Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this debate we are having surrounding H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, is really one of the most fundamentally important debates that this body can undertake. Regrettably, this discussion will only last a few hours on the floor of the House of Representatives today.

There have been no hearings on this bill or on the previous stem cell bill. H.R. 810 addresses the most fundamental, basic, ethical issue: life, and when does it begin; when should life, including human embryos, be open to experimentation and scientific research.

Those of us who believe in the sanctity of life from conception to our last breath, find the logic of the proponents of embryonic stem cell research flawed. H.R. 810 allows research and science to triumph philosophy and values.

This country seeks to be a world leader militarily, economically and scientifically, and culturally. But what about morally and ethically? What about leading the world in ethics and morals by declaring human life off limits to research and to manipulation through stem cell research? What about leading the world in ethics and morals by declaring human life from embryonic stage to old age as valued? We, as a Nation, believe that all life is precious and there is an ethical line that we as a people, as a Nation, will not cross.

We should lead by declaring that human life, even at the embryonic stage, is not open to manipulation, experimentation, or research. We cannot mask the efforts to manipulate human life under the guise of science or medical research.

You and I, each of us, we all share one thing in common: we were all embryos at one time. The embryos that were you and me were allowed to grow to become Congressmen, Congresswomen, police officers, factory workers, soldiers, government employees, lawyers, doctors, scientists. We were all embryos at one time. We were all

allowed to grow. Whether an embryo, a human life, is or is not allowed to grow, to become a unique individual, is a discussion this country really should have, a meaningful discussion, not just a few hours of debate in this Chamber.

It is my hope that families, individuals, couples and our children will have a discussion on human life and when it begins. Is an embryo life? At what point does an embryo become life? At what point does our Nation shelter life with the constitutional, legal, and governmental safeguards? Are there other ways to do promising medical and scientific research without destroying human embryos?

This is an ethical discussion I hoped would take place in the Halls of Congress, in the congressional committee rooms, in homes and workplaces all across America. Whether it is at the watercooler or in the cloakroom, these ethical and moral issues should and must be discussed as a Nation, as a people, as a culture, and as a world leader. Instead, this will only be discussed for a few hours on the House floor.

The other body has just gone through public, political, and senatorial debate on the use of a filibuster in our democracy. Because of this debate, a healthy discussion occurred in America. I, for one, do not wish to avoid the moral and ethical issues of stem cell research debate.

Yesterday in a news show, the commentator asked me why not allow stem cell research on discarded medical waste. Is that what we have come to, to viewing embryos, which if allowed to grow and divide would become human beings, being treated as medical waste? Why are proponents of H.R. 810 so adamant that we do research specifically using embryonic stem cells? According to the proponents of this legislation, these stem cells are our best hope of finding cures. They can develop into all cells of the body. They say medical science can unlock the keys to life. We can cure any disease or injury. They argue we must create life and then kill it to unlock the mysteries of life for scientific medical research.

Create and clone the building blocks of life so we can manipulate and experiment? Is that the line we wish to cross today? We will hear today about other research with adult stem cells, cord and placenta cells, bone marrow, fetal tissue, and unraveling our DNA through mapping of genome, all in the pursuit of finding medical cures for the dreaded diseases, illnesses, and injuries we all wish to cure. But where do we draw the line on medical research and say we as a Nation, we as a people will not cross that line? This question has not been adequately addressed in this legislation.

When do embryos become life? If you read the materials, after 40 hours, less than 2 days, the fertilized egg begins to divide and the embryos are checked after 40 hours. Or is it 5 days when embryos are called blastocysts? At this stage there are approximately 250 cells. Or do we allow the blastocysts to survive in a laboratory culture for up to 14 days and still not call them human life but blastocysts so they are still open to research and experimentation?

When does life become scientifically nonexistent?

I ask these questions because H.R. 810 is silent on these issues. It does not specify how long these embryos are allowed to grow before they are killed--2 days, 5 days, 14 days or more. Proponents of H.R. 810 will claim that their legislation will address the ethical manner in which this research will be conducted. Yet their legislation is silent on the ethics, other than subsection C that directs the Secretary of HHS to create guidelines within 60 days.

