[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 14974-15003]
[From the U.S. 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.
  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

[[Page 14975]]

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 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

[[Page 14976]]

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. 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 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

[[Page 14977]]

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 underlying legislations, S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement 
Act.
  Once again, the Democratic majority brings to the floor a closed rule 
on a

[[Page 14978]]

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. 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

[[Page 14979]]

choice between science and ideology. 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. 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

[[Page 14980]]

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 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

[[Page 14981]]

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.
  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

[[Page 14982]]

     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 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

[[Page 14983]]

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
     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)

[[Page 14984]]


     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)
     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.

[[Page 14985]]

  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 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

[[Page 14986]]

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. 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.

[[Page 14987]]


  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 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

[[Page 14988]]

       ``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+cells+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 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://

[[Page 14989]]

     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
       ``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∈_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

[[Page 14990]]

     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∈_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. 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 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

[[Page 14991]]

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 
from Lubbock, Texas, home of the Texas Tech Red Raiders (Mr. 
Neugebauer) for 1 minute.
  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.

[[Page 14992]]

       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 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

[[Page 14993]]

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 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

[[Page 14994]]

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 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.

[[Page 14995]]


  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. 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 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. 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.

[[Page 14996]]

  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 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. 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

[[Page 14997]]

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 Colorado 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 
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,

[[Page 14998]]

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 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

[[Page 14999]]

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 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

[[Page 15000]]

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 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.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support 
S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. This bill directs 
the Secretary of Health and Human Services to support a comprehensive 
program of embryonic stem cell research.
  In my 14 years with the Committee on Science and Technology, I have 
exhibited a firm and consistent commitment to scientific research. That 
includes stem cell research.
  Nearly all of the scientific societies are strong supporters of this 
legislation, and many have contacted me urging support of S. 5. The 
bill supports the development of techniques to derive stem cells from 
non-embryo sources for the improved understanding of and treatments for 
diseases.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill that will enable critically important, ethical 
stem cell research. The President vetoed such legislation in the past, 
and I hope that he will listen to the majority of Americans and support 
this measure.
  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.

[[Page 15001]]

  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 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.

[[Page 15002]]


  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
     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)

[[Page 15003]]


     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.

                          ____________________