Bart Stupak

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Hinchey amendment, and I appreciate the effort he has been doing with these last two amendments, and I hope we will continue his work, because the amendment is very important. It will help us put a stop to the conflict of interests which actually weakens the drug approval process. The FDA advisory committees are charged with ensuring that the medicines our families take are safe and effective. Current law prohibits conflicts of interest between the members on the advisory committee and the companies whose drug is being examined by the advisory committee. Though the FDA has the authority to waive this prohibition under certain limited circumstances, this exception has now become the rule, and too often the FDA places scientists with financial connections to the drugs they are examining on the advisory committees. Conflicts of interest create disastrous consequences. In some cases, one-third of the advisory committee's appointees do part-time consulting work, research or own stock in the companies whose drugs they are considering. Such a committee approved the drug Vioxx. As many as 100,000 people have been injured by taking Vioxx. Had the members of the advisory committee with ties to the industry been removed, Vioxx would not have been approved. Some will argue and some may argue that scientists with financial connections to the industry may still be unbiased. However, this week an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that senior executives at Merck threatened to damage a Harvard researcher's career if he publicly lectured about the health effects of Vioxx. In such an environment, where those who are trying to help protect our families are threatened by drug companies, it is inconceivable that advisory committee members can remain unbiased as they examine their part-time employer's drugs. The financial interests are too great, not only for those who sit on the advisory committee, but also the drug companies who produce these drugs, and do whatever they can to get them approved. We have so much work to do in this area. The Hinchey amendment does not put any new requirements upon the FDA, merely enforces the law as is written; and this Congress should stand up and enforce the law as explained in previous Congresses.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to give patients and doctors the information they deserve about the safety and effectiveness of prescription drugs. My amendment is simple. It requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make sure clinical trials that are required to be listed in a public database by law are in fact listed, and it requires those clinical trials to be listed before a drug is approved to be marketed. My amendment requires nothing of HHS but to enforce the current law. As part of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997, Congress mandated that a central drug trial database be created to house all clinical trials for all serious and life-threatening diseases and conditions. Three years later, in 2000, clinicaltrials.gov became the online site of the clinical trials data bank. FDA issued guidance on registering their trials in the clinical trials data bank in March of 2002. Two years after the guidance for the industry has been issued, compliance with the law has been dismal at best. While 80 percent of drug trials are privately conducted, only 13 percent of them are listed on clinicaltrials.gov. FDA analysis from 2002 showed that less than half of all cancer trials are on the FDA Web site. An FDA official last year told The Washington Post that they have seen no ``big increase in the monthly submission of privately sponsored protocols'' since 2002. Drug company compliance has been so lax that last year even the editor in chief of the Journal of the American Medical Association, JAMA, assumed the registry was only for federally funded clinical trials. The reality is that this law is not a lack of understanding, but the law has been ignored by the drug companies. This amendment is simple. Before the FDA can approve a new drug application, the clinical trials must be registered at clinicaltrials.gov first. FDA cannot allow these drug companies to continue to ignore the law. We said in 1997 that the drug companies must share their drug trial information with patients and doctors, especially those with serious injuries and illnesses or life-threatening disease. This issue is not controversial. Last June, the American Medical Association adopted a resolution calling for a Federal database of clinical trials. The AMA and others are concerned that drug companies emphasize the results of positive tests while playing down the negative or inconclusive results as they did with Vioxx, Accutane, and the adolescent antidepressant drugs. The New England Journal of Medicine and others require studies to be listed on the Web site before the journals will publish articles about the studies. This amendment does not create any new duties. This amendment does not expand the database to other drugs. No drugs are going to be denied approval, as long as the trials get listed. It just requires the enforcement of this widely supported, lifesaving law. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, in all due respect, I do not require any of that. I require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to do it; not the FDA, not the NIH, the Secretary of Health and Human Services. These agencies, Food and Drug Administration, NIH, are underneath their jurisdiction. That is why we drafted it this way, to get around the germaneness issue. We are not requiring FDA or NIH. It is only the Secretary of HHS. As to the second part of your ruling, Mr. Chairman, you said we are creating new law. We were very careful, as I pointed out, that every word used in the proposed amendment is the same words used in the Public Health Service Act and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. That is exemption, that is in both acts; registry of clinical trials, exact same words; and limits to, quote, serious or life-threatening disease or condition, again words all found in the 1997 act which we require the Secretary to do, so we do not get into this thing about putting a new requirement on FDA or NIH.