stubbornness of one man, President Bush, these people continue to
suffer as they wait.
Since the discovery of embryonic stem cells in 1998, the vast
majority of biomedical researchers in this country identify embryonic
stem cell research as the most promising source of treatments for
diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, spinal cord injury
and multiple sclerosis. With the unique ability to become any cell in
the body, embryonic stem cells truly are the key to taking science to a
whole new level.
Unfortunately, President Bush has stubbornly refused to pay attention
to these scientists and the patients who might be helped by this
research. In August 2001, the President announced that he would
prohibit the National Institutes of Health from funding research on
embryonic stem cells lines created after August 2001. Assertions to the
contrary, there are fewer than 20 stem cell lines in existence, and
most of these researchers are finding less and less workable.
Despite the President's opposition to the research, Congress has
acted over and over again for this funding. In 2006, we passed the
first bill. This year, as H.R. 3, we passed the second bill. And all of
the bills, including S. 5, have the same provisions: Embryos used to
derive stem cells which were created for fertility treatments and are
in excess of clinical need, the individuals for whom those embryos were
created, have determined the embryos are not needed and voluntarily
donate them and the individuals provide written consent.
Let me remind my colleagues that under current law there are no
ethical guidelines like these that govern any stem cell research that
happens today. Unfortunately, the President vetoed the bill. But in the
2006 elections, embryonic stem cell research became a critical issue,
and it passed this House again in January with an overwhelming
majority.
It is time to pass this bill again now with the Senate language and
send a clear message to the President and this country: The majority of
Americans want stem cell research.
While the NIH remains limited to a few number of stem cell lines, the
rest of the world has eagerly filled the void.
[[Page H6127]]
California has recently authorized several billion dollars to conduct
embryonic stem cell research. Japan, the U.K., Singapore and others
have allocated billions of dollars. But the NIH lags behind. Not only
is it not participating in this research, it has lost its cutting edge.
Since I first began working on this issue, public support for
embryonic stem cell research has soared. According to a Gallup poll
released just this week, since May 2002, it has gone up to 64 percent,
steadily increasing.
Mr. Speaker, the Senate gets it. The public gets it. The House gets
it. Why doesn't the President of the United States get it?
Opponents of this research say there are other types of cell research
that are being explored. And, in fact, yesterday, shockingly, another
new advance, which seems to happen every time we bring this bill up. We
welcome these advances as we welcome all advances in ethical life-
saving research. However, this new scientific research should not be
used as an excuse to say that it is a substitute for embryonic stem
cell research.
One of the lead researchers, Kevin Eggan, said: ``All of us agree
strongly with human embryonic stem cell research. These experiments are
not motivated by a desire to find an end run around these issues.''
This week, in fact, on the other end, embryonic stem cell research
has led to huge new advances in curing macular degeneration in England.
They believe that embryonic stem cell research will lead to a cure in
humans within 5 years.
It is promising research. It is supported by a majority of Americans,
by the House, by the Senate. Mr. Speaker, that's why we are here today:
the chance for so many to live a life that others take for granted.
Vote for S. 5 to restore hope.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I would like to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished congressman from Allentown, Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent), home
of the Allentown Canaries.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, we have come to the floor many times over the
past few years to discuss the advancement of various forms of stem cell
research: adult, cord blood, amniotic, embryonic. We have had
discussions about the science and about our moral obligations and about
ethics. These discussions have been passionate and heartfelt. We have
all come to the floor with the best of intentions.
For some of us, our feelings on these issues have been colored by
personal experiences with our own families. For all of us, our stance
has been informed by the conversations we have had with our
constituents.
I have had countless discussions with my constituents about embryonic
stem cell research. In particular, there are two families from my
district whose personal stories have made a profound impact on my
thinking about this issue, the Sheaffers from Kempton, Pennsylvania,
and the Pitts from Nazareth.
I am very happy that the Pitts family, Melissa and Jeff and their
sons, Ryan and Alex, are able to be with us today. I first met Melissa
and the boys in 2005. Ryan and Alex are energetic 6-year-old twin boys.
You could not tell them apart if not for the fact that Alex is in a
wheelchair. Alex suffered a spinal cord injury at birth and has been
paralyzed since. Melissa has told me that the promise of embryonic stem
cell research gives her hope, hope that advances will allow her son,
Alex, to live the same kind of independent life that Ryan will enjoy.
Every day that goes by while we play politics with science is a day
that we could have gotten one step closer to finding therapies for kids
like Alex. I urge my colleagues to support S. 5. This is an important
bill which will ensure that researchers adhere to the highest possible
principles of scientific inquiry and respect critical ethical
boundaries while advancing some of the most important research of our
time.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) for 2 minutes.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Senate 5, the
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. But then again, you already know
that because I have stood on this floor countless times in the past few
years expressing this same sentiment.
Today, we have an opportunity to again pass a bill that would direct
federally funded, ethical stem cell research and fulfill a promise to
the overwhelming majority of Americans who support it.
Fortunately, my State of California has stepped up to the plate and
dedicated $3 billion to embryonic stem cell research. But this is only
the first step. Because the only way to make true progress is through
coordinated research conducted on a national level. In the meantime, we
sit and watch as scientists throughout Europe and the rest of the world
make breakthroughs that the United States cannot as long as our
researchers' hands are tied.
What amazes me most about this debate today is the rhetoric used by
the opposition about using Federal money to create and destroy embryos.
But then again, that is just what the opponents want you to believe,
when, in fact, it is just plain untrue.
As we have discussed many times before, this bill explicitly mandates
that Federal funds only be used to conduct research on stem cells
already extracted from embryos created by in vitro fertilization which
would have been discarded anyway because the donors no longer need or
want them.
Please vote today in favor of this bill that will give hope to
millions of Americans, including the loved ones of everyone in this
body. My own family members suffer from diseases that may be cured
through embryonic stem cell research. There is really nothing else left
to say other than please don't let these people down. Don't tell them
that the potential for cures for their diseases are not important
enough.
Finally, I want to commend my colleagues, the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Ms. DeGette) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle),
and all of the people who have worked so tirelessly to bring this
sound, bipartisan legislation here before us today.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Westminster, South Carolina, which is near the home of the
Fighting Clemson Tigers, the starting catcher on the Republican charity
baseball team, Mr. Gresham Barrett.
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, several times I have
stood here and adamantly spoken against embryonic stem cell research.
I understand that stem cells are necessary for the advancement of
medical science. I am encouraged and hopeful of the promising effects
stem cell research has for those struggling with debilitating diseases
and disabilities, but these solutions can be found without destroying
innocent life.
We no longer have to choose between medical advancement and the
protection of life. In fact, stem cells derived from adults and
umbilical cords have produced over 70 successful therapies, while
embryonic stem cell research has produced none.
Mr. Speaker, I do believe in the wonders of science and medical
research, and I am hopeful that together we can find cures to these
devastating diseases and disabilities, but the end does not justify the
means.
The citizens that I represent cannot stand at this podium and speak
for the protection of the innocent and those unborn yet do not have a
voice, so I ask my colleagues to vote against S. 5. Let's work together
to advance the science that we know works and does so without using
taxpayer dollars to destroy life.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Space).
Mr. SPACE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her leadership on
this issue.
I rise today in support of S. 5. In January, I stood before this body
to pledge my support for embryonic stem cell research; and I also
shared with the House the story of my son, Nicholas, who is now 16 and
has battled juvenile diabetes for 10 years.
I asked my colleagues to put aside the differences that they have
from a political perspective to support this research that offers the
promise of a better quality of life for millions of Americans like my
son. When the House passed H.R. 3, I was optimistic. I believed in the
power of the government to do good for this Nation and its citizen. I
believed we could put politics
[[Page H6128]]
aside for a cause of such great importance, but, Mr. Speaker, I was
wrong. The administration, even many Members of this body, have
succumbed to the vices of the game of politics. They put sound bites
ahead of their own citizens.
In the last Congress, my colleagues in both Chambers worked together
to craft legislation that would advance the promise of stem cell
research. It was a good, bipartisan bill with broad support.
Unfortunately, the President saw fit to veto their hard work,
nullifying the opportunity that it offered.
Here we are again in the 110th Congress, Mr. Speaker, in exactly the
same position we stood 2 years ago. And what has happened in the
interim, thousands of children have died from terrible illnesses, and
families have been torn apart. In the face of all this, we are having a
debate that we have already had. With this enormous opportunity before
us, I am saddened and, frankly, frustrated.
Today must be a day to start fulfilling our promise to the people of
this country and be leaders on this great issue of importance. The
future of our children and loved ones simply cannot wait.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Trenton, New Jersey, the Honorable Chris
Smith, who is generally acknowledged as the pro-life leader in the
House since Henry Hyde retired.
{time} 1215
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, in early January, a team of scientists from Wake Forest
University and Harvard Medical School announced a historic
breakthrough: a new readily available source of life-saving stem cells
derived exclusively from amniotic fluid.
The Washington Post called these highly ethically derived pluripotent
stem cells ``highly versatile and readily available.''
Newsweek said, ``A new era begins. Stem cells derived from amniotic
fluid show great promise in the lab and may end the divisive ethical
debate once and for all because the amniotic fluid stem cells are
pluripotent, able to transform into cells representing each of the
three major kinds of tissues found in the body.''
And ABC News pointed out that these stem cells can be taken from
amniotic fluid with no harm to either the mother or her unborn child.
Earlier this week, I met with the Wake Forest University researcher,
Dr. Anthony Atala, who led the team credited with this extraordinary
study. Dr. Atala made it absolutely clear that these amniotic stem
cells are pluripotent and that this research, along with numerous other
remarkable initiatives in regenerative medicine, are progressing
robustly.
Mr. Speaker, in April, the Journal of the American Medical
Association reported that cord blood stem cells, not embryonic stem
cells, were transplanted into 15 patients diagnosed with Type I
diabetes and resulted in 13 becoming completely insulin-free.
We all know about the New York Times and the other news media
carrying the surprise development that's in today's papers.
Finally, let me say, Mr. Speaker, recently Richard Doerflinger of the
U.S. Catholic Conference compiled a comprehensive list of what he calls
New Reasons for Hope, 111 recent developments published since
Congress's stem cell votes of 2006. It is filled with one breakthrough
after another, all attributed to adult stem cells, cord blood, amniotic
fluid and the like. That's where the hope is, not in destroying embryos
so as to derive their stem cells.
Vote ``no'' on this bill.
111 New Reasons to Reconsider the Alleged Need for Stem Cell Research
That Destroys Human Embryos
Recent Advances (published since 109th Congress's stem cell votes) in
Adult Stem Cell Research and Other Alternatives to Embryonic Stem Cell
Research
June 2006-early June 2007
OVERALL SUCCESS
``Adult cells are behind much of stem cell success so
far,'' Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, September 2, 2006,
www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id= 489953&format=print
``Review: Ex Vivo Engineering of Living Tissues with Adult
Stem Cells,'' Tissue Engineering, October, 2006, http://
lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:17064229
``Cleveland BioLabs Protectan CBLB612 Demonstrates Efficacy
In Stimulating Proliferation And Mobilization Of Bone Marrow
Stem Cells In Primate Model,'' Medical News Today, April 21,
2007, www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalews.php?newsid=68477
ADULT STEM CELL VERSATILITY
``Adult stem cells are touchy-feely, need environmental
clues,'' EurekAlert, August 24, 2006, www.eurekalert.org/pub_
releases/2006-08/uop-uop082306. php
``Induction of Pluripotent Stem Cells from Mouse Embryonic
and Adult Fibroblast Cultures by Defined Factors,'' Cell,
August 25, 2006, www.cell.com/content/article/abstract
?uid=PIIS0092867406009767&highlight=Yamanaka
``Adult Stem Cells Can Become Muscle,'' The Daily
Californian, November 1, 2006, http://dailycal.org/
printable.php?id=22084
``U of MN adult stem cell research shows promise for
transplant therapies,'' EurekAlert, January 15, 2007,
www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-01/uom-uom011207.php
``Fate of Bone Marrow Stem Cells Transplanted into the
Testis,'' The American Journal of Pathology, March 2007,
http://aip.amjpathol.org/cgi/ content/abstract/170/3/899
``Type of Stem Cell Found to Reside in Transplanted
Lungs,'' eMaxHealth, March 10, 2007, www.emaxhealth.com/
cms?m= show&opt=printable&id=10162
STEM CELL SOURCES
``Clonogenic multipotent stem cells in human adipose tissue
differentiate into functional smooth muscle cells,''
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, June 12,
2006, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0604850103
``Fat Stem Cells Being Studied As Option For Breast
Reconstruction,'' Medical News Today, October 30,2006,
www.medicalnewstoday.com/ printerfriendlynews.