Two presidential bioethics advisory panels have given us differing guidance on when and how research should be conducted. If this Nation, through its elected leaders, allows embryonic stem cell research, then we as representatives of the American people should have the courage to state unequivocally where we stand and answer the ethical questions presented before us here today. As elected leaders, we should set some basic guidelines, not leave the guidelines to unelected and unnamed administrative officials.

I know many Members on both sides of the aisle, of all political philosophies, have struggled with questions of morality, questions of life and questions of faith this past week. Many of us have asked ourselves that same question, and I have concluded that this legislation is unethical and unnecessary.

H.R. 810 mandates Federal tax dollars to be used to destroy human embryos. These embryos, if allowed to live, would grow into beautiful children like the snowflake children visiting the Capitol today. They are human life. You, I and they were embryonic stem cells that were allowed to grow.

Congress should not take lightly the destruction and manipulation of human life. It is clear that the American public does not. Forty-three percent of the American public clearly opposes more Federal funding for human embryonic research. Fifty-three percent clearly support more Federal funding, according to CNN.

As I said before, this legislation has no limits as to how long the embryo can grow. The National Academy of Sciences' guidelines recommends allowing them to grow for no more than 14 days.

Again, this legislation is not necessary. Human embryonic stem cell research is completely legal today in the private sector. Embryonic stem cell research is eligible for State funding in several States, California and New Jersey, and is funded through millions of dollars in private research money, $100 million alone at Harvard University.

Since August 2001, 128 stem cell lines have been created. And still human embryonic stem cell research is funded by the Federal Government today. The National Institute of Health spent $24 million on embryonic stem cell research in fiscal year 2004, the last year that data was available. Twenty-two human embryonic stem cell lines are currently receiving Federal funding. These lines are sufficient for basic research according to the NIH director. Former Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson has said that these lines should be exhausted first before we move any further.

Finally, embryonic stem cell research remains unproven. Not a single therapy has been developed from embryonic stem cell research. Instead of cures, embryonic stem cell research has led to tumors and deaths in animal studies. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) has had his staff scour the medical journals for real proof of therapeutic benefit of embryonic stem cell research, but has come up empty handed. There have been zero published treatments in human patients using embryonic stem cells.

While the promise of embryonic stem cells is questionable, the promise of adult stem cell research is being realized today. Adult stem cells are being used today to save lives. Recognizing this, the National Institutes of Health spent $568 million in fiscal year 2006 on adult stem cell research. Adult stem cells are being used today in clinical trials and in clinical practice to treat 58 diseases, including Parkinson's, spinal cord injury, juvenile diabetes, brain cancer, breast cancer, lymphoma, heart damage, rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile arthritis, stroke, and sickle cell anemia.

I am pleased the House is passing legislation today, the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act, to promote adult stem cell research. But we are faced now with a bill that is unethical and incomplete. H.R. 810 says nothing about human cloning, which is still perfectly legal today. I introduced legislation with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) and Senators Brownback and Landrieu to ban all human cloning. The inevitable truth is that if we pass this bill today, the cloning of a human baby will only come sooner. There is no room for shades of gray on this issue. The, quote, therapeutic cloning that will result from this legislation will make reproductive cloning even more likely.

We should not allow the creation of life for the purpose of destroying it. That is what happens with this bill.

Let me be clear. I am committed to funding scientific research that will unlock the origins of disease and develop cures that can help my constituents. Again, 58 conditions are being treated using placental and adult stem cells, and we cannot begin to imagine the promising new treatments and drugs on the horizon. But we cannot let

science leapfrog our ethics, our morals and our legal system. This is not a partisan issue, and it is bigger than a right-to-life issue.

It is clear that adult stem cell research has opened the door to the dreams of lifesaving treatments and cures for our most deadly and debilitating diseases, but I do not believe it is time to open the door to more embryonic stem cell research and open the floodgates to human cloning.

I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 810.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as this debate has gone on, and it has been a good discussion here today, I think it is worthwhile to come back to where we are on this whole issue here.

The embryonic stem cell research we are debating here today is controversial because of the means of obtaining these cells. Research involving most types of stem cells, those derived from adult tissues or the umbilical cord, is uncontroversial except, as we saw, the second issue here today is, how effective is it? Is embryonic more effective than cord? Are embryonic stem cells more effective in treating injuries and illnesses than the adult tissue stem cells?

So we sort of have a two-pronged argument here yet: How do you obtain the stem cells and, secondly, the effectiveness of adult versus embryonic stem cells.

But I think in this whole issue here, we sort of lose questions. Before we even get to those questions, I think we should look at it and say, what is the ethical consideration of the human nature, and that should be the first question we should ask, not what are the means we obtain it by, what is left over when we obtain the embryonic stem cells, or what is its effectiveness.

I think we have to look at the ethical considerations. Because cloning is one method to produce embryos for research, the ethical issues surrounding cloning are also relevant. In fact, I believe those ethical issues should really be the first question we should ask before we debate the means of obtaining, or even the effectiveness of the proposed treatment.

I would hope that life would triumph hope and the question is really before we even get into effectiveness or means, but what is the human nature consideration? That should be the first question we should answer.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

(Mr. WU asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I have one more speaker and then I plan on closing.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, May 23, 2005, I call up the bill (H.R. 810) to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) be given 45 minutes of the debate time on the pending bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) be allowed to control 20 minutes of the remaining 45 minutes that I currently have control over.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on the pending bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I have a prepared statement I am going to put into the record on this bill, H.R. 810, but I am going to actually speak from the heart because I think that this is a very important issue.

Most of the issues that come before this body, there is an automatic position on. It may be the Republican position, the Democrat position, the Texas position, or it could be the committee position. And we come to the floor and we, almost by rote, say what is the particular position, and that is the way we vote.

But every now and then an issue comes up that is really an issue of conscience. It is an issue that deserves to be thoughtfully considered, debated, and decided on its own merit.

Now, there are many Members today that believe this particular issue is an issue that they feel so strongly about, on either side, that this is an easy issue for them, it is an automatic issue. They are going to be for it or against it for very valid reasons. But there are some of us, and I am in that camp today, that believe it is not an easy issue.

I come to the floor as a 100 percent lifetime voting member on prolife issues, minus one vote, in over 21 years. On all the votes that the prolife coalition at the State and Federal levels have scored as scorable votes, my record until this year was 100 percent, and I voted the wrong way on one issue so far this year from the prolife position. So that is not a bad record, 100 percent minus one. And after this vote today, I am going to be 100 percent minus two.

Why is that? Well, part of it is personal and part of it deals with tragedies in my family in the past. My father died of complications of diabetes at the age of 71. My brother, Jon Kevin Barton, died of liver cancer at the age of 44. My first granddaughter, Bryn Barton, died in the womb 2 days before delivery with complications of the umbilical cord, which had become crimped, and she was actually born dead.

Maybe the research we are debating today could not have helped any of those diseases or could not have helped my granddaughter, but maybe it could.

I am also going to vote for Castle-DeGette because of the future, not just the past. My wife Terri and I are expecting a baby in September, Jack Kevin Barton, named after her late father and my late brother, Jon Kevin Barton. He may come into this world with some disease. Hopefully not. I have three children that are already alive, Brad, Alison, and Kristin. I have two stepchildren, Lindsay and Cullen. I have three grandchildren that are living, Blake, Brent and Bailey Barton. Maybe they will live healthy, productive lives and they will never need some therapeutic breakthrough, but maybe they will. Maybe they will.

Now, we just voted for an expansion of cord blood and bone marrow research, which is a very, very good deal, and it deals with adult stem cells. And maybe the breakthrough is going to come in adult stem cells. I hope it does. I would love it. But maybe, just maybe, it is going to come because of embryonic stem cells.

Now, the President adopted a position in early 2001 that said the existing stem cell lines then in existence could be federally funded for research. They thought there were about 78 lines. It turned out that there were 22 they are using, there are 16 that are frozen, and there may be one or two more that might be used. But in any event, none of those lines that are currently allowed to be used for research purposes at the Federal level have been shown to have that breakthrough stem cell.

There are 200 adult cells in the body. The hope of stem cell research, whether it is adult or embryonic, is that we will find that one perfect cell that can be replicated into any of the other cells.

It is assumed, and it is an assumption, not a fact, that the plasticity of the embryonic cell is better and that there is a greater likelihood, although the research has only been done for the last 7 or 8 years, that there is a likelihood there might be a greater potential. And I want to emphasize might be.

So where I come down is, let us look at all the avenues.

We just voted for Smith-Barton-Young. Let us also vote for Castle- DeGette and look at all of our resources. That is why I am going to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise to manage the time of debate on H.R. 810, legislation designed to expand the number of sources of embryonic stem cell lines that may be the subject of federally funded research. The bill is straightforward, yet the policy concerns surrounding this bill are anything but black and white. Before I yield time to my colleagues, I want to clarify a few of the following facts.

What the sponsors of this bill are trying to do is create enough lines of embryonic stem cells to allow basic scientific research to move forward. Many scientists believe that once we can identify a perfect, undifferentiated stem call, it will lead to significant scientific breakthroughs and the discovery of cures for many diseases.

Currently, there are approximately 22 lines of embryonic stem cells that are available for federally funded research. This number is far below the estimated number of stem cell lines that were thought to exist in August of 2001, when the President announced his stem cell policy. When President Bush announced that Federal research dollars could be used for the first time on then existing stem cells, it was believed that there were at least 60 viable lines of stem cells that could be used for this research. For a variety of reasons, not all of these potential lines are now available for research.

We will also eventually need additional embryonic stem cell lines to make further scientific advances. In recent conversations with leading stem cell researchers, they indicated to me that all lines of embryonic stem cells eventually become exhausted. 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.

In addition, the majority of the existing embryonic stem cell lines eligible for Federal support use mouse feeder cells, which will make it nearly impossible for these embryonic stem cell lines to be adopted in clinical use. For all of these reasons, researchers believe that the current number of embryonic stem cell lines will have to be increased.

It is difficult to take an ideologically pure position on this issue. President Bush recognized this on August 9, 2001. On recognizing the profound potential benefits of embryonic stem cell research, President Bush permitted for the first time Federal taxpayer dollars to be spent on embryonic stem cell research.

For my entire career in Congress, I have been a staunch defender of the culture of life and opposed all forms of abortion. At the same time, I believe we have an obligation to improve existing lives and do what we can to make them better in the future.

Today, on this difficult issue, Members will need to vote their consciences. My decision to support this bill was a difficult one, which I came to only after much personal struggle and reflection. My decision was shaped, in part, by the painful experiences of my own family. We lost my brother Jon in 2000, at the age of 44, after a long struggle with liver cancer. My father died after suffering from complications resulting from diabetes.

Let me tell you for a moment about my brother, Jon. He was younger than me. He and his wife, Jennifer, had two children, Jake and Jace. He was a State district judge in Texas. They told Jon he had liver cancer when he was just 41 years old. We tried everything and, in fact, his cancer went into remission. The next year, it came back. Jon died in just three months short of his 44th birthday. I offered to give him part of my liver, but the doctors said he was too far-gone and it wouldn't work. That was five years ago. Jake is now 15, and Jace is 12. Every time I see them and their Mom, I think of Jon and wonder what stem cell research could have done for our family.

I cannot know the truth with absolute certainty, but my heart says that my brother and my father might be with me today if their doctors had access to treatments from stem cell research. Their lives were precious to me and to our family. I come to my decision on this vote because I believe in life, and in the future. If a vote today can save other families from losing brothers and fathers, my conscience will not permit any other decision.

I fully understand that some will say I am just wrong, or blinded by personal emotion. Many who disagree with me are my friends, and I completely respect their views and their advice. They are good people, and good people with the same facts sometimes come to different conclusions. Now, a few others will say that death is simply a part of life. No, it is not. I do not believe that we can ever accept that proposition without setting out on an extraordinary and dangerous path. Life is to be cherished and extended, and death is to be fought and never accepted.

My father and my brother died because illnesses took them. If I can do something to cure illness and thwart death for other families, I will because I must. Scientists believe that expanded embryonic stem cell research holds the potential to find cures for diseases like cancer or diabetes. It is my hope that supporting this bill will mean that many other American families will never have to endure the suffering and loss that my family went through. I believe that my obligation is to help advance science to make human life better now and in the future, in a manner that is consistent with Judeo-Christian ethics.

As we move forward with debate on this bill, my only request is that my colleagues try to respect one another and the deeply held beliefs on both sides of this very complex issue.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), who is a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

(Mrs. MYRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Missouri, the Show Me State (Mr. Blunt), the distinguished majority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) if the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) also wants to recognize him at this time. I yield him 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the distinguished subcommittee chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), a distinguished doctor on the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, just speaking to the Members perhaps back in the offices listening, I have 820,000 constituents in Delaware, and probably more than a third of them have some kind of a disease that might be able to be benefited by embryonic stem cell research.

That is true of the figures in the country. We have 110 million people who have illnesses out of the 290 million people who are living here. They have visited my office. They have visited your offices. There is not a person in this room who has not had many, many visits by people who have very, very serious needs, whose lives are going to be shortened.

I am all for the first bill we debated today because I think it might help somewhat, but I have also looked at some statistics and I have come to realize that of the 15 leading diseases, adult stem cells cannot do anything about 14 of them and can do a only little bit about heart diseases as they deal with only blood diseases in terms of what they can do. Embryonic stem cell research has the ability, perhaps, to do much more than that.

People are going to get up and they are going to say, well, it hasn't done anything yet. They were only discovered about 6\1/2\ years ago. If you read the vast body of research in the United States of America on this subject by people who are truly knowledgeable, you are going to learn there is more potential here than anything that has ever happened in medicine in the history of the United States of America. Congress should never, ever turn its back on this opportunity.

How are we going to get there? How are we going to do embryonic stem cell research? I do not have time to go through the whole in vitro fertilization process except to say that we create embryos in that particular process. They are then frozen. They are generally used and well used, the 400,000 embryos which are out there, to help give birth to people who might not otherwise be able to have a child. But at the end of the process, a decision is made by the individuals that may be involved with that. If the decision is they no longer want that particular embryo, they may do a variety of things with it. They may, as has been discussed here, give it up for adoption. They may decide to have it discarded as hospital waste. That is where the vast, almost all of them actually go as hospital waste.

We want to give them the opportunity to say, within that embryo there are stem cells which could help other people live better lives and give them the opportunity to be able, instead of having it put in a bag for hospital waste, sitting at that table, to be put over here, and the State to be able to do the research. That is what we need to do. We need to be able to develop that as rapidly as we possibly can for the benefit of all mankind.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.

I have been in public office for over 30 years and throughout my career, I--just like all of you--have had the opportunity to change and improve public policy so this country may continue to flourish on the principles it was founded. And the 820,000 people I represent in the State of Delaware are a constant reminder to me of this responsibility. I am their voice in the Congress of the United States.

Some of you may be wondering why I have become so interested and involved in embryonic stem cell research. And frankly, the answer is simple--those 800,000 constituents.

We estimated that about one-half of all visits to my office are about health care and about one-half of those visits are by Delawareans who are suffering themselves or whose family members are suffering--from juvenile diabetes, Alzheimer's, cancer, Parkinson's, HIV and hosts of other dredge diseases. Year by year the groups would grow in number and soon we would have to get bigger rooms for our meetings.

In the early years we would discuss the necessity of funding the National Institutes of Health, and I was proud to be able to support Newt Gingrich and the Republican Party's drive to double funding for the NIH. And that funding has gone toward the basic science needed to find cures and treatments to our most debilitating diseases. But in the past few years, the number one topic on these groups' minds was embryonic stem cell research.

One little girl stands out in mind. I met her a few months ago at an event back in Delaware. Olivia was two months old when she was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. Her parents were first time parents so it is no wonder that the practice of testing her blood sugar and giving her insulin shots was extremely heartbreaking. Olivia is now 6 and has never known life without diabetes. She is the person we are fighting for on the floor today.

She is one of 110 million people who are suffering that may be helped by stem cell research.

I remember very clearly the difficult decision President Bush made on August 9, 2001 and I know how careful he was to balance the needs of science with his own moral concerns. At the time, the compromise--to allow Federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells lines that had already been derived--seemed quite reasonable. But as we know, unfortunately, the number of lines eligible for research--once as high as 78--is now only at 22, with the NIH saying the number of lines will never get above 23.

So when Diana DeGette and I began discussing how to expand the President's policy in an ethical manner, I went right back to the speech he gave to the Nation in 2001. We wanted to be as consistent as possible with the ethics he laid out in his speech as we worked to update the policy. The legislation we are going to vote on today, H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which has the backing of the medical groups, the scientists, the research universities and the patient advocacy groups, mirrors the President's ethical requirements.

I will read them to you and ask that you think about them very closely:

(1) Embryos used to derive stem cells were originally created for fertility treatment purposes and are in excess of clinical need;

(2) The individuals seeking fertility treatments for whom the embryos were created have determined that the embryos will not be implanted in a woman and will otherwise be discarded; and,

(3) The individuals for whom the embryos were created have provided written consent for embryo donation and without receiving financial inducement. You may ask what is different--we simply lift the arbitrary August 9, 2001 date.

It is also critical that we are clear about what this legislation does not do:

(1) No federal funding for the destruction of embryos or human life. This is prohibited by law.

(2) No federal funding for the creation of embryos for research.

Under our legislation it is up to the couple to decide what should happen to their embryos. Embryos can be adopted or donated; embryos can be frozen for future family building; embryos can be discarded. After that initial decision is made, and if a couple decides to discard the embryos, our legislation would allow those couples to make a second choice--do they want to donate them to research?

An embryo or blastocyst is about 250 cells and the inner cell mass is about 100 cells and that is where the stem cells come from. They are created in a petri dish, are about 5 days old and are the size of a pine head. Of the 400,000 frozen embryos in in vitro fertilization clinics throughout the U.S., about 2 percent are discarded annually-- that is about 8,000--11,000 embryos that could be slated for research. Allowing the option of donating these excess embryos to research is similar to donating organs for organ transplantation in order to save or improve the quality of another person's life.

The bottom line is when a couple has decided to discard their excess embryos they are either going to be discarded as medical waste or they can be donated for research. Throughout this debate you will hear about adult stem cells and more about umbilical cord cells and how these types of cells are sufficient for scientists.

This is simply not true. Umbilical cord cells are adult stem cells and they are limited.

Adult and umbilical cord cells are already differentiated into the types of cells they are, they are difficult to harvest and grow and they do not exist for every tissue type. On the other hand, embryonic stem cells are ``master cells''--they have the potential to grow into any type of cell in the body, they are easier to identify, isolate, purify and grow and they are capable of continual reproduction.

Listen to what the NIH has to say on this topic:

Human embryonic stem cells are thought to have much greater

developmental potential than adult stem cells. This means

that embryonic stem cells may be pluripotent--that is, able

to give rise to cells found in all tissues of the embryo

except for germ cells rather than being merely multipotent--

restricted to specific subpopulations of cell types, as adult

stem cells are thought to be.

In 2003, 1.6 million people died of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, kidney disease, liver disease and Parkinson's. Of the 15 leading causes of death, adult stem cell research only addresses one. Adult stem cells have been around since the 1960s. Embryonic stem cells were only isolated in 1998. We must explore research on all types of stem cells, but the reality is the only policy that is restricted is the Federal embryonic stem cell policy.

The NIH is the right place to oversee this research because it can regulate the ethics, it provides for scientific collaboration and peer review and promotes publication so all breakthroughs are reported and all scientists have access to the latest research discoveries. Without NIH oversight there are no guidelines as to how this research should be conducted.

The United States has always been the premier leader in biomedical research in our country and around the world. As science continues to move rapidly forward, we need to continue to lead the way but we are not. Why should we waste one more year, one more day, forcing millions to suffer because of a policy that is outdated and unworkable.

Does this Congress really want to look back 10 years from now and say that we were the ones holding the treatments up? Or do we want to be the Congress that says, we back science, we want research to flourish and we played a small role in making that happen.

Support H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act and accelerate hope.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

(Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Hampshire.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the chairman of the Committee on Science.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman physician from the State of Michigan (Mr. Schwarz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 35 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), and that he be allowed to yield that time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished and courageous gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), who has been a wonderful help on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for the purpose of making a unanimous-consent request.

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).

Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), I would just yield a minute to myself to respond to a couple of comments.

First of all, there is a misconception here. Under the Castle/DeGette bill, no public funds are used for embryo destruction. Current law precludes that and we keep that under our bill.

Secondly, we are not spending $60 million through the NIH through embryonic stem cell research. Last year it was really $25 million, and the reason is because the President's policy, issued in August of 2001, has not worked. Instead of 80 or 90 stem cell lines, we only had around 19 to 22 stem cell lines. And of those lines, all of them were contaminated with mouse ``feeder'' cells, and many of them were not available to researchers here in country. That is why we have to ethically expand embryonic stem cell research.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished and patient gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).

(Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify something. I am actually not sure that those who oppose this bill understand what this bill really does.

In 1995, two Members of Congress, Mr. Dickey and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), inserted language in the appropriations bill, which is there every year and has been there every year I have been in Congress, and it says: ``No Federal funds shall be used to create or destroy embryos.''

Now, those on the other side of this debate say they do not think Federal funds should be used for this research, even though by their own admission the majority of Americans support this research. And so here is what this bill does, and maybe once I explain it, everyone will want to vote for it.

What it says is, People who go to in vitro fertilization clinics, there are leftover embryos as part of the process. They can decide one of two things: Number one, do they want to not discard the embryos and either donate them to other couples, and they can be these snowflake children, or to store them in a freezer? Or the donors can decide if they want to throw them away. Or do they want to donate them to science? It is their decision with informed consent.

Now, if they decide to donate them, then what would happen would be the embryos would go to a clinic where a stem cell line would be developed from the embryo with private funds. No Federal funds. The only Federal funds used under the Castle/DeGette bill are Federal funds to then develop those embryonic stem cell lines.

Just as the President's executive order in August of 2001 allowed stem

cell lines to be researched with Federal funding, but he limited those lines, we are allowing more of those lines.

So no embryos will be destroyed with Federal funds. I hope that clarifies the situation.

Mr. Speaker, I am now delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished minority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).

(Mrs. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Inslee).

(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say, if people want to donate their embryos to another couple for adoption, our bill allows that. But our bill also allows people who do not want to give their embryos for adoption to donate them for science, so the children who are alive today can be cured. I assume no one on the other side of this issue would want to force everybody to give up their embryos for adoption, because clearly that would be limiting the choice that people have.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

(Mr. UPTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am intending to reserve the rest of my time for closing.

Mr. Speaker, I come from Florida, and a lot of people think that only retirees and seniors live in Florida, but I want to put a face on a couple that was very successful with in vitro fertilization. They are 47 years old. They had a daughter born as a result of in vitro fertilization. The child was born with multiple heart problems and had to have three surgeries before she was 2 years old.

This couple believes that far more good can come from donating the remaining embryos for research. They have decided not to have any more children. And ultimately what we have not heard here is what the American people want. This is a couple that wants to be able to donate the embryos, which certainly they can do now, but they also want to have Federal research dollars go toward this.

This really is all about where taxpayer dollars go. And when you look at the huge book of pork that comes out every single year, when we go back home and say to our constituents, would you rather have some of this money going to, for example, some foreign countries that regularly turn their backs on us, or would you like to see some significant research done from embryonic stem cells that would be disposed of, the majority of our constituents are clearly going to say, use the money for significant research.

We have to remember that this is not an either/or. Certainly the umbilical cord research is a great science. We need to move forward with that as well as the embryonic stem cell research.

Remember, for this couple and her husband deciding to donate those embryos, they believe they will be saving other children's lives. They believe they will be helping an aunt who has early-stage Alzheimer's. They believe they will be able to help spinal cord injury victims. That is what this research holds the potential for. No, we do not have the cures yet; but unless we go forward, we never will. I fully support the Castle/DeGette bill, and hope other Members do, too.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005. I stand with 200 of America's most respected research organizations in support of this bill.

I would like to especially thank Congressmen Castle and DeGette for their tireless efforts on behalf of the millions of people who may benefit from enhanced stem cell research.

I would also like to thank Speaker Hastert and Leader DeLay for the debate today and for giving the 200+ cosponsors of this legislation a vote on the House floor.

I rise today as a mother, as a concerned grandparent, and as someone who is worried that the untapped potential of stem cell research may be falling by the wayside.

In my congressional district on the gulf coast of Florida, I have had the pleasure of meeting Holly, a 47-year-old mother of two.

Like many Americans, Holly and her husband had trouble getting pregnant, and their first daughter was born through in vitro fertilization.

Her daughter was born with a congenital heart condition, and had three surgeries before her second birthday.

As with most in vitro fertilization procedures, Holly and her husband had several embryos

left over after the procedure. They chose to keep the remaining embryos frozen.

This couple was then blessed by a second miracle daughter who was conceived without in vitro fertilization The happy couple decided not to have any more children, and had to make a choice about what to do with their frozen embryos.

Holly and her husband are well aware of Operation Snowflake and the adoption options for their embryos.

But, like many other parents, they would rather donate their embryos for research to help prevent heart disease--like their daughter was born with--or cure cancer, Alzheimer's disease or Parkinson's.

For Holly and her husband, they decided that donating their embryos for medical research would be their best chance to save other children's lives. Increasing stem cell research could find potential cures for many diseases that affect so many American families.

Put another way, the issue of embryos and their ability to be used for stem cell research is kind of like a flashlight. Until you put the batteries in, a flashlight will not produce light.

Likewise, only when an embryo is implanted in a uterus to grow, can life be sustained. Embryos sitting frozen in a clinic help no one. The embryo does not grow in the frozen state, so human life is not being created and nurtured.

In addition, when the couple stops paying the daily fees to store the embryos, unless they have the medical donation option, their remaining embryos will be disposed of as medical waste. That would be tragic.

Holly and her husband know this fact. They know that without the nurturing and love that a woman's body provides, these embryos will be wasted.

Science tells us that after as short a time as eight years, these frozen embryos will begin to deteriorate, and lose their viability for implantation.

Mr. Speaker, these embryos are too important to linger in a frozen test tube or to see discarded without helping mankind.

Additionally, I have yet to hear in this entire debate what opponents of H.R. 810 would do with those embryos that are not adopted, and eventually go to waste in a cryogenic freezer.

Would they want those embryos to be thrown out as medical waste, or instead help provide the basis for life-affirming scientific research?

Holly and her husband know that the great potential and promise of stem cell research will not move forward without their donated embryos and their support.

However, it is their respect for the culture of life that has brought them to this decision. They have weighed the choices available to them, and rather than donating the embryo for adoption, have chosen to let their embryos potentially save millions of lives.

Thousands of people around the country have made similar decisions to support life-affirming and life-enhancing research.

H.R. 810 will give hope where hope does not exist.

Passage of this bill today will let the research on stem cells continue under ethical guidelines, and will provide millions of Americans suffering from terminal diseases the hope that they have been denied.

All these organizations listed on this posterboard, such as the American Academy for Cancer Research and the American Medical Association, support H.R. 810. I urge my fellow Members of Congress to vote yes on the bill