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise to offer an amendment that will ensure that the FDA continues to carry out its mission to promote drug safety and effectiveness and assist the public in obtaining accurate science-based information. The FDA's mission is not to conduct secret investigation of its own employees. Unfortunately, some of the FDA's recent actions seem like they are more about protecting themselves than protecting the American public. My amendment is very simple. It forbids the use of funds by the FDA to conduct any investigation of or take any action against an FDA employee who provides information or an opinion to the public or Congress that concerns the FDA and is not prohibited from being released under the law. Congress has expressed serious concerns regarding recent reports that FDA has asked Dr. David Graham to leave his current position within the Office of Drug Safety after more than 20 years of service. Dr. Graham has been a dedicated public servant, working to ensure the safety of America's drug supply. Dr. Graham was asked to testify before Congress at the request of a committee Chair and was under an obligation to answer a question posed by the committee based on his expertise. And Dr. Graham, to his credit, answered, in his opinion, there are five more drugs that we should look at, including the drug called Accutane, which has over 250 suicides associated with it. The public's interest and society's safety is certainly not served when the FDA goes around and asks their safety officers to leave their job because they have done their job and honestly answered a question put forth by committee members in a congressional setting. In the words of Dr. Janet Woodcock, the former director of the Center of Drug Evaluation and Research, `` . . . FDA thrives on differences of scientific opinion. That reality is our culture. Our scientists have the right to speak up and disagree and have a vigorous scientific debate. That's how we arrive at the best decisions.'' However, the FDA actions are contrary to this statement. The treatment of Dr. Graham and other employees undoubtedly has had a chilling effect on the willingness of FDA's employees to speak up and disagree when they believe the public's health is at risk. Other reports have said that the Director of the Center of Drug Safety himself, Dr. Steve Galson, contacted the editor of the Lancet to suggest that Dr. Graham manipulated a study to be published in the Lancet. At the same time, according to the Government Accountability Project, FDA managers posed as whistleblowers, attacking Dr. Graham's credibility in an effort to discourage the Government Accountability Project from taking from Dr. Graham as a client. The FDA also launched an investigation into Dr. Andrew Mosholder when a newspaper reported he was not able to testify before an advisory committee about his concerns about antidepressant use in children. This shameful behavior by management of the FDA cannot continue, and we demand that we put a stop to it. I ask for support of my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, does the Federal Food and Drug Administration and NIH not fall underneath the Health and Human Services, HHS, Department?

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, this does not require any new duties, none whatsoever. If the chairman would point that out to me, maybe we could have a discussion about it; but there are no new duties being required here. It does not require the drug companies to do anything different than they were required to do in 1997. They do not have to report the results of the studies. They just have to report it. In addition, it does not mandate posting trials for anything else, because we have limited it more to the serious and life-threatening, exactly what the law said in 1997. We did not expand the scope of it. The FDA simply has to enforce what they are supposed to enforce by law. The FDA has already published several guidelines to drug companies about which drug trials have to be listed, when they have to be listed, and what has to be listed. If they can get them listed, it can be approved. The amendment simply instructs the Secretary of HHS, not FDA but HHS, to ensure compliance. It makes sure one hand of the HHS talks to the other. When we drafted this amendment, it should be made germane because it concerns the use of funds for carrying out the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and funds for that purpose provided in the bill. As to whether there are those duties, I referred to the Secretary here. I did not refer to anyone else, the same as the 1997 law. We have said ``Secretary'' because it is used in both the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and also the Public Health Service Act, that is, HHS administers both of these acts. Therefore, there is nothing new. The argument is not that there is a new duty for HHS to check whether clinical trials are registered because the Public Health Service Act section, 402(j), states that the database, and I am using the exact language now, 402(j) of the Public Health Act says, shall include a registry of clinical trials, end of quote, for which investigative and new drugs have been provided. There is nothing here new. All we are saying is the concepts used in my amendment are used in current law. We use the word ``exemption.'' That is in current law. We use ``registry of clinical trials.'' Current law. We refer to only serious or life-threatening disease or condition. That is current law. There are no new duties here.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, we drafted these amendments carefully with legislative counsel and others to make sure they were germane. If you want to rule that they are not germane, I guess you have the right to do that; and I will not appeal the ruling of the Chair because I can count the votes. But the thing I would ask, when a Member has a parliamentary inquiry, if someone would at least tell us where the amendment is wrong so it can be corrected. With all due respect to the chairman, you read what was put forth, but you never say what is wrong with our amendment. What is wrong with these last two amendments that made them not germane, so we can correct it to be within the parliamentary setting of this body? We have part of the House institution telling us our amendments are in order. We get to the floor, and we find them not in order. I guess it is just a little frustrating when we talk about the health and safety of the American people, and we have examples where the FDA has not done their job, so we try to correct it in the only body we can, through legislative amendments, and we come here and we get this ``speak-legalese,'' and I do not have anything against legals since I am an attorney myself. But just a simple question like where are we legislating in this appropriations bill, when we have such tightly crafted amendments that are even taken from existing law so we do not legislate on an appropriations bill and we are still ruled out of order or not germane. If you can answer that parliamentary inquiry, I would appreciate it.