php?newsid=55275
``Penn Prof. Makes `Hair'-Raising Stem Cell Discovery,''
The Evening Bulletin (Philadelphia), November 17, 2006,
www.zwire.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=
17480108&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=5763 61&rfi=8
``Isolation of a Novel Population of Multipotent Adult Stem
Cells from Human Hair Follicles,'' The American Journal of
Pathology, December 2006, . http://aip.amjpathol.org/cgi/
content/abstract/168/6/1879?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=
10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1= Yu&titleabstract=
Isolation+of+a+novel+population+of+mult ipotent+adult+stem+cel
ls+from+ human+hair+&searchid=1&FIRST
INDEX=0&resourcetype= HWCIT
``Stem cells found in adult hair follicles may provide
alternative to embryonic stem cells,'' EurekAlert, December
11, 2006, www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-12/mcow-
scf121106.php
``Don't Surrender Any More Teeth to the Tooth Fairy,''
Scientific American, December 26, 2006, www.sciam.com/print_
version. cfm?articleID=C0956FBC-E7F2-099DF- 3DF2604378A72C61
``Isolation of amniotic stem cell lines with potential for
therapy,'' Nature Biotechnology, January 7, 2007,
www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v25/n1/abs/nbt1274.html
``Bioengineer Advances Survival, Promise of Adult Stem
Cells,'' Science Daily, February 28, 2007,
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070227121355.htm
``Liposuctioned fat stem cells to repair bodies,'' Medical
News Today, February 24, 2007, http://
www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=63649
CORD BLOOD
``States seek to save umbilical cord blood,'' Stateline.org
(Pew Research Center), August 2, 2006, www.stateline.org/
live/printable/story?contentId= 131281
``State expands storage for stem-cell-rich blood,'' North
Jersey Media Group, Inc., October 18, 2006,
www.northjersey.com/print.php? qstr= ZmdiZWw3Zjd2cWVIRUV5e
TcwMDY30Dkme XJpcnk3ZicxN2Y3dnFIZUVFeXkl
``Stem cell transplant: a ray of hope for thalassemic
children,'' The Hindu, October 26, 2006, www.thehindu.com/
2006/10/26/stories/20061026l4470200.htm
``Cytotherapy Report Confirms BioE Stem Cell First Human
Cord Blood Stem Cell to Differentiate into Lung Cell,'' BioE
News Release (St. Paul, MN), November 1, 2006, http://
www.bioe.com/Detail/Detail.aspx?catID= 15&itemID=971
``New Use of Cord Blood to Treat Childhood Leukemia
Study,'' Yahoo News, January 5, 2007, http://
www.cordblood.com/cord_ blood_news/stem_cell_news/autologous_
leukemia.asp
``First Israeli saved from acute leukemia by umbilical cord
blood from two separate births,'' Jerusalem Post, February
12,2007, www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?
cid=1170359842760&pagename=JPost%2FJP Article%2FPrinter
``Caged Protein Helps Double Cord Blood Stem Cells in
Culture,'' TherapeuticsDaily, April 24, 2007, http://
www.therapeuticsdaily.com/news/article.cfm?contenttype=
sentrvarticle&contentvalue=1328638& channelID=28
Cord Blood Registry Launches ``Heroic''Campaign to Increase
Awareness of
[[Page H6129]]
Medical Benefits of Cord Blood Stem Cells,'' Genetic
Engineering & Biotechnology News, May 23, 2007, http://
www.genengnews.com/news/bnitem.aspx? name=I7897553
BONE/CARTILAGE
``Gene Silencing Directs Muscle-derived Stem Cells to
Become Bone-forming Cells,'' Medical News Today, June 1,2006,
www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php? newsid=44400
``One-Off Treatment to Stop Back Pain--Using Patients' Own
Stem Cells,'' Innovations Report Web site, November 30, 2006,
http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/
medizin_gesundheit/bericht-75132.html
``Aussie stem cell trial wins US approval,'' The Age
(Australia), December 20, 2006, www.theage.com.au/news/
National/Aussie-stem-cell-trial-wins-US-approval/2006/12/20/
1166290605626.html
``Stem cells revolutionize spinal surgery,'' Victoria
Advocate (Texas), February 3, 2007, http://www.cmbt.su/eng/
news/news879.html
``Case Study Reports That Orthopedic Trauma Surgeon Injects
Adult Stem Cells Derived From the Patient's Own Marrow Into
Her Broken Legs, Which Had Not Healed by Seven Months Post-
Injury--Instead of Open Surgery,'' Yahoo Finance, February 8,
2007, http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/070208/0213099.html?printer=1
``Healing Bone with Stem Cells,'' Technology Review
(Published by MIT), March 7, 2007, www.technologyreview.com/
printer_friendly_artic1e.aspx?id=18274
``System For Expanding Stem Cells To Form Cartilage Tissue
Under Development,'' ScienceDaily, April 20, 2007,
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070419101148.htm
``Horses lead humans in stem cells race,'' Reuters, April
24, 2007, http://www.reuters.com/artic1e/scienceNews/
idUSL1769041120070424?feedType=RSS
BRAIN DAMAGE
``Transplanted adult neural progenitor cells survive,
differentiate and reduce motor function impairment in a
rodent model of Huntington's disease,'' Experimental
Neurology, June 2006, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/
query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=
16626705&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_DocSum
``Researchers Find Healing Potential in Everyday Human
Brain Cells,'' Newswise, August 16, 2006, www.newswise.com/p/
articles/view/522823/
``Scientists spur growth of adult brain stem cells,'' MSNBC
(Reuters), November 14, 2006, www.msnbc.msn.com/id/I5720021/
print/l/displaymode/1098/
``An appointment with chance,'' The Economist, November 30,
2006, www.economist.com/science/
PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=8348729
``Cells'' Capability in Mouse Brain Tissue Repair Revealed
By UCSF Stem Cell Study,'' Medical News Today, December 21,
2006, www.medicalnewstoday.com/
printerfriendly.php?newsid=59133
``Scientists produce neurons from human skin,'' EurekAlert,
February 22, 2007, www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/
ul-spn022207.php
``Stem Cells Fill In When Smell-related Cells Fail,''
ScienceDaily, May 3, 2007, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/
2007/04/070429154913.htm (Also see: ``Contribution of
olfactory neural stem cells to tissue maintenance and
regeneration,'' Nature Neuroscience, April 29, 2007,
www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nn1882.html)
``China hope for cerebral palsy girl,'' MSN (United
Kingdom), May, 25, 2007, http://news.uk.msn.com/
Artic1e.aspx?cp-documentid=4988374
CANCER
``Catholic Priest's Adult Stem Cell Donation Saves Kentucky
Woman's Life,'' LifeNews.com (Kansas City, MO), June 29,
2006, http://66.195.16.55/bio1580.html
``Cancer-Killing Invention Also Harvests Stem Cells,''
Medical News Today, January 8, 2007,
www.medicalnewstodav.com/printerfriendlynews.
php?newsid=60251
``Researchers first to map gene that regulates adult stem
cell growth,'' EurekAlert, January 14, 2007,
www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-01/uok-rft011207.php
``A new hope for cancer treatment: 'U' researchers find
stem cells that cause tumors,'' Michigan Daily, February 2,
2007, http://www.michigandaily.com/home/
index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=c5489b
59-d0ef-43f2-8597-66a769ac3a1e
DIABETES
``Stem cells may help Bergen boy fight diabetes,''
NorthJersey.com (North Jersey Media Group Inc.), August 18,
2006, www.northjersey.com/
page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFIZUVFeXkzJmZnYmVsN2Y3dnFIZUVF
eXk20Tc3MTcx
``International Trial of the Edmonton Protocol for Islet
Transplantation,'' New England Journal of Medicine, September
28, 2006, http://content.nem.org/cgi/content/full/355/13/
1318?firstpage=1318&volume=355&sendit=GO&searchid=l&FIRSTINDEX
=0&volume=355&firstpage=1318&resourcetype=HWCIT
``Insulin Stem Cells Hold Hope for Diabetes Treatment,''
Forbes, November 7, 2006, www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/
feeds/hscout/2006/11/07Ihscout535944.html
``Multipotent stromal cells from human marrow home to and
promote repair of pancreatic islets and renal glomeruli in
diabetic NOD scid mice,'' Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences (PNAS), November 14, 2006, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
entrez/
query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1708
8535/
``AmCyte Presents Promising Adult Stem Cell Data at 7th
Annual Rachmiel Levine Diabetes and Obesity Symposium,''
Genetic Engineering News, November 9, 2006,
www.genengnews.com/news/
bnitem.aspx?name=8531775&child=4&taxid=39
``Researchers Make Stem Cell Breakthrough,'' The Korea
Times, January 23,2007, http://ora.ra.cwru.edu/
stemcellcenter/news/News%20January%2007/
Researchers%20Make%20Stem%20Cell%20Breakthrough.htm
``Diabetes repair `occurs in womb','' BBC News, January 23,
2007, http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/
news.bbc.co.uk/2lhi/health/6286997.stm
``Autologous Nonmyeloablative Hematopoietic Stem Cell
Transplantation in Newly Diagnosed Type 1 Diabetes
Mellitus,'' Journal of the American Medical Association
(lAMA), April 11, 2007, http://ama.ama-assn.org/cgilcontent/
full/297/14/1568 (Also see: ``Stem cell experiment lets
diabetics forgo insulin,'' MSNBC.com, April 10, 2007,
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18040485/print/1/displaymode/1098/)
``WnT signaling regulates pancreatic beta cell
proliferation,'' Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences (PNAS), Advance Online Publication April 2007,
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0701509104v1
``Adult Stem/Progenitor Cells Repair Of Damaged Brain,
Pancreas, Kidney Cells Newly Understood,'' Medical News
Today, May 3, 2007,
www.medicalnewstoday.comlmedicalnews.php?newsid=69354
``Directed engineering of umbilical cord blood stem cells
to produce C-peptide and insulin,'' Cell Proliferation, June
2007, http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/
j.1365-2184.2007.00439.x
EYE/EAR
``Bone Marrow May Restore Cells Lost in Vision Diseases,''
Science Daily (University of Florida), June 8, 2006,
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060608225650.htm
``Eye experts showcase new treatments for glaucoma,'' ABC
Sydney, November 7, 2006, www.abc.net.au/news/items/200611/
1783265.htm?sydney
``Retinal repair by transplantation of photoreceptor
precursors,'' Nature, November 9, 2006, www.nature.com/
nature/journal/v444/n7116/abs/nature05161.html
``Study shows isolation of stem cells may lead to a
treatment for hearing loss,'' EurekAlert, April 5, 2007,
www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/cwru-ss040507.php
``Stem cell patch restores vision,'' The University of
Melbourne Voice, April 16-30, 2007, http://
uninews.unimelb.edu.au/
articleid_4135.html (Also see: ``Nearly-blind, But Saved By
Stem Cell Patch,'' Bernama: Malaysian National News Agency,
April 18, 2007, www.bernama.com.my/bernama/v3/
news.php?id=257390)
``Bone Marrow Stem Cells May Cure Eye Disease,'' University
of Cincinnati Health News, May 10, 2007, http://
healthnews.uc.edu/news/?/4881
HEART
``Researchers grow human heart tissue from stem cells,''
ABC Online, June 7, 2006, www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/
2006/
s1657710.htm
``Stem Cell Trials Show Sustained Heart Function
Improvement,'' Medical News Today, September 21, 2006,
www.medical
newstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=
52366
``Cultured autologous stem cell trials show sustained heart
function improvement,'' Managed Care Business Week, October
17, 2006, www.newsrx.com/article.php?article
ID=365417
``Injecting Patient's Own Stem Cells Treats Severe Coronary
Artery Disease,'' Medical News Today, October 24, 2006,
www.medicalnewstoday.com/printerfriendly
news.php?newsid=54836
``Using the Body's Own Stem Cells to Grow New Arteries,''
KGO-TV/ABC-7 (San Francisco), November 12, 2006, http://
abclocal.
go.com/kgo/story?section=edell&id=
4754901&ft=print
``Adult Pig Stem Cells Show Promise in Repairing Animals'
Heart Attack Damage,'' Johns Hopkins University Web site,
November 13, 2006, www.hopkinsmedicine.org/
Press_releases/2006/11_13_06.html
``Amniotic Stem Cells Offer Hope Against Congenital Heart
Defects,'' Washington Post, November 14, 2006,
www.washingtonpost.com/
wp-dyn/content/article/2006/1l/14/
AR2006111400889_pf.html
``Potential Source of Stem Cells for Heart Repair, Other
Uses Found in Fat of Elderly, Chronically Diseased Patients:
Presented at AHA,'' Doctor's Guide, November 17, 2006,
www.docguide.com/news/content.nsf/News
Print/852571020057CCF685257229005A86CB
``Adult Heart Cells Learn to Heal,'' Medical News Today,
November 20, 2006, www.medicalnewstoday.com/printerfriendly
news.php?newsid=57088
``U of M Finds Cell in Adult Heart with Embryonic Stem Cell
Capability,'' Academic Health Center at the University of
Minnesota, January 18,2007, www.ahc.umn.edu/print/news/
releases/heartcell011807/home.
html
[[Page H6130]]
``Desperation leads to one last gamble in overcoming heart
failure,'' Orlando Sentinel, January 28, 2007, http://
www.orlandosentinel.com/features/health/orl-
stemcell2807jan28,0,2065178.story?coll=orl-dp-classifieds
``Stem cells from fat transplanted into heart,'' MSNBC
(Reuters), February 6, 2007, www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17007196/
print/1/displaymode/1098/
``Heart patients head to Bangkok for life-saving stem cell
treatment,'' Vescell Web Site, February 13, 2007, http://
www.vescell.com/stem-cell-news/88
``M.D. Anderson moves forward in heart repair research,''
Houston Business Journal, February 15, 2007, http://
masshightech.bizjournals.com/masshightech/othercities/
houston/stories/2007/02/12/daily66.html?t=printable
`` `Sticky' Proteins Fuse Adult Stem Cells to Cardiac
Muscle, Repairing Hearts,'' Newswise, February 15, 2007,
www.newswise.com/p/articles/view/527347
``FDA Approves Phase 1 Stem Cell Research Therapy for
Congestive Heart Failure,'' PRLog--Online Press Release
Service, March 25, 2007, www.prlog.org/10011668-
fdaapprovesphase-l-stem-cell-research-therapy-for-congestive-
heart-failure.html
``Osiris' Adult Stem Cells Help Heart Attack Patients in
Study,'' Bloomberg News Service, March 25, 2007, http://
quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news? pid=20670001&refer
=&sid=a_YZBRXSFiKs
``British team grows human heart valve from stem cells,''
The Guardian (UK), April 2, 2007, www.guardian.co.uk/print/
0,, 329765220-110418,00.html
``Valley cardiologist develops technique to repair tissue
in heart attack patients,'' The Arizona Republic, April 13,
2007, http://www.azcentral.com/community/chandler/articles/
0413 heart04l3.html
``Stem Cell Trial Involves Austin Heart Patients,'' CBS
Broadcasting (Austin, TX), May 9, 2007, http://keyetv.com/
topstories/local_story_129184435.html
``Turning gene `on' helped mice fix broken hearts,''
Reuters, May 10, 2007, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18602323/
IMMUNE SYSTEM (Multiple sclerosis, lupus, etc.)
``Stem Cell Treatment Eliminates Lupus,'' ABC7/KGO-TV/DT
(San Francisco), June 5, 2006, http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/
story?section=edell&id=4238935&ft=print
``Adult stem cells in the treatment of autoimmune
diseases,'' Rheumatology, October, 2006, http://
rheumatology.oxford journals.org/cgi/content/abstract/45/10/
1187
``Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in autoimmune
diseases: the ahmedabad experience,'' Transplant Proceedings,
April 2007, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/
query.fcgi?tmpl=NoSidebarfile&db=PubMed
&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=17445577 &dopt=Abstract
``Cellerant Therapeutics Reversed Autoimmune Disease in
Lupus Mice with Transplant of Purified Donor Blood Stem
Cells,'' Business Wire, April 23, 2007, http://
home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/
index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsld
20070423005730&newsLang=en
``Stem cell treatment may ease MS suffering,'' Irish Times,
May 1, 2007, http://www.therapeuticsdaily.com/news/
article.cfm?contentValue=1339640 &content
Type=sentryarticle&channelID=29
KIDNEY/LIVER
``Isolation and Characterization of Multipotent Progenitor
Cells from the Bowman's Capsule of Adult Human Kidneys,''
Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, August 2,
2006, http://jasn.asnjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/17/
9/2443?maxtoshow= &HITS=10&hits= 10&RESULTFORMAT= &author1=
Sagrinati%2C+C& fulltext= kidneys&searchid= 1&FIRSTINDEX=
0&sortspec= relevance&volume= 17&firstpage=
2443&resourcetvpe=HWCIT
``British scientists grow human liver in a laboratory,''
Daily Mail (United Kingdom), Oct. 30, 2006,
www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/text/print.html?in_ article_id=
413551&in_page_ id=1770
``Stem Cells Speed Growth of Healthy Liver Tissue,''
ScienceDaily, March 28, 2007, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/
2007/03/070327094518.htm
MUSCULAR DYSTROPHYI/MUSCLE REPAIR
``Mesoangioblast stem cells ameliorate muscle function in
dystrophic dogs,'' Nature, November 15, 2006,
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ entrez/query. fcgi?db=pubmed&list
_uids= 17108972&cmd= Retrieve&indexed=google
``Human adult stem cells regenerate muscle,'' United Press
International, February 15, 2007, www.upi.com/NewsTrack/
Science/20070215-024231-4646r/
``Stem cells used to treat incontinence,'' USA Today, May
21, 2007, www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-05-21-muscle-
cells_N.htm
``Injection of Autologous Muscle Stem Cells (Myoblasts) for
the Treatment of Vocal Fold Paralysis: A Pilot Study,'' The
Laryngoscope, May 2007, http://www.laryngoscope.com/pt/re/
laryngoscope/abstract.00005537-200705000-00032.htm;
jsessionid=Gk2ZpbCi2n JYB9pHPRwtvPQL QdXQyrxvBh2nRJt 2yz4LQn
R0rVDX!- 879589638!- 949856144!8091!-1
``Muscle-Building Stem Cells Point To Regenerative
Therapies For Muscular Disease,'' Stem Cell Research News,
May 31, 2007, http://www.stemcellresearchnews.com/
absolutenm/anmviewer.asp?a=673&z=5
PARKINSON'S DISEASE
``Stem Cell Treatment Proven to Reduce Parkinson's
Symptoms,'' Medical News Today, October 25,2006,
www.medicalnewstoday.com/ printerfriendlynews. php?newsid=
54956
``Generation of Functional Dopamine Neurons from Neural
Precursor Cells Isolated from the Subventricular Zone and
White Matter of the Adult Rat Brain Using Nurrl
Overexpressibn,'' Stem Cells, May 2007, http://stemcells.
alphamedpress.org/cgi/content/ short/25/5/1252
SPINAL CORD
``Olfactory Mucosa Autografts in Human Spinal Cord Injury:
A Pilot Clinical Study,'' Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine,
2006, www.apssci.org/ pdf/olfactory. pdf
``Bone marrow stromal cells can achieve cure of chronic
paraplegic rats: Functional and morphological outcome one
year after transplantation,'' Science Direct, July 10, 2006,
www.sciencedirectcom/science?_ob= ArticleURL&_ udi= B6T0G-
4K0FJWC-2&_ user= 10&_ coverDate= 07%2F10%2F2006& _alid=
469379479&_ rdoc= l&_fmt= summary&_orig= search&_cdi=
4862&_sort=d &_ docanchor= &view=c&_ acct= C000050221&_
version1&_url Version= 0&_ userid= 10&md5=
203dead71214575a7c9c0ff0390ae8c9
``Pioneering steps for spine treatment,'' Atlanta Business
Chronicle, October 23, 2006, http://atlanta.bizjournals.com/
atlanta/stories/2006/10/23/story6.html
``The use of hemopoietic stem cells derived from human
umbilical cord blood to promote restoration of spinal cord
tissue and recovery of hindlimb function in adult rats,''
Journal of Neurosurgery, Spine (JNAS), November 2006,
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/
query.fcgi?tmpl=NoSidebarfile&db= PubMed&cmd=
Retrieve&list_uids=17120892&dopt=Abstract
``Man walks, courtesy stem cell therapy,'' The Tribune
(India), February 25, 2007, www.tribuneindia.com/2007/
20070226/main7.htm
``Neuralstem's Cells Restore Motor Function In Spinal
Ischemia-Paralyzed Rats,'' Medical News Today, May 31, 2007,
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=72613
WOUNDS/BURNS
``Adult Stem Cells Can Reduce the Side Effects of Radiation
Therapy,'' FreeRepublic.com (Fresno, CA), October 9, 2006,
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1716594/posts
``IU doctors treating PAD with stem cells,'' South Bend
Tribune (Indiana), December 13, 2006,
www.southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/
20061213/Lives08/612130449/-1/LIVES05/CAT=Lives08
``Aldagen Announces Texas Heart Institute as First Site in
its Stem Cell Clinical Trial to Treat Critical Limb
Ischemia,'' Medical News Today, December 16, 2006,
www.medicalnewstoday.com/
printerfriendlynews.php?newsid=59182
``Amatokin(R), the Controversial `Stem Cell' Mystery
Wrinkle Cream Comes to America,'' Business Wire, April 10,
2007, http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/070410/
20070410005130.html?.v=1
``Nonmyeloablative Stem Cell Therapy Enhances
Microcirculation and Tissue Regeneration in Murine
Inflammatory Bowel Disease,'' Gastroenterology, March 2007,
http://www.gastrojournal.org/article/PIIS0016508506026795/
abstract
``Baldness breakthrough: Stem cells coaxed into growing
hair,'' (London) Daily Mail, May 16, 2007,
www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/
technology.html? in_article_id =455382&in_page_id=1965
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), a true hero
on this issue.
(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of the Stem
Cell Research Enhancement Act and to be a part of a Congress that has
made this a top priority.
I particularly want to recognize the great work of Congresswoman
DeGette, the gentlewoman from Colorado, for her outstanding leadership
in this issue, and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for his
leadership as well.
This legislation, Mr. Speaker, has strong bipartisan support in both
Chambers of Congress. It enjoys the support of up to 70 percent of the
American people, and this legislation, stem cell research, offers hope
and the promise of a cure to millions of people around the world who
are struggling with some of life's most challenging chronic conditions
and diseases and disabilities.
Mr. Speaker, I became paralyzed almost 27 years ago as a young police
cadet, standing in a locker room when a police officer's gun
accidentally discharged, the bullet going into my neck and severing my
spinal cord.
It's been an incredible journey and, at times, a difficult one. I was
told
[[Page H6131]]
back then that I would never walk again, but I have hope and faith, and
I've always believed that somehow, through the miracle of science and
research, that some day they would find a cure for spinal cord
injuries. That day, that hope of a cure, has never been more real than
it is today because of stem cell research.
Now, I recognize, though, this isn't just about Jim Langevin or
people suffering from spinal cord injuries. This is also about the
millions of other people across America and throughout the world who
are suffering from diseases, such as Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's,
juvenile diabetes, cancer and so many others, that could potentially be
helped by stem cell research.
Now, I have to be the first to admit that my understanding of stem
cell research has evolved and involved ongoing education, thought and
prayer. In fact, unlike many of my colleagues who support the stem cell
research bill before us, I'm opposed to abortion. The fact that my life
hung by a thread, I'm reminded every day how precious a gift life truly
is.
But I'm committed to the protection of life at all stages, and I've
not taken my decision to support this legislation lightly.
Over the years, I had the good fortune to learn about stem cell
research from some of America's renowned scientists, pro-life leaders
like Senator Orrin Hatch and also a dear friend who is certainly on my
mind today, Christopher Reeve. So many people have helped me to come to
the position to support this research, again because of the hope that
it offers.
Now, in addition to all of these reasons, I believe that this
legislation is vitally important because it provides appropriate
safeguards for those that are in S. 5 so it can be done ethically and
responsibly.
This offers great hope, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to recognize the gentleman
from Highland Park, Illinois (Mr. Kirk) for 2 minutes.
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this stem cell research
bill because, in my judgment, we should support several key principles:
number one, that America should always lead with regard to medical
research; number two, that doctors and scientists should guide medical
cures; and number three, that hope for patients facing cancer or
diabetes or Alzheimer's should be our top priority.
American leadership, doctors in charge, new hope for patients, oh,
and bipartisan cooperation to make each of these ideals a reality,
that's why we should support this bill.
In my home State of Illinois, our researchers and doctors are forging
ahead like Dr. John Kessler, one of the leading researchers in the
field of embryonic stem cell research at Northwestern University, who
said ``stem cell biology promises to revolutionize the practice of
medicine.''
I've also met with Dr. Daniel Peterson, an associate professor of
neuroscience at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science in
north Chicago, working on a project where stem cells are used for
structural brain repair, a critical treatment for soldiers suffering
from post-traumatic stress that offers new hope for veterans.
Or even a reference to today's Chicago Tribune, which talked about
Dr. Richard Burt of Northwestern University and his work on stem cell
research which could offer a cure for Type I diabetes.
Bringing hope to these patients and making sure the United States is
in the lead and making sure that doctors are guiding this research and
cures, not politicians, that's why we should pass this bill, and that's
why I strongly support it.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague on the
Energy and Commerce Committee for yielding to me.
I want to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague from
Illinois (Mr. Kirk). That's why I'm here today. We have another
opportunity today, Mr. Speaker, to give real hope to millions of
Americans suffering from incurable diseases.
These are our constituents, our family members and our friends who
cannot afford to wait much longer while this administration stubbornly
refuses to accept the people's will.
Poll after poll shows that between 60 and 70 percent of the American
people support the expansion of embryonic stem cell research to
discover more effective cures and treatment for the diseases that
plague our times--juvenile diabetes, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, just
to name a few.
Every religion in the world teaches us to do all we can to ease the
burden of human suffering.
The administration's current stem cell policy flies in the face of
that shared goal and shuts the door of hope to too many Americans
awaiting a cure.
I know a majority of my colleagues agree with me, and I hope the
President hears us loud and clear and will finally respond to the
Congress's, and the American people's, desire for expanded embryonic
stem cell research.
Last week I saw what happens in research at the University of Texas
Health Sciences Center. The private research is in one lab, and the NIH
research is in a separate lab, duplicating facilities. What a waste of
our scientific dollars, whether it comes from the taxpayers or from the
individual and foundations. What a waste to have to do this, duplicate
two labs, to be able to do this research.
And, Mr. Speaker, we know people, not just my colleague from Rhode
Island, but I know a young lady 26 years old who had her spinal cord
severed. Her only hope is embryonic stem cell research, and I'm glad to
hear our colleague from Rhode Island talk about his experience. And he
gives hope to this young lady who has no hope right now, except
hopefully she'll be able to move her fingers.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from the Golden State of California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren),
the former Attorney General of California.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the
gentleman for yielding.
Let's understand some first principles. Human dignity is not reserved
for adult human beings. The premise of human rights protections is that
they are not contingent on arbitrary criteria such as size or location.
Ethical considerations must be weighed in light of the advances being
made using adult stem cells, including those derived from cord blood.
As has been mentioned, those advances are substantiated by peer review
studies confirming improvement in many types of cancers, cerebral
palsy, sickle cell anemia, paralyzing injuries, autoimmune diseases,
metabolic disorders, neural degenerative diseases and heart damage.
This is consistent with the second principle of the Nuremberg Code,
the directives for experimental human subject research, which are
published at the Web site of NIH.
The principle reads simply, ``The experiment should be as to yield
fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods
or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.''
Or as President Clinton's National Bioethics Advisory Commission
said, ``In our judgment, the derivation of stem cells from embryos
remaining following infertility treatments is justifiable only if no
less morally problematic alternatives are available for advancing
research.''
Well, we know they are. We talked about, before the House debating
the bill earlier this year, the study published in Nature Biotechnology
Journal, finding that amniotic fluids contain cells that can be cloned
to produce stem cells to behave like embryonic stem cells.
We had today's article referring to the Nature Journal, publishing a
study, showing that normal skin cells can be reprogrammed into an
embryonic state in mice.
Instead of embracing this, we hear from the gentlewoman from
Colorado, her words, shockingly, another scientific result reported
yesterday. They seem to always come up whenever we're debating the
bill. They are because that's what science is doing.
Vote this bill down.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to recognize the gentleman
[[Page H6132]]
from Lubbock, Texas, home of the Texas Tech Red Raiders (Mr.
Neugebauer) for 1 minute.
(Mr. NEUGEBAUER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, you're going to hear a lot of
perspectives today, but I wanted to give you a perspective from my
friend James Clark. James wrote me this letter about stem cell
research.
``In October 2004, I was involved in a car crash which has left me
paralyzed from the waist down . . . Given the current technology and my
condition, there is no hope of full recovery.''
James goes on to say, ``I fully support ethical forms of stem cell
research. I believe, based on news accounts, that stem cells could be
the key to a full recovery for me. To walk again and regain complete
independence,'' would be, ``a joyous day for me and my family. I can
only imagine how many American people would also benefit.
``But, Congressman, I believe there is a very dark side to stem cell
research. There are those who believe stem cells should be taken from
living embryos. In my opinion, the killing of an embryo for the harvest
of stem cells is exactly the same as killing another human being. Under
no circumstances do I wish to benefit from the stem cells that result
from the harming or killing of a human embryo. No thanks, I'll stay in
this wheelchair.''
Clearly, James has a lot to gain from scientific breakthroughs in
stem cell research. Let's spend our money where we can get
breakthroughs. Let's continue adult stem cells.
So let's focus taxpayer dollars on research that has shown promise.
Adult stem cell research, and other research that doesn't lead to the
destruction of human life, have produced more than 70 treatments.
On the other hand, stem cell research on embryos has produced ZERO
treatments or cures that could help James walk again.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill so that we can focus our
resources on ethical and promising adult stem cell research that could
help my good friend James get rid of his wheelchair.
Vote ``no'' on this bill.
Congressman Neugebauer, Thank you for letting me share my
concerns with you about a matter of great importance to
millions of Americans. The Congress debates again the issue
of stem cell research for which history, generations of
Americans to come, and God himself will judge us. For so very
many reasons it is important that we get this issue right.
In October 2004 I was involved a car crash, which has left
me paralyzed from the waist down. Further complicating any
hope of recovery, I suffer a rare form of spinal cord injury
resulting from anoxia or loss of blood flow to the spinal
cord. Given the current technology and my condition there is
no hope of full recovery.
Other people suffer conditions far worse than mine but just
to establish my background let me share with you the
following: I cannot use my legs, nor can I feel them. I
suffer DVT's (blood clots in the veins) from the lack of
mobility, lack of circulation and fragility of my legs. A DVT
can lead to stroke or death. I cannot go to the bathroom in
the normal way. I must have the assistance of catheters and
at least once a day the help of another person.
I suffer constant back pain. It's rather mild but it also
never quits. About once every two months I suffer a serious
infection of one sort or another. Sometimes it's an infection
under a toenail or sometimes it's a urinary tract infection.
One such infection was so bad and developed so quickly I was
taken to the emergency room and then hospitalized for almost
a week.
The single most painful aspect of my condition is the
embarrassment and humiliation of not having bowel and bladder
control when it leads to an accident in public. There are not
words that can describe the sense of absolute shame when this
happens and I have to be extraordinarily careful when going
to public places. Even the best-laid plans for an accident-
free public outing are not always successful.
On the whole I would have to say I'm pretty happy. I have a
lovely wife, two beautiful children, parents and extended
family who love me deeply. I have been blessed.
I fully support ethical forms of stem cell research. I
believe based on news accounts that stem cells could be the
key to a full recovery for me. To walk, to regain complete
independence, to retake my former strength and good health; I
can't tell you how joyous that would be for me and for my
family. I can only imagine how many millions of Americans
would also benefit.
But, Congressman, I believe there is a very dark side to
stem cell research. There are those who believe stem cells
should be taken from living embryos. In my opinion the
killing of an embryo for the harvest of stem cells is exactly
the same as killing another human being. Under no
circumstances do I wish to benefit from the stem cells that
result from the harming or killing of a human embryo. No
thanks, I'll stay in this wheelchair.
There are those who believe stem cells should be taken from
aborted embryos. After all they're just going to be discarded
anyway. To me that's like saying, well the Nazis did
experiments on some of the 6 million Jews. Can't we use their
notes and their lab materials to advance scientific and
medical knowledge? No, as a matter we cannot do so with a
clear conscience.
Nor can we with a clear conscience use embryonic stem cells
resulting from the harm or death of a human embryo.
I have no opposition to the use of embryonic stem cells,
which are collected in such a way as to cause no harm to an
unborn baby (which includes a human embryo or a human fetus).
I also have no opposition to the use of adult stem cells.
I fully support ethical research and I know you do too.
Thank you for this opportunity to be heard on the record,
Congressman Neugebauer. You have been a great friend to the
sanctity of human life and for that we all owe you a debt of
gratitude.
James Clark.
{time} 1230
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, the only thing shocking about these recent
scientific discoveries is they seem to be always revealed right at the
same week that we do our embryonic stem cell bill on the floor.
Mr. Speaker, with that, I will be pleased to yield 2 minutes to our
distinguished caucus Chair, Mr. Emanuel, from Illinois.
Mr. EMANUEL. I would like to thank my colleague from Colorado. It is
interesting she said that. I would like to speak slightly out of order
from my prepared text.
The last time we debated stem cell research back in November of 2006,
exactly that time there was another discovery about human amniotic
fluid basically giving us the fact that we don't need stem cell
research.
Past that, and you go back to the period of time in 2005 when we
voted on this, the South Korean example was discovered exactly that
same day we had that vote.
I used to, growing up, I used to say paranoid people have enemies,
too. It is ironic that every time we vote on this legislation, all of a
sudden there is a major scientific discovery that basically says you
don't have to do stem cell research. The truth is, you don't base your
research on one report in a medical journal. You provide leadership.
If you go back to the 1950s, we had a polio epidemic in this country
that was killing thousands of people, leaving people terminally
paralyzed. With funding from Washington, we found a cure for polio.
Politics did not lead the way, medical research led the way, and
America led its leadership there. That type of leadership needs to be
provided for illnesses of Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease and other
work where we should allow the scientific research and the promise of
stem cell research to move forward, rather than allow politics to
dictate what we do here.
This is one of those promising areas where, regardless of philosophy
or ideology, rather, or party affiliation, when you look at diabetes,
Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, it affects every family, every
community, individuals across this country. There is a promise here, a
right way to do it. We can provide the leadership here for our medical
research, define illnesses and cures to disease that not only affect
our budget, our country, but our capacity to lead in the scientific
field in this area.
I would like to thank my colleague, and this Nation should support
this legislation. I look forward to finally getting this on the
President's desk.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished congresswoman from Cincinnati, Ohio, Congresswoman
Schmidt.
Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition of Senate bill 5.
This Nation is divided on this issue. Many people believe our tax
dollars should not be used when the compromising of a human life is
involved. Many people believe embryonic stem cells kill a human life.
The research on embryonic stem cells has not lived up to the hope and
promise of its supporters. Other forms have, and these do not
compromise a human life. They include cord blood and embryonic fluid,
adult stem cells, and just as reported in today's Christian
[[Page H6133]]
Science Monitor, artificial stem cells from mice.
Let's use the public's tax dollars in a way that does not compromise
our human values. Let's vote ``no'' on Senate bill 5.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Connecticut, another leader on this issue,
both in the State House and Congress, Mr. Murphy.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.
Two years ago, as Congresswoman DeGette noted, I was honored to write
and pass one of the Nation's first stem cell investment acts,
Connecticut's $100 million investment in stem cell research. But I
decided to seek a seat in this body because our action in Connecticut
was ultimately hamstrung by inaction here in Washington, despite public
cries for our Federal Government to invest in stem cell research. We
could not, in large part not because of the will of this House but
because of the will of the President.
What should not be in doubt here today is the promise that this
legislation holds. Although new discoveries occur every day, including
just yesterday expanding the potential of stem cell research, make no
mistake, political lines drawn by this political body about what kind
of research will be allowed and will not be allowed will frustrate
science and postpone cures. That's why every major medical, science and
scientific professional association, as well as major research
universities and institutions and affected patient advocacy
organizations support the passage of this bill.
Senator Orrin Hatch from Utah, who has always been a faithful ally of
the pro-life community, said that being pro-life is more than just
caring for the unborns. It's about caring for the living as well. I
couldn't agree more, when we talk about the sanctity of human life, and
we all believe that human life is sacred.
We too often neglect the things that we can do to protect and extend
the lives of our friends and loved ones who suffer from terminal and
debilitating diseases. This bill, perhaps more than anything, is about
extending and preserving life. That's a value that we all share.
One hundred million Americans are affected by some kind of life-
threatening disease. Somewhere in this vast universe, a cure for their
disease exists. I know it. We all know it. Let's stop putting up man-
made barriers to finding that cure, a cure for our loved ones.
I stand in strong support of this bill. I commend Ms. DeGette for her
long-awaited advocacy for this issue.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of
the Energy and Commerce Committee from the Keystone State of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Joe Pitts.
Mr. PITTS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, another day, another vote on legislation that has no
chance of becoming law. Everyone on this floor understands that this
bill is destined to be vetoed, and we will sustain that veto if and
when the time comes.
But, if nothing else, today's debate is at least an opportunity to
educate people on the truth about stem cell research. Supporters of
embryo-destroying stem cell research would have you believe that
embryonic stem cell research is the only way to go. That just is not
true. Not only are there ethical alternatives using adult stem cells
but these ethical alternatives are proving to be more effective than
the embryo-destroying methods promoted by the bill.
Adult stem cells can be derived from numerous places, including nasal
tissue, bone marrow, fatty tissue, umbilical cord blood, even amniotic
fluid. These adult stem cells have already produced dozens of
laboratory successes and even a handful of FDA-approved therapies for
humans. Meanwhile, embryonic stem cell research has yet to produce a
single treatment or cure in humans.
You will hear a lot of talk on the other side about how we oppose
stem cell research. That's simply not true. I am a supporter of stem
cell research. I support the research that actually works, the kind
that treats human embryos properly, not like laboratory rats. I support
the kind of respect for human life at all stages of development. The
kind of stem cell research that I support is adult stem cell research.
There is another thing worth clarifying in the debate. The bill under
consideration today is not about legalizing embryonic stem cell
research. It's already legal. It can be performed in America by anyone
who wants to.
The bill we vote on today is about who is going to pay for it. This
bill would have millions of Americans pay for a destructive research
that they have fundamental moral objections to.
This bill is flawed. It was flawed the last time we voted on it. It's
still flawed today.
I urge all of my colleagues to oppose it.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire as to the time remaining on
each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Ten minutes.
Ms. DeGETTE. And on the other side, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Fifteen minutes.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the former Governor of
the first State of our great Nation, the State of Delaware, to the
Republican sponsor of this legislation, Mr. Castle.
Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding and for all
his work on the this issue. I also obviously thank my coauthor and good
friend on this, Diana DeGette, for her tremendous work on it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise, obviously, in strong support of the Stem Cell
Research Enhancement Act, which ethically expands the current Federal
embryonic stem cell research policy.
I think we should make a note, this is a Senate bill we are dealing
with now. It's changed from our House bill. While we considered similar
legislation before, and we have referred to it, this bill has since
been expanded to develop methods of deriving stem cells without
destroying a human embryo. That's an addition to what we have
considered before.
With this bill we have a real opportunity to make history, to jump-
start research, which may lead to treatments and cures for countless
diseases, including diabetes, HIV/AIDS, Parkinson's disease,
Alzheimer's, ALS, multiple sclerosis and cancer.
There are a number of things being stated here that I consider to be
myths, and I would like to try to correct some of these in the brief
time that I have.
First, this bill does not expand Federal funding and, in fact, does
not contain any funds whatsoever. The expansion in the bill refers to
the source of the embryos and the quality of stem cell lines. These
stem cells would be developed from embryos that come from IVF clinics,
which receive no Federal funding. There would be no Federal funding
involved in that whatsoever.
Second, it is important to understand that we are only talking about
research on embryos that would otherwise be thrown away as medical
waste.
That is a decision which is made by those who created the embryo and
whoever was running the IVF clinic before the subject of using them for
research was ever brought up. So you are dealing solely with embryos on
which the decision has been made to have them eliminated as medical
waste, because, simply, they don't want to continue to pay for the
storage of the embryo or whatever it may be. So anyone who refers to it
as killing needs to understand that's going to happen anyhow. That's a
decision that's been made. No stem cell would ever be taken from an
embryo that was not destined to be destroyed in any event.
Third, the bill specifically states the embryos must be created for
purposes of fertility treatment, and no money may have exchanged hands.
We think there should be a greater ethical process in all of this, and
all of that is spelled out very carefully in this particular
legislation.
Fourth, as to the recent announcement of returning mature cells,
perhaps, in the skin to an embryonic state which we have been reading
about in the last day or two with respect to mice, we need to point out
a couple of things: One, that's mice, not human beings; and there is a
vast difference. Another interesting point is that these
[[Page H6134]]
would not be eligible for Federal research dollars because they were
derived after August 9, 2001.
Fifth is this whole issue of pluripotency and what could be done
here. There is the constant argument here that adult stem cells have
actually been able to resolve some problems. I am all for that. I am
100 percent for all the medical research which goes on. That's what
this is all about.
I believe the embryonic stem cells can extend beyond that. I believe
the pluripotency of embryonic stem cells, which is supported by so many
scientists in this country, is what can make a difference. You don't
see that in the others. I would encourage everybody to follow the
medical and scientific institutions who are in support of this.
Just finishing the point with respect to the pluripotency, nothing
has been stated with respect to the embryonic and umbilical stem cells,
that they do have the same pluripotency, as do to embryonic stem cells,
which can develop into any cell as far as your body is concerned.
There are approximately 500 medical and scientific universities
throughout the country, and various other individuals and groups,
Michael J. Fox and others, who support the stem cell research and ask
us to vote in favor of lifting restrictions on potentially lifesaving
medical research.
I would encourage a ``no'' vote on any motion to recommit to
restructure the legislation and a ``yes'' vote on the underlying
legislation.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am now very pleased to yield 2 minutes to
another distinguished leader on this issue, the distinguished gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).
Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of S. 5, the
stem cell research act that we have gotten from the Senate.
This bill, first, I want to say, sets strong ethical standards to be
followed that don't exist today. As the gentleman from Delaware stated,
these embryos can't be created just for the purposes of research. They
can only be produced for the purpose of reproduction and that are
unused, that would otherwise be discarded as medical waste. They can
only be donated, not sold, and only by the written consent of those
involved.
Those are strong ethical standards that don't exist today. We need
them to continue this research in an ethical way.
This stem cell research holds real promise to cures of so many
diseases. But to unlock the full potential of this research, we must
remove the artificial barriers that President Bush put in place to this
research and to support the hopes of millions of Americans who work
every day to survive under the burden of a life-altering diagnosis.
Nearly every family in this country has been touched. My own family,
I had a cousin, Betty, who suffered and succumbed to MS. My grandmother
and sister have suffered from cancer. In my State of Missouri, we took
the extraordinary step in 2006 to vote to amend our State constitution
to include protections for research and add strong ethical standards
for it.
I also became involved in this debate because of the extraordinary
men and women from my State, such as advocates like Bernie Frank of St.
Louis, attorney and coordinator for the Parkinson's Action Network. He
was diagnosed with Parkinson's 13 years ago but has been a fearless
advocate. Advocates like Dr. Thy Huskey, assistant professor at the
Washington University School of Medicine, she lives with this disease;
and we want to continue to support this.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire on the time
remaining on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. You have 12 minutes. Eight minutes to the
gentlelady; twelve minutes to the gentleman from Texas.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to
the distinguished Congressman from Melbourne, Florida, which is known
as the Space Coast and home of Cape Kennedy, Mr. Weldon.
{time} 1245
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to
the bill as a physician who practiced medicine for many years prior to
coming to the House. And, indeed, I still see patients once a month at
the VA clinic in my district.
I always considered it very, very important not only to help my
patients with illness but as well to give them hope and to give them
real hope and not false hope. And one of the things I've always been
concerned about in this debate for the last 7 or 8 years since we've
been conducting this debate is that the advocates for more funding,
Federal funding, for embryonic stem cell research; and we are funding
embryonic stem cell research, we're just not funding more research that
involves destruction of human embryos; have been contending, the
advocates of this have been contending for years that this has the
greatest potential. And in reality, there are no phase 1 clinical
trials with embryonic stem cell research. There are no phase 2 clinical
trials. There are no phase 3 clinical trials. Embryonic stem cells have
never moved beyond animal research because embryonic stem cells have
never been shown to be safe.
Embryonic stem cells form tumors when you put them in animals,
whereas adult stem cells, cord blood stem cells, not only have been
shown to be safe, but they're in phase 1, phase 2 and phase 3 clinical
trials. They are in clinical trials in heart disease, I think about 28
clinical trials, FDA-approved clinical trials. They're in clinical
trials on treating a whole host of blood-borne diseases. And just very
recently we saw published research, amazing research in phase 1
diabetes, juvenile diabetes research.
Indeed, I've been saying for years that medical science is going to
move beyond this debate. And we saw a preview of that today published,
that skin cells can be converted, possibly, back to forming embryonic-
like cells. Science is going to move beyond this discussion. I don't
think, being that millions of Americans believe in the sanctity of
human life, that we should be funding research involving the
destruction of human life.
Ms. DeGETTE. I'll continue to reserve, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished Congressman from the Peach State of Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to S. 5,
the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. And I do so, not because I
oppose embryonic stem cell research, but because, as an OB/GYN
physician, I oppose federally funded embryonic stem cell research that
destroys human life. And the truth of the matter is, I am not alone in
this belief, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I'm joined by nearly half the
American public. Let me say that again: Nearly half of the American
public opposes using taxpayers' dollars to fund embryonic stem cell
research when a human embryo is destroyed in the process.
Now, I know that the supporters of this bill claim an overwhelming
majority of Americans wholeheartedly endorse their bill. However, when
these same Americans are asked specifically whether or not they would
like the Federal Government to fund research that destroys a human
embryo, the survey results refute that claim. In fact, over 60 percent,
Mr. Speaker, of Americans do not support their money going towards
destructive embryonic stem cell research.
Mr. Speaker, it's not the job of Congress to force the American
taxpayers to fund research that they morally oppose. Rather, this body
is charged with the awesome responsibility of being good stewards of
the taxpayer dollar by supporting research that upholds the values of
our society. And I want to remind my colleagues and the American
people, today that is the question we're debating. We are debating
whether or not American taxpayers should be forced to pay for research
that destroys human life. Contrary to what we're hearing today, we are
not debating whether or not embryonic stem cell research is legal in
this country; because not only is it completely legal, but it is also
well funded in both the private and public sectors. In fact, Mr.
Speaker, between State governments and private sector, nearly $4
billion has been committed to embryonic stem cell research over the
next 10 years.
So, Mr. Speaker, as a society that has always valued and protected
the
[[Page H6135]]
fragility of human life, we must reject this misguided attempt to force
the American people into paying for something with which they
fundamentally disagree. And I encourage my colleagues, oppose this
bill.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, if you did the math, 64 percent support
embryonic stem cell research, so that's well in excess of a majority.
I am now pleased to recognize another leader, both at the State level
and Federal level, in this, Mr. Mitchell from Arizona, for 1\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congresswoman DeGette for
her leadership in this area.
Congress rarely gets an opportunity to do what it can do today, offer
hope to millions of Americans who suffer from diseases such as
Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Lou Gehrig's and Huntington's disease.
As I have said many times, I believe the best way we can honor life
is by investing in science and ethical research.
A growing majority of the American people, including my constituents
in Arizona's Fifth Congressional District believe this is an investment
that we should make, and they were proud when, last January, 253
Members of the House voted to support the Stem Cell Research
Enhancement Act.
The American people support this research because they 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. They know we're already seeing progress in
this field.
Just last month, scientists used embryonic stem cells to create
insulin-producing cells that could one day lead to a cure for diabetes.
Just imagine what we could do with a more serious commitment to stem
cell research. The American people are watching us today, and the
millions of Americans who could be helped by passing this legislation
are depending on us today. Let us do the right thing and pass this
legislation.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Lincoln, Nebraska, home of the world
famous Nebraska Cornhuskers, Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I support stem cell research. I support
stem cell research using umbilical cord blood cells, adult stem cell
sources, amniotic fluid stem cells and now, as we have learned, a new
source of stem cells, skin cells, all stem cell sources that are
showing real medical process and avoid the ethically divisive issue of
the destruction of unborn human embryos, unborn human persons.
Mr. Speaker, let's do what's right. Let's use our scarce resources
for what makes sense and not force taxpayers to pay for questionable
research that offends the sensibilities of so many Americans and has
yet to show any real therapeutic productivity.
Research using adult stem cells, including umbilical cord blood and
bone marrow sources has shown great promise and provided real clinical
benefits to numerous patients suffering from approximately 72 diseases.
Adult stem cells are providing genuine evidence-based hope for the
potential cures for the ravages of Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries
and even diabetes. We also know now that stem cells derived from
amniotic fluid have allowed researchers in Europe to begin growing
heart valves for pre-born infants diagnosed in utero with heart
disease. Unlike embryonic stem cells, adult and amniotic sources have
not been shown to form tumors in laboratory animals.
Mr. Speaker, all of these facts beg a central question: Why are we
even considering expanding the use of Federal dollars to fund the
ethically divisive and currently unproductive practice of embryonic
stem cell research when so many viable and proven alternatives exist?
It's not fair. It's not fair to those who are suffering from the
ravages of disease. Why would we be willing in Congress to trade false
hope for real hope?
We should oppose this measure. And I believe we should invest in
proven stem cell research.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield to the very
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare) 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. HARE. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank my colleague and friend,
Congresswoman DeGette, for introducing the Stem Cell Research
Enhancement Act and for her leadership on this important issue.
As many of you know, I came to this Congress with a bittersweet
victory. And although I'm deeply honored to be a new Member of this
House and represent the 17th Congressional District of Illinois, part
of me is sad that my friend and my mentor, Congressman Lane Evans, is
not here in my place. Lane served as a distinguished Member of this
body for over 24 years until Parkinson's forced him to retire at the
end of the 109th Congress, cutting his exceptional service short. Lane
is just one of millions of Americans struggling with chronic illnesses
that are curable with the advancement of stem cell research.
Spencer House, the son of my very good friend, Doug House, suffers
from juvenile diabetes and must take four insulin shots each and every
day. But Doug is encouraged with the hope that embryonic stem cell
research will some day offer his son a more normal life. And he's not
alone. Poll after poll shows that a majority of Americans support
ethical embryonic stem cell research as a way to prevent others from
having to live with illnesses like Parkinson's disease, cancer,
Alzheimer's and spinal cord injuries.
Mr. Speaker, today we decide whether to give the American people hope
or to continue to prolong the suffering of those who struggle with
curable chronic diseases. It's time to put the people above politics by
providing millions of Americans with the hope of a better day, and we
will do that this day by passing this important legislation.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr. Jeb Hensarling, who is a
graduate of that great university in our home State, Texas A&M, the
fighting Texas Aggies.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I certainly understand the passion
behind this debate, for I, too, have friends and loved ones who have
been stricken with debilitating diseases who are longing for hope.
But in listening to the debate, Mr. Speaker, I fear not one in 100
understand what it is truly about. This is not a debate on whether stem
cell research is legal in America. It is. It's not even a debate on
whether or not embryonic stem cell research is legal in America. It is.
It is not even a debate on whether the Federal Government will be
permitted to fund embryonic stem cell research. It does, to the tune of
roughly $40 million a year.
What this debate is about, Mr. Speaker, is whether or not, going
forward, should taxpayer funds be used to destroy what many consider to
be human life for research purposes. And this is especially, especially
highlighted when we know that there are ethical alternatives and
promising alternatives, such as adult stem cells, umbilical blood cord,
amniotic fluid and, today, headlines, banner headlines all around the
Nation about the promise now of skin cells. Let's fund stem cell
research, but let's fund it ethically. And, Mr. Speaker, when this body
takes on such profound issues, let's always err on the side of life.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am now delighted to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady, and I congratulate
the gentlelady for the extraordinary work she has done, not just this
year but throughout the years on this very, very important issue which
offers hope for literally millions and millions of people, not just in
America but throughout the world.
Mr. Speaker, again, today the new majority in this House demonstrates
its commitment, its commitment to addressing the priorities of the
American people. As we consider this legislation, the Stem Cell
Research Enhancement Act of 2007, let us be clear: This bill, S. 5, has
widespread bipartisan support in Congress and certainly among the
American people. It passed the Senate in April by a vote of 63-34. And
it's nearly identical to legislation the House passed in January by a
bipartisan substantial margin of 253-174.
This legislation will pass again today. And thus the real question is
will the President heed the will of the
[[Page H6136]]
American people as expressed by bipartisan majorities in both Houses of
Congress and sign this bill.
{time} 1300
Or will the President continue to undermine the will of the American
people.
In short, Mr. Speaker, this legislation would increase the number of
embryonic stem cell lines eligible for federally funded research.
Current policy limits the use of Federal funds for research only to
those stem cell lines that existed when President Bush issued an
executive order of August 9, 2001, an executive order which
accommodated the research we are talking about but limited it.
This policy severely restricts the potential for lifesaving
breakthroughs because only 22 of those 78 stem cell lines are available
for research today; and the vast majority of those 22 lines are aged,
contaminated, or have been developed through obsolete methods.
It cannot be stressed enough: This legislation only authorizes
Federal research funds for stem cell lines generated from the embryos
that would otherwise be discarded by fertility clinics. Thus, this
legislation does not seek nor does it certainly intend to destroy life.
It seeks to preserve life.
Former Senate majority leader Dr. Bill Frist, who was once an
opponent of efforts like this one but now supports them, stated: ``I
strongly believe . . . that embryonic stem cells uniquely hold specific
promise for some therapies and potential cures that adult stem cells
cannot provide.'' That was Dr. Frist, the former Republican majority
leader of the United States Senate.
Mr. Speaker, we have, I think, a moral obligation to provide our
scientific community with the tools it needs to save lives, and this
legislation accomplishes that objective.
Supporters of this bill understand that there is a difficult issue
for many Americans and that it raises many questions that humanity has
yet to adequately answer, and 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.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this bill directs the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to conduct and support research on stem cells not
derived from human embryos.
The truth is, as demonstrated by Gallup polls taken since 2001, the
more Americans learn about the potential for stem cell research, the
more they support it. Just last month, 65 percent of Americans reported
that they supported expanding Federal funding for stem cell research.
This legislation represents the hope of millions of Americans who are
waiting for us to take action.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill, as they have
before. It is an opportunity. It is a chance. It is a hope for better
health and life for those whom we represent.
I urge the President to reconsider his veto when this bipartisan
piece of legislation reaches his desk, and I urge my colleagues to
support it.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purposes of making
a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Stearns).
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill.
Mr. Speaker, 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.
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.''
Proponents also claim that the U.S. is lagging behind the rest of the
world in embryonic stem cell research and that increased Federal
funding would close the gap. The fact is the United States leads the
world in embryonic stem cell research. A recent Nature Journal
publication states that U.S. scientists contributed 46 percent of all
stem cell publications since 1998. Germany comes far second,
representing 10 percent of studies, and the remaining 44 percent derive
from between 16 other countries.
I 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. In fact the Federal
Government has spent over $161 million 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. I urge my colleagues to vote against this
legislation and do no harm.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1\1/2\
minutes to another member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, from
Williamson County, Tennessee, Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, a close
personal friend of the Country Hall of Fame music legend Eddie Arnold.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding.
The distinguished majority leader just mentioned that it is a debate
about life, and, indeed, this is a debate about substance, Mr. Speaker,
and it is also a debate about life, clear and simple, and protecting
life. Because this bill would divert funds from promising leads of
adult stem cell research that have shown large benefits, even one of
those of being a cure for Type I diabetes, something that we hear about
and there has been tremendous research on. It has shown remarkable
promise, and this is a great example, in using immature brain cells and
eyelet cells from living donors to develop the insulin-producing eyelet
cells that are found lacking in people with diabetes. And by using
these from living donors or adult brain cells, instead of embryos,
science now has the potential to cure diabetes. It is a great example
and lesson for us as we talk about the research that is going on with
cord blood, with adult stem cells, and now we are learning with skin
cells, producing results.
Let's not stop funding this research in order to chase after
something else. Let's continue to do productive, results-producing
research on which we all agree. And, as we do this, let's protect the
sanctity of human life and not cheapen our efforts by disrespecting
that life.
I urge my colleagues to vote against Senate bill 5.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am now very pleased to yield to 1 minute
to my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), a real leader on this
issue.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that holds promise for
millions and millions of people across the country. We have heard from
some of our friends who oppose this, and they have been very clinical
in their descriptions.
I am a father of a daughter with a chronic illness of epilepsy, and
this is the kind of research that will help my daughter not to have any
more seizures. It is a potential. It is a possibility. And every
father, every brother, every mother, every sister, every friend in this
room wants to have hope for their friends and their family.
I want to compliment Ms. DeGette from Colorado, Mr. Castle from
Delaware for giving my family hope, for providing this kind of promise.
This legislature, this Congress can make a difference in millions of
people's lives.
I ask that you all vote for this bill. This is a great bill, and I
call on the President to show that he is a compassionate conservative
and that he sign this bill.
Ms. DeGETTE. Could I inquire of the Speaker how much time is left on
both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Colorado has 3\1/2\
minutes and the gentleman from Texas has 3 minutes.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the first thing I want to do is I want to thank Mike
Castle, my
[[Page H6137]]
friend, my compadre, and my fellow journeyman on this journey. We will
win this. We will win.
I also want to thank my friend Joe Barton, who has helped so much not
just in this session of Congress but in the past, and all of my
leadership on my side who continue to fight for this bill.
Our constituents sent us down here to do the people's work, and they
want us to do it in a bipartisan way. This is the best example I can
think of in the 10 years that I have been in Congress.
I just want to talk about a few of the misconceptions that have been
raised today. The first one is the allegation that the American people
do not support stem cell research. This is patently untrue. A new
Gallup poll this week shows an increase of 12 percent of Americans that
support this research in the last 5 years to 64 percent. Another recent
poll showed that when it was explained to them that these embryos are
slated to be destroyed but they could be donated for hope that 51
percent of self-described pro-life Republicans support this research.
There is a national consensus. There is a strong majority in the
House and the Senate, and there is one thing stopping that, and that is
a stubborn President. President Bush needs to understand it is ethical
and it is the right thing to do.
Our opponents try to muddle this issue by saying that adult stem
cells will be a substitute. This is also patently false. It is amazing
that there is new research every time that we come up with this bill,
but we welcome that research. We welcome all research. But it is not a
substitute for embryonic stem cell research.
In fact, this recent study this week with the mouse cells, the
scientists said success with mouse cells does not guarantee quick
success with human cells. They called on Congress to pass the bill
which would give federally funded researchers access to embryos slated
for destruction at fertility clinics. These types of research are years
away. Embryonic stem cell research has only been in existence for 7 or
8 years. But 1,300 scientists are sending a letter to President Bush
today telling him that this is the research that shows promise, and 80
Nobel Laureates have endorsed the bill. The scientists say that
embryonic stem cell research has promise in and of itself and that
adult stem cell research, including amniotic research, cord blood,
mouse cells, all of these cells are not a substitute.
Mr. Castle and I and all of our allies support all of these types of
research, but it is not a substitute. But that is also why S. 5 has a
provision that supports these.
Vote for hope. Vote for research. Vote for this bill.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we have had this debate before, so
I am going to refer people to the Congressional Record at the
appropriate place for my basic remarks on the underlying issue. I
simply want to clarify why we are having this particular debate today.
We passed this early in this Congress, this particular piece of
legislation. It passed the Senate, and it went to the President, and
the President vetoed the bill. Many of those who support embryonic stem
cell research think that we ought to be able to find a little finer
middle ground, that we might yet get the President to support a version
of the bill. So the sponsors, Mr. Castle and Ms. DeGette, have added
the Senate language from the last Congress that Mr. Specter and Mr.
Santorum passed as a stand-alone bill that I think passed the other
body 100-0, which is a very strong vote. It has been added to this
bill.
I might add that, apparently, the motion to recommit is going to be
something like that language that Mr. Gingrey has offered to the motion
to recommit.
So what we are trying to do here today is slice the cheese a little
bit finer so that those in the pro-life community like myself who have
a 100 percent pro-life voting record, over 23 years except for this one
vote, can vote for it, those that believe that we should fund a broader
array of embryonic stem cell research can vote for it, and the
President can accept it. That is what this particular bill is all
about.
I plan to vote for it. I plan to vote against the motion to recommit
not because I am opposed to the policy on the motion to recommit, but
if we were to accept the motion to recommit, that would send the bill
back to the Energy and Commerce Committee and require further
consideration, which may or may not result in the bill's coming back to
the floor.
So Members have voted on this in this body this year already once.
Those of us that served in the last Congress got to vote on it in the
last Congress. So there are not too many undecideds. But we are hoping
the addition of this Specter-Santorum language, which is also sponsored
in the House by Mr. Bartlett and Mr. Gingrey, will result in a little
bit finer slice of the cheese, that we will yet get a bill through the
House and through the Senate that the President will accept. So that is
what this is about.
I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill and a ``no'' vote on the
motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, stem cell legislation has been well debated on this
floor, and I support it. This bill has again been brought to the floor
with no committee process. When I was chairman we handled this
important issue with full consultation with our minority. That is the
preferable way to legislate.
This bill is designed to create enough lines of embryonic stem cells
to allow basic scientific research to move forward. Most of the
scientific community has articulated that once we can identify a
perfect, undifferentiated stem cell, it will lead to significant
scientific breakthroughs and the discovery of cures for many diseases.
For numerous reasons, not all of the potential stem cell lines that
were thought to be available for research when the President announced
his policy in August 2001 are actually viable for research purposes.
The number of stem cell lines available for scientific research is
actually well below the estimated number of stem cell lines that were
thought to exist in August of 2001.
We will also eventually need additional embryonic stem cell lines to
make further scientific advances. In order to produce clinical
therapies, it is likely that researchers will also need more embryonic
stem cell lines, of different genetic variations, than are presently
eligible to receive Federal support.
Understandably, this is not a simple vote for anyone on this floor.
There is no ideological cloak under which we can take cover. This is a
vote of conscience for all members. In the 109th Congress, similar
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.
S. 5 before us today is actually an improvement over previous
iterations of legislation on this issue. I strongly support the
additional language that will examine methods of obtaining stem cells
from alternative sources. I believe in this area we should be looking
at different options that can lead to the medical breakthroughs
necessary to save lives.
My position as an ardent supporter of the need to defend human life
has never wavered. As my record will dictate, I have been opposed to
all forms of abortion. I extend this principle to respecting the need
for scientific research to protect and improve existing human lives. My
decision to support this legislation is the product of much personal
contemplation.
I would urge my colleagues to understand the great thought that goes
into a vote of this nature and ask that we respect one another and
their beliefs.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1315
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am now honored to recognize the Speaker
of the House for our remaining time.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from California for
yielding time and for her exceptional leadership.
Every family in America who has concern about the health and well-
being of moms and dads, grandparents and children, brothers and sisters
owes a deep debt of gratitude to Diana DeGette. With her stewardship of
this bill, she has given us an opportunity to give hope to these many
families across our country.
Every one of those families in America, every one of us is one
telephone call or one diagnosis away from needing the benefits of stem
cell research. I can't help but think that even those who are against
this legislation today would want their family members, their child
with diabetes, their husband with Parkinson's, their father with
[[Page H6138]]
Alzheimer's, their mother with breast cancer, to have the benefit of
stem cell research.
Science is a gift of God to all of us. And science has taken us to a
place that is Biblical in its power to cure, and that is the embryonic
stem cell research.
Congresswoman DeGette not only worked on this legislation on its
substance, she was generous with her personal experience to demonstrate
the need for the bill. She understood that this legislation had to be
bipartisan. And I commend Congressman Mike Castle of Delaware for his
exceptional and courageous leadership on this legislation as well.
Today, we continue the debate. As Mr. Barton said, we've had this
debate before. In fact, bipartisan majorities in both Houses of
Congress have passed similar legislation before. Yet with his cruel
veto pen, President Bush dashed the hopes of many for the healing
potential of stem cell research. Today, we, along with millions of
Americans, are hoping for a different outcome. Because every family in
America, again, is just one diagnosis, one phone call or one accident
away from needing the benefits of embryonic stem cell, we hope the
President will consider his position.
Mr. Speaker, this week I am observing 20 years in the Congress of the
United States. I am proud of that. But I mention it here because this
is one of the most glorious days, in the top five for sure, that I have
experienced here. With the introduction of this legislation again, with
its passage, which I think will be clear and bipartisan, we are doing
something that is relevant to the lives of the American people. And we
are doing something that gives people hope. With this legislation, we
have the opportunity to save lives, find cures and, again, give hope to
those suffering. It is an opportunity that neither we nor the President
should miss.
This legislation, as has been mentioned, would allow American
scientists to pursue the science they believe has the most promise to
cure. It would bring embryonic stem cell research under the strict
controls and ethical guidelines of the National Institutes of Health.
That doesn't exist now. Why would we reject that? And it would help
ensure our Nation remains pre-eminent in science.
There is every compassionate reason and scientific reason to support
stem cell research. But why would we send this promising science
offshore? Why would we allow other countries to attract the best
scientists with the best facilities and the best public support? If
that excellence leaves us, we are not the best. That is completely
unacceptable to Americans. I am so proud of my own State of California,
where we have taken action on the ballot to establish the research in
our own State, but it should be available to the entire country.
According to scientists, including many Nobel Laureates, embryonic
stem cell research could unlock the doors to treatments and cures to
cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's, multiple sclerosis
and many, many more diseases. If we have a scientific opportunity to
treat and cure disease, we have a moral responsibility to support it.
Through stem cell research, this bill has the potential to bring hope
and health to millions. I hope the President will sign it. It has
support in Congress, and in the country, 72 percent of Americans
support this bipartisan bill. That is a remarkable number for a
remarkable bill. Our Nation's scientists support this bill. Our finest
research institutes support this bill. And many religious organizations
support this bill. In fact, many religious leaders endorse this bill
because of its respect of life, and they believe that science has the
Biblical power to cure. As the Episcopal Church writes in its letter in
support of this legislation, ``As stewards of creation, we are called
to help men and renew the world in many ways. Medical research expands
our knowledge of God's creation and empowers us to bring potential
healing to those who suffer.''
Thank you, Congresswoman DeGette and Congressman Castle, for giving
us the opportunity to support that science and honor that moral
responsibility.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. This bill would give new
hope to millions of Americans with debilitating illnesses such as
Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and cancer, and would do so under an
ethically stringent framework. We owe it to our citizens living in pain
to find cures for these terrible afflictions, and enable them to live
out long, healthy lives. While I am aware of the ethical questions
raised by stem cell research, I believe it represents one of the most
promising medical opportunities in human history.
Unfortunately, research on embryonic cells is stagnating because it
is currently restricted to the 78 stem cell lines that NIB held before
August 9, 2001. Of those 78 lines, only 22 were in good enough
condition to be used: Most lines were contaminated by mouse feeder
cells and could have been deadly if transplanted into people. In order
to make new progress in stem cell research, there is a dire need for
researchers to have access to lines that are new and uncontaminated.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the bill before us would be a strong step
toward reclaiming our status as the world's scientific leader and
finding cures for millions of Americans suffering from debilitating and
often fatal diseases. We must support our medical and scientific
communities in their efforts to extend and enhance human life. Doing
anything less is a disservice to our country and our citizens.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3,
Expanding Stem Cell Research.
During the recorded vote on this important bill, I was required to be
back in my home district to assist my mother, who is having surgery.
I believe stem cell research holds enormous promise for easing human
suffering. Embryonic stem cell research could lead to cures that could
dramatically improve lives. However, it is important to note that 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 would like the Record to reflect that I have been and will continue
to be supportive of Stem Cell Research and that I would have voted yea
had I been present. Federal support is critical to its success which is
why I will continue to support ethical Stem Cell Research.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Federal funding
for stem cell research. Gravely ill Americans are asking their
government for help, but President Bush's so-called ``moral''
reservations could again stand in the way of advances in medical
science and deny people potentially life-saving cures.
I find it ludicrous that the same administration that has submerged
the country in a nonsensical and deadly war professes that to make use
of stem cells to develop cures is ``morally troubling.'' The
President's backwards approach to what he considers progress would be
laughable were the consequences of his decisions not so spectacularly
detrimental to our country's welfare.
What is morally troubling is that Americans who are suffering from
Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, cancer, and other deadly diseases cannot
place hope in what is becoming an increasingly important field of
research. It is morally troubling that friends and family who have
suffered the loss of loved ones to painful and drawn-out illnesses
cannot depend on our country's leaders to pursue what could be an
effective form of disease prevention.
Instead of throwing away some 400,000 frozen embryos left over from
in vitro fertilization procedures, we should use stem cells from these
embryos to better the lives of countless individuals.
I urge my colleagues to soundly reject this phony ``culture of life''
and instead support H.R. 3 which promotes and prolongs life. I hope the
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act passes with enough support to
overcome a likely presidential veto.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 5, 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.
Biologists, medical experts, and the vast majority of Americans agree
there is a reservoir of discovery in embryonic stem cell research that
offers hope for over 100 million
[[Page H6139]]
Americans afflicted with life-threatening and debilitating diseases.
The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act allows this critical research to
move forward in an ethical way by expanding the number of stem cell
lines readily available to scientists, while implementing strong
ethical guidelines to ensure federal oversight of the research.
According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), of the 78 stem
cell lines that were declared eligible for federal funding in 2001,
only about 22 lines are actually available for study by researchers.
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.
From its earliest days, The University of Wisconsin-Madison has been
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. Scientist 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. From the study
of human development to the discovery of life-saving cures,there are
just too many potential benefits to allow Federal policy to roadblock
the continuation of this groundbreaking research that holds promise and
hope for so many lives. 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.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S.
5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act which is the latest endeavor
by this Congress to pass meaningful legislation that will impact the
lives of millions of people suffering from a myriad of diseases.
S. 5 would expand the Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research
by lifting the restrictions on the embryonic stem cell lines that can
be used for Federally-funded research--restrictions that were imposed
by President Bush in 2001. Most of the stem cell lines authorized for
Federally-funded research under the President's policy are now no
longer useful for research. However, the bill only authorizes Federal
research funds for stem cell lines generated from embryos that would
otherwise be discarded by fertility clinics. S. 5 also creates an
ethical framework that must be followed in conducting this research
under the guidance of the National Institutes of Health.
This body has voted in favor of expanding the number of stem cell
lines eligible for Federal funding with strict ethical guidelines twice
in the past year. I believe it is time for the president to listen to
the overwhelming support from Congress and more importantly, from the
majority of Americans, who want science to prevail and cures to be
found with the promise of embryonic stem cell research.
If Federally funded, this research could help nearly 100 million
Americans suffering from cancer, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes,
Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries, heart disease, ALS, and
other devastating conditions. Put simply, embryonic stem cell research
offers the greatest promise for developing treatments and cures.
Today, there are only 21 embryonic stem cell lines that are available
to Federally funded scientists. This is a number that scientists
confirm is insufficient and is negatively impacting medical advances in
this country.
Mr. Speaker, I must repeat myself on this issue because it cannot be
said enough times: this bill is about saving lives and preventing
devastating diseases from ravaging and ending people's lives. As a
founder and current co-chair of the Bicameral Congressional Caucus on
Parkinson's Disease and as someone who lost my father to Parkinson's
disease, I know firsthand just how important this legislation is and
how important it is to open up the stem cell lines.
I stand with a bipartisan majority of Congress and urge my colleagues
to vote in favor of this critical legislation.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I support S. 5, the Stem Cell Research
Enhancement Act, because it is a critical advancement in scientific
research. The medical possibilities from stem cells continue to excite
the scientific community, holding great promise for therapies to
alleviate human suffering from diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson's,
Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, and cancer. Perhaps no area provides
more potential to revolutionize the lives of Americans than the ability
to avoid or cure debilitating diseases. It is time for the Federal
government to be a full partner in the critical advancement of stem
cell research.
This legislation enables scientists to pursue research in a
responsible, ethical manner, through the utilization of the 400,000
surplus embryos currently frozen in storage at fertilization clinics
across the U.S. The strict confines of this legislation present no
threat to the sanctity of human life. I strongly concur with the
National Institute for Health Director's statement that it is in the
best interests of our scientists, our science, and our country to
pursue all aspects of stem cell research--both adult and embryonic--to
the fullest extent.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act--a smart, thoughtful and, more
important, ethical piece of legislation that already has passed in the
House. This bill will expand needed Federal funding to ensure that the
promises of embryonic stem cell research finally become reality in this
nation.
For the millions of Americans who suffer from the very conditions for
which stem cell research could hold a cure, the time has come for us to
do more than just offer hope. The time is now for us to find and offer
cures to some of the most devastating conditions and diseases that
detrimentally affect more than 100 million Americans and their
families.
Mr. Speaker, this bill also will send a long overdue message to our
friends in the global community: that we are re-assuming our place at
the helm of the world's forward-thinking, inspirational and smart
health lawmakers.
As a physician, I have seen what happens to people afflicted with
diseases and conditions, like Alzheimer's, sickle cell anemia and
Parkinson's, and I have seen the impact it has on their families,
friends and loved ones. And, it sickens me to know that a promising
public health advancement is being tainted by some of my colleagues who
wrongfully and unethically applying a theological argument to this
issue. Mr. Speaker, this is not a faith issue; this should not be a
partisan issue; it's a public health issue and an American issue.
Imagine an America free of Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, sickle
cell anemia and multiple sclerosis; spinal cord injuries, cancer and
diabetes. I call on the President to sign the bill into law and to be a
part of the solution--and not the problem. The time simply is now.
Mr. SHAY. 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 who have
been impacted by diseases that may find cures as a result of this vital
research. Their work and dedication on this legislation has been
tremendous and praiseworthy. I also thank them for giving me the
opportunity to cast one of the most important votes I will ever make in
Congress.
Almost everyone has lost some family member prematurely. I think of
the grandmother, whom I never met, who died when her daughter, my
mother, was only 16. I think of my mother-in-law who never had the
opportunity to know her grandchild who is now 27. I think of my cousin,
who was brilliant and never got to realize his full potential.
Embryonic stem cell research has the potential to cure disease and
save lives, and it is only 8 years old. These are discarded embryos
that were never in the womb that can help save lives.
This is not a matter of pro-life versus pro-choice, but rather, it is
a matter of man and womankind versus disease. I am happy this
legislation has once again passed the House and Senate and will head to
the President, and I pray the President reconsiders his position on
this vital issue 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 intellect to differentiate between imprisoning dogma and sound
ethical science, which is what we must do here today.
I want history to look back at this Congress and say that in the face
of the age-old tension between religion and science, the Members here
allowed critical scientific research to advance while respecting
important ethical questions that surrounded it.
We know that by allowing embryonic stem cell research to go forward,
treatments and prevention for diseases will not come to us overnight.
But we also know embryonic stem
[[Page H6140]]
cell research has the potential to yield significant scientific
advances to heal and prevent so many diseases throughout the world.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my
support for passage of S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of
2007. The scientific community has demonstrated the great potential for
stem cell research. Advancements are being made through the National
Institute of Health, private sector biotechnology, and research
universities.
Some of that progress has been made with stem cells from other than
embryonic sources, but the Congress should not be in the business of
shackling scientific discovery and should pass this legislation to open
up the potential that embryonic stem cell research has to offer. In
Orange County, California, the University of California at Irvine,
Reeve Research Center is home to spectacular research that is utilizing
embryonic stem cells to develop treatments for spinal-cord injuries and
neurological disorders.
California has already led the way for responsible government support
of stem cell research. Now is the time for the Federal government to do
so as well. I urge my colleagues to support the Stem Cell Research
Enhancement Act.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my
opposition to S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. Like H.R.
3, which we considered earlier this year, and H.R. 810, S. 5 would use
taxpayer funds to destroy human life.
Some of my colleagues claim that embryonic stem cell research is
essential to finding cures to a range of diseases. This could not be
further from the truth. On top of the fact that embryo-derived
treatments have been fraught with problems, including the widespread
occurrence of tumor formation, there is now a host of increasingly more
successful alternative treatments that offer tangible results to
suffering Americans and their families.
Research has demonstrated that various forms of adult stem cell
materials, umbilical cord blood and amniotic fluid are an excellent
source of pluripotent stem cells. These materials have yielded highly
successful, groundbreaking 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.
Treatments employing umbilical cord blood have been particularly
successful and the list goes on and on. Just recently, a new study by
American and Brazilian researchers published in the Journal of the
American Medical Association (JAMA) demonstrated the use of stem cells
taken from 13 patient's own bodies to reverse the symptoms of Juvenile
Diabetes. These patients have been able to live so far without insulin-
some as long as three years. Just this morning, the Associated Press
reported a new report from three independent teams of scientists that
have been able to produce the practical equivalent of embryonic stem
cells in mice without destroying any embryos. Thus far, ethical forms
of stem cell research have yielded treatments for over 73 different
diseases while well-funded embryonic research has thus far only yielded
tumors.
Mr. Speaker, every time my colleagues in the house trumpet the
necessity of destroying embryos, scientific studies come along to prove
them wrong on point after point. Rather than forcing taxpayers to fund
the destruction of human life, we should be putting our resources into
the types of ethical research that are rapidly providing the treatments
that Americans so greatly desire.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, today, the House will again pass legislation
to support humane and potentially life-saving embryonic stem cell
research. I am a cosponsor of this essential legislation to increase
the number of embryonic stem cell lines that can be used to conduct
federally funded research to search for cures for a number of diseases
such as diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, ALS, multiple
sclerosis, and cancer.
The opponents of this legislation say that we should pursue
alternative avenues for research, such as adult stem cells, cord blood
cells, and amniotic fluid cells. And they are correct; we should
investigate each one of them. Yet, that is not a compelling reason to
block researchers from pursuing embryonic stem cell research, which
experts agree holds the greatest potential because of the pluripotent
nature of the cells.
As a research scientist, I understand that we will only understand
the true value of each of these cell types when the research is done.
That is why it is essential that we pass this bill and make more
embryonic stem cell lines available for exploration.
My home state of New Jersey has demonstrated real national leadership
on stem cell research. In 2005, New Jersey became the first state in
the nation to award public funds for research on human embryonic stem
cells. Just last month, Governor Corzine pledged an additional $10
million in public funds for stem cell research. And the state
legislature recently approved $270 million for new stem cell research
centers. New Jersey is taking the lead on this ground breaking
research, but that can not be an excuse for inaction on the federal
level.
It would be immoral for the federal government not to pursue this
promising avenue of research, which holds the potential to
revolutionize medical care for those afflicted with tragic diseases and
conditions.
I implore President Bush to put his veto pen away--he must stop
standing in the way of scientific progress that could benefit all
Americans.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Stem Cell
Research Enhancement Act of 2007. We can never guarantee the results of
scientific research, but without it we can guarantee that there will be
no results.
From juvenile diabetes, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease to
Multiple Sclerosis and cancer, stem cell research has the potential to
begin to uncover cures for the diseases that affect our constituents
and our families. In the debate over fixing our broken health care
system in America, we cannot afford to ignore the medical breakthroughs
in disease management that stem cell research has the potential to
uncover.
Some opponents of this legislation argue that the federal government
already significantly funds stem cell research or that private entities
will step in to take up the slack. The reality is that stem cell
research is practically at a standstill in this country today. Of the
78 stem cell lines currently permitted under federally funded research,
57 are contaminated and are thus incapable of producing such
breakthroughs. Research has been stifled under the Administration's
stem cell policy.
This morning's news highlights a recent scientific paper written by
scientists that have manipulated an ordinary mouse skin cell into what
may be effectively an embryonic stem cell. More research must be done
to see if scientists can coax human skin cells to have the same
qualities as embryonic stem cells; however, as advocate Sean Tipton
told the Washington Post this morning, ``You cannot make good policy
one scientific paper at a time.'' The bill before us today encourages
further research on isolating and testing non-embryonic cells and at
the same time lifts the ban on federal support of embryonic stem cell
research.
The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act is a well-crafted, bipartisan
approach. 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 donor give their
written consent and receive no money or other inducement in exchange.
The President vetoed very similar legislation last year, and there is
little doubt that he will veto it again. The medical research that
embryonic stem cell lines offer is crucial for millions of people
dealing with incurable and debilitating diseases. It is an insufficient
response for Congress to simply accept the Bush Administration's
intransigence on this issue. The legislation before us is a bipartisan
bill that strong majorities of the House and Senate support. Further,
it is clear that a broad majority of Americans support responsible
embryonic stem cell research. The real question today is whether enough
Members of the House now recognize that the current stem cell policy is
not working and are willing to vote for a better way forward. I urge
all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this vital legislation.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the House
version of the Stem Cell Research Act of 2007, I rise in strong support
for S. 5.
I firmly believe that stem cell research holds the promise of
scientific breakthroughs and finding cures for life-threatening
diseases that could improve the lives of millions of Americans. We
should allow the expansion of federally funded research of human
embryonic stem cell lines. This bipartisan legislation would accomplish
that while establishing ethical guidelines.
This is an issue that affects every family in America. A majority of
the American people support stem cell research. I was disappointed that
the President exercised his first veto last year on a piece of similar
legislation that has bipartisan support. The Stem Cell Research
Enhancement Act of 2007 will be soon on the President's desk for his
signature. I hope this time 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 such promising
legislation. We cannot put politics over the health of the American
people.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my House colleagues to support this
bipartisan legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to applaud the passage of S.
5, the ``Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007.'' This legislation
will give hope to 100,000,000 Americans, by greatly expanding
scientists' access
[[Page H6141]]
to embryonic stem cell lines and will create opportunities for medical
and biological scientists to continue further investigation for
additional stem cell lines. Moreover, this legislation will impact
greatly the future of treatment of serious diseases.
During the last decade of research, significant scientific
advancements have been made that allow scientists to research
genetically stable and long lived human stem cells, by methods that
would not destroy or endanger human embryos. The discovery of the new
lines of stem cells has greatly enhanced the probability of additional
discoveries in various treatment and cures. The support of continued
research into this kind of scientific discovery gives great hope to
many Americans and others around the world who depend on the scientific
advancements that this country has been known for in decades past.
It is time that this groundbreaking research moves forward. I
optimistically look forward to the many advances that will be made in
the future.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 464, the Senate
bill is considered read and the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the third reading of the Senate bill.
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the
third time.
Motion to Commit Offered by Mr. Gingrey
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to commit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. GINGREY. I am in its present form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to commit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Gingrey moves to commit the bill (S. 5) to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Alternative Pluripotent Stem
Cell Therapies Enhancement Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSES.
It is the purpose of this Act to--
(1) intensify research that may result in improved
understanding of or treatments for diseases and other adverse
health conditions; and
(2) promote the derivation of pluripotent stem cell lines,
including from postnatal sources, without creating human
embryos for research purposes or discarding, destroying, or
harming a human embryo or fetus.
SEC. 3. ALTERNATIVE HUMAN PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL RESEARCH.
Part B of title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 284 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section
409I the following:
``SEC. 409J. ALTERNATIVE HUMAN PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL
RESEARCH.
``(a) In General.--In accordance with section 492, the
Secretary shall conduct and support basic and applied
research to develop techniques for the isolation, derivation,
production, or testing of stem cells that, like embryonic
stem cells, are capable of producing all or almost all of the
cell types of the developing body and may result in improved
understanding of or treatments for diseases and other adverse
health conditions, but are not derived from a human embryo.
``(b) Guidelines.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this section, the Secretary, after
consultation with the Director of the National Institutes of
Health, shall issue final guidelines to implement subsection
(a), that--
``(1) provide guidance concerning the next steps required
for additional research, which shall include a determination
of the extent to which specific techniques may require
additional basic or animal research to ensure that any
research involving human cells using these techniques would
clearly be consistent with the standards established under
this section;
``(2) prioritize research with the greatest potential for
near-term clinical benefit; and
``(3) consistent with subsection (a), take into account
techniques outlined by the President's Council on Bioethics
and any other appropriate techniques and research.
``(c) Reporting Requirements.--Not later than January 1 of
each year, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to the
appropriate committees of the Congress a report describing
the activities carried out under this section during the
fiscal year, including a description of the research
conducted under this section.
``(d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed to affect any policy, guideline, or regulation
regarding embryonic stem cell research, human cloning by
somatic cell nuclear transfer, or any other research not
specifically authorized by this section.
``(e) Definition.--In this section, the term `human embryo'
includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under
part 46 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, as of the
date of the enactment of the Alternative Pluripotent Stem
Cell Therapies Enhancement Act of 2007, that is derived by
fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means
from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells.
``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary
for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2010, to carry out this
section.''.
Mr. GINGREY (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the motion to commit be considered as read and printed in
the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, over the past 3 years, we have repeatedly
stood on the floor of this House debating whether or not to expand the
Federal Government's role in funding embryonic stem cell research.
Today I implore my colleagues that, for once in this debate, let the
facts speak louder than fiction. Let us all put aside political
posturing and debate the impact of this legislation. Let us ensure that
the American people hear the truth. We do not have to sacrifice human
life to further stem cell research.
Once again, we find ourselves debating the same stem cell legislation
without any input from the Members of this House. Essentially the
Democratic majority and their leadership is saying to the American
people: This issue has not changed since we debated it in January,
since we debated it last summer; in fact, since we debated it back in
August of 2001. But that assumption is fundamentally wrong. The reality
is that this issue has changed. Science has moved past bureaucracy and,
in fact, past politics, to which it owes no allegiance.
There have been multiple scientific breakthroughs which show that
there are other ways to achieve medical miracles without the collateral
damage mandated by S. 5. The American people deserve a full and a
comprehensive debate on these very, very successful alternatives. That
is the reason that I am offering this motion to commit, which would
replace S. 5 with a bill that was originally introduced by the other
gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Roscoe Bartlett, and myself, called the
Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Research Therapies Enhancement Act.
This act would authorize the use of Federal funds to research
alternative and ethical ways to extract embryonic-like, or pluripotent,
stem cells. That is what we should be debating on the floor of this
esteemed body today, legislation that mitigates the gut-wrenching
ethical questions of embryonic stem cell research that damages or, more
likely, destroys human life.
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is the hope of 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, and they can specialize into any type of
human tissue. Indeed, I doubt that the scientists care where these
cells come from.
Pluripotent stem cells can be obtained in a variety of ethical and
scientifically promising ways. They do ``not'' have to come from a
living embryo which some call medical waste but others embrace as
``snowflake'' babies with priceless lives.
Mr. Speaker, this point cannot be illustrated any more clearly than
in the ground-breaking research published in several scientific
journals since the beginning of this year. In fact, just yesterday,
Nature Journal published a study that shows research's ability to
literally reprogram an adult cell taken from skin to achieve one of
these pluripotent, or embryonic-like, stem cell states. This research
offers the promise of generating embryonic stem cells without the
collateral damage of harming human embryos.
Let me read to you a fascinating quote from this article: ``The race
is now on to apply the surprisingly straightforward procedure to human
cells. If researchers succeed, it will make it relatively easy to
produce cells that seem indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells and
that are genetically matched to individual patients.'' Mr. Speaker,
that equates, my colleagues, to no rejection and no tumors. Hallelujah.
Science has found a
[[Page H6142]]
way to support human life in terms of medical cures. The way we derive
those cures is so important.
Earlier this year, researchers at Wake Forest University and Harvard
published a study that showed the capability to obtain pluripotent stem
cells again from amniotic fluid, which have the necessary
characteristics of being fast-growing and flexible, and can be
harvested, get this, Mr. Speaker, as early as 9 weeks into a pregnancy
with no damage.
These are just two examples of new cutting-edge research which has
fundamentally changed this stem cell debate. We no longer need to
engage in an issue that divides this Congress, and indeed our country,
in half. We no longer need to contemplate a unilateral decision to
spend taxpayer dollars on research methods that half of the public
morally opposes.
I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to commit.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
commit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Colorado is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear. This motion to
commit guts S. 5, pure and simple. What it does, it strips out the
embryonic stem cell research portion of the bill, which of course is
the bill. Instead, it simply leaves the section that also encourages
alternative forms of research. So any Member of this House who supports
embryonic stem cell research and who has voted for it in the past must
oppose this motion to commit. Let me say it again: What this motion to
commit does, it strips the embryonic stem cell research out of the
bill.
Now, when I was a high school and college debater, one of the things
that used to drive me crazy was inconsistency in my opponent's
position. We have seen that in spades today. Mr. Gingrey just said, for
example, that he supports adult stem cell research because it doesn't
have the same kinds of problems that some embryonic stem cell research
in mice have shown. In fact, though, the new study, which
coincidentally just came out this week, just as a new study comes out
every time we vote on embryonic stem cell research, the study on mice
specifically says that these mouse cells, that the approach would have
to be changed somewhat for use with human cells because it could cause
cancer, just the criticism our opponents make of embryonic stem cell
research. It's true that embryonic stem cell research is relatively
new. However, these other sources that our opponents tout are even
newer and have provided no evidence and no hope for cures. That is why
80 Nobel Laureates and 1,300 scientists have endorsed embryonic stem
cell research as well as research into adult stem cells and other types
of research.
What our bill does is, it says, let's do everything in an ethical
way. Let's have ethically conducted embryonic stem cells, but only on
embryos that are scheduled to be discarded as medical waste. Let's not
throw them out. Let's use them to give hope to the millions of
Americans who suffer from diseases for which adult stem cell research
has shown no promise at all. That is why all of these researchers say
we have to support both embryonic stem cell and adult stem cell and
other types of alternatives.
{time} 1330
They say there have been no cures found, but, again, just last week,
researchers in Great Britain, because this research is going overseas,
have found evidence that embryonic stem cell research may cure macular
degeneration, which causes blindness in humans. Our friends, many of
them formerly from U.S. universities who are in Great Britain, think
that we will have a clinical application of this embryonic stem cell
research within 5 years.
I want to conclude by saying, it is not either/or. It is both, so
long as they are done ethically. Alan Leshner, Ph.D., with the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, said, ``It is only through
Federal support of research on both adult and embryonic stem cells that
we may better understand the potential value and limitations of each
type. We owe all those who may be helped by such research in the future
to pursue all avenues of potential treatments and cures for serious
diseases.''
Mr. Speaker, this motion to commit will kill the bill. Anyone who
supports hope for the 110 million Americans who suffer from these
terrible diseases must vote ``no'' on the motion to commit and ``yes''
on final passage.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to commit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to commit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 180,
nays 242, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 442]
YEAS--180
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)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
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
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellsworth
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
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)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
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
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Walberg
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--242
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
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
Edwards
Ellison
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Heller
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mack
[[Page H6143]]
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
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
Perlmutter
Platts
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reichert
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rohrabacher
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
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)
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--10
Cantor
Hastings (FL)
Holden
Jefferson
Kagen
Pickering
Pomeroy
Porter
Ryan (OH)
Tancredo
{time} 1357
Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Messrs. OLVER, ABERCROMBIE, GENE GREEN of Texas,
Mrs. GILLIBRAND, and Ms. SLAUGHTER changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Messrs. ROGERS of Alabama, SAXTON, WELDON of Florida, TURNER,
CALVERT, BARRETT of South Carolina, DONNELLY, KING of New York, SAM
JOHNSON of Texas, and KING of Iowa changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the motion to commit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 247,
nays 176, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 443]
YEAS--247
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
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
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Heller
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
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
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
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reichert
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rohrabacher
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
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)
NAYS--176
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)
Buyer
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
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)
Hastert
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)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
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
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Walberg
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
NOT VOTING--10
Cantor
Hastings (FL)
Holden
Jefferson
Kagen
Pickering
Pomeroy
Porter
Ryan (OH)
Tancredo
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining.
{time} 1404
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________