Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 5) to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express frustration, frustration that I share with millions of Americans around this country. Every day, millions of patients suffer from debilitating diseases and conditions. For many, embryonic stem cell research is the most promising source of potential cures and treatments. Unfortunately, because of the stubbornness of one man, President Bush, these people continue to suffer as they wait.

Since the discovery of embryonic stem cells in 1998, the vast majority of biomedical researchers in this country identify embryonic stem cell research as the most promising source of treatments for diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, spinal cord injury and multiple sclerosis. With the unique ability to become any cell in the body, embryonic stem cells truly are the key to taking science to a whole new level.

Unfortunately, President Bush has stubbornly refused to pay attention to these scientists and the patients who might be helped by this research. In August 2001, the President announced that he would prohibit the National Institutes of Health from funding research on embryonic stem cells lines created after August 2001. Assertions to the contrary, there are fewer than 20 stem cell lines in existence, and most of these researchers are finding less and less workable.

Despite the President's opposition to the research, Congress has acted over and over again for this funding. In 2006, we passed the first bill. This year, as H.R. 3, we passed the second bill. And all of the bills, including S. 5, have the same provisions: Embryos used to derive stem cells which were created for fertility treatments and are in excess of clinical need, the individuals for whom those embryos were created, have determined the embryos are not needed and voluntarily donate them and the individuals provide written consent.

Let me remind my colleagues that under current law there are no ethical guidelines like these that govern any stem cell research that happens today. Unfortunately, the President vetoed the bill. But in the 2006 elections, embryonic stem cell research became a critical issue, and it passed this House again in January with an overwhelming majority.

It is time to pass this bill again now with the Senate language and send a clear message to the President and this country: The majority of Americans want stem cell research.

While the NIH remains limited to a few number of stem cell lines, the rest of the world has eagerly filled the void.

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. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) for 2 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), a true hero on this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

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. 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. Speaker, I would inquire as to the time remaining on each side.

And on the other side, Mr. Speaker?

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).

I'll continue to reserve, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am now delighted to yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am now very pleased to yield to 1 minute to my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), a real leader on this issue.

Could I inquire of the Speaker how much time is left on both sides.

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. Speaker, I am now honored to recognize the Speaker of the House for our remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to commit.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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 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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to commit.

I am in its present form.

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.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule and to this seriously flawed underlying legislation. While the process involved with bringing bills to this floor is very slightly improved over this past January when the Democratic leadership bypassed long- standing bipartisan regular order and used their rules package to create a closed process that skipped even bringing their flawed stem cell bill to the Rules Committee for its consideration, it is still overwhelmingly flawed and directly contradicts widely reported Democrat campaign promises to run the most open and ethical Congress in history.

Yesterday, the Rules Committee met and the majority Democrats reported out two completely closed rules, one which will completely lock down this important debate today regarding the Federal funding of stem cell research upon which a great deal of honest and heartfelt moral and scientific disagreement exists on both sides of the aisle.

In this exclusive and rushed process, it feels very familiar for the Members. If it does, it should. Because, back in January, the Democrat leadership forced a similar hastily written and politically motivated stem cell bill through the House without any input from the Members. Their purpose then was the same as it is today: to attempt to score some political points at the expense of sound science, openness, and transparency, not to mention feedback from its Members.

Because they knew that their crass political move would never pass the Senate, today we are forced again to take up yet another flawed stem cell bill for political purposes under yet another completely closed rule that provides no Member of this body with the opportunity to amend or improve it.

Worst of all, rather than taking this second chance to work in a bipartisan fashion to create a bill that balances cutting-edge medical research with the serious ethical implications created by stem cell research, this rule simply advances the Democrats' cynical agenda to send a flawed bill to the President for his veto, despite the legislation not even achieving a veto-proof majority in the Senate.

Unfortunately, judging by their performance on recent supplemental funding measures for our troops, it seems like the Democrats need to be vetoed once or twice before they realize that they simply cannot pander to their liberal blogs. They actually need to work together to reach across the aisle to deliver workable bills that are in the interest of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, not only is this a bad way to handle this process, I think it is an embarrassment to the institution that the Democrat leadership would fail to work openly with the over 400 duly elected Members of this legislative body to find common ground that balances the multiple grave concerns surrounding this legislation.

This legislation forces taxpayers to fund research requiring the destruction of human embryos rather than seeking a middle ground on which researchers can be provided with the embryonic stem cells that they need to advance science while not violating the sanctity of life.

This legislation fails to specify whether these embryonic stem cells that will now be eligible for Federal funding can be taken from embryos that still retain the potential for implantation or if they would be taken from embryos that no longer have the potential for further cellular division.

This lack of clarity is not a function of a lack of ideas or debate on the matter. A compromise measure, introduced in the Senate by Senators Isakson and Coleman, already exists which provides for research only on those embryos which no longer have the potential for cellular division.

Here in the House my colleagues, including my friend from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, also offered a thoughtful amendment that was rejected by the Democrat Rules Committee which would have provided for the Federal funding of pluripotent stem cells which can specialize in any bodily tissue but cannot develop into a human being.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to inquire upon how much time is remaining on both sides, please.

I continue to reserve my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 464 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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.

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. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Rules Committee.

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. 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.

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).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I include the following statements in support of S. 5:

Cancer Research and Prevention Foundation

Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Regenerative Medicine

June 7, 2007.

The Cancer Research and Prevention Foundation (CRPF)

strongly supports efforts to expand the current, restrictive

policy governing embryonic stem cell research, under strict,

ethical guidelines. The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act,

S. 5, will accomplish the expansion, while maintaining strong

ethical standards. Enactment of S. 5 will provide hope to the

estimated 1.5 million men, women and children diagnosed with

cancer each year.

The House and Senate have both passed legislation in the

110th Congress that will expand the current policy by

allowing Federally-funded research to be conducted on embryos

derived after August 9, 2001, on leftover embryos that will

be otherwise destroyed or discarded by fertility clinics. The

legislation ensures that no Federal funds will be used to

create or derive embryos for research purposes, nor will any

individual be compensated for donation of an embryo for

research purposes.

According to a poll recently released by the Coalition for

the Advancement of Medical Research, nearly sixty (60)

percent of Americans want President Bush to sign the Stem

Cell Research Enhancement Act into law. More than 500 disease

advocacy organizations, universities, professional societies

and other organizations have endorsed S. 5 and the Stem cell

Research Enhancement Act.

Embryonic stem cell research may hold great potential to

improve the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of cancer.

Scientific evidence indicates that stem cells provide

powerful models of the cellular and molecular origins of many

cancer types, helping us better understand the disease and

provide insight into critical aspects of cell growth and

differentiation altered during tumorigenesis. This work may

also improve pre-clinical evaluations of drug toxicity and

efficacy, identify markers for early cancer detection and aid

in the discovery of novel treatment targets.

The Cancer Research and Prevention Foundation supports

embryonic stem cell research, as well as other forms of stem

cell research such as bone marrow stem cells, adult stem

cells and stem cells derived from cord blood.

Embryonic stem cell research has the potential to benefit

millions of Americans suffering from cancer, diabetes,

Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, spinal cord injury, heart disease

and beyond. In order to realize the full potential of

embryonic stem cell research, the Federal Government must act

quickly to ensure that research is being conducted with the

most scientifically viable stem cell lines available, that

the best and brightest medical researchers and clinicians are

involved in the field, and that the United States and top

research institutions remain leaders in biomedical and

regenerative medicine research.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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 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.''