Mr. STUPAK. But, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, the FDA does make investigations under current law under their own administration. So how can you say they are not charged with the duty of doing investigations of their employees? They make that determination every day, whether a member can speak at an advisory committee, whether a member can answer a question, an FDA doctor, at a congressional hearing, as we saw with Dr. Graham. I am bemused, to say the least.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an All- American hero. On Memorial Day, May 30 2005, Medal of Honor Veteran Owen Francis Patrick Hammerberg will have a large granite monument dedicated in his honor and memory by the Menominee Mid County VFW Post 5966. This monument dedication is fitting in honoring the epitome of a hero on this Memorial Day. Born to Elizabeth (Leaveck) and Jonas Hammerberg, a Swedish immigrant, on a farm 3 miles east of Dagget, Michigan, Owen Hammerberg was instilled with the values that would later make him an American hero. After moving to several small towns in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, the Hammerbergs settled in Stephenson long enough for Owen Hammerberg to attend grade school and a portion of high school. The family then went on to Flint, Michigan, where Owen Hammerberg dropped out of school and hitch hiked out west to work on a ranch before joining the Navy. At age 21, Hammerberg enlisted in the Navy on July 16, 1941. After training at the Great Lakes Training Center near Chicago, he was assigned to the USS Idaho and USS Advent, a minesweeper, for several years. While aboard the Advent, he showed a first glimpse of true bravery when a cable tangled in a mine risked an explosion and the lives of the men on board. Without hesitation, Hammerberg dove into the water, freeing the cable and saving the lives of his comrades. He was recommended for a Bronze Star, but unfortunately never received one. Hammerberg's instincts combined with his swimming ability made him the perfect member of the Deep Sea Diving School where upon graduation he was assigned to the Commander Service Force, U.S. South Pacific Fleet, Salvage Unit in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. On February 17, 1945, Boatwain's Mate Second Class, Owen Francis Patrick Hammerberg showed his incredible talent, instinct and bravery that would later cause roads, ships and parks to be named in his honor. In May 1944, the Navy was forced to blow up and sink 5 ship-tanks that had been set ablaze risking the explosion of nearby battle air- ships. Then the following February, they called in five diving teams to raise the hulks and clear the channel. Hammerberg was assigned to one of the teams. Each team would be allowed to go ``on leave'' when their ship was raised. An easy task for the skilled Hammerberg and his team, they completed their assignment and went on leave. Another team, not bearing nearly the same fortune, became trapped in the steel and cables of a downed ship. In the attempt to reach them, the waters became muddied and not even a special diving team from New York would risk the rescue mission. After the call went out for volunteer divers, 23-year-old Hammerberg agreed and instinctively suited up his gear and set out through the black muddy waters to save the stranded divers. It took Hammerberg five hours to free the first diver. George Fuller, who had been pinned by a steel plate, shook Hammerberg's hand underwater before heading to the surface for safety. In the attempt to save the second diver, Earl Brown, a large steel plate slid through the mud toward them. Hammerberg took the brunt of the plate on himself to save the life of the other diver. As a result, Hammerberg was crushed to death. Seventy-three hours after Hammerberg volunteered for the assignment, a Filipino father and son used their unsophisticated methods to rescue the last trapped diver, Earl Brown. The father-son team recovered Hammerberg's body. That February, Hammerberg was awarded the last non-combat Congressional Medal of Honor in Michigan at the Grosse Ile Naval Station where his mother and father received duplicate medals. He also received the American Defense Service Medal Fleet Clasp, Asiatic- Pacific Campaign Medal, the American Campaign Medal, and the World War II Victory Medal. These medals and his uniform are on display at Michigan's Own Inc., Military and Space Museum in Frankenmuth, Michigan. On August 19, 1954, the U.S. Navy launched a destroyer escort, the USS Hammerberg, in the name and honor of Owen Hammerberg with his family present. His mother christened the new ship. Approximately the same time, Hammerberg Road was dedicated in Flint, Michigan and a park in Detroit was named in his honor. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to remind the House of Representatives that on February 17, 1945, Owen Francis Patrick Hammerberg did not have to put on his diving suit that last time and brave the dark waters to save these men. Yet without hesitation, this young man from Dagget, Michigan showed the world what it means to be an American serviceman-- unselfishly courageous. I ask the House of Representatives to join me in honoring the life and memory of Owen Hammerberg, an All-American hero on this most appropriate of holidays, Memorial Day.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding man of faith, Father Lawrence T. Gauthier. On June 4th, 2005, Father Gauthier will celebrate the 50th anniversary of his ordination as a priest. Father Gauthier's contribution to the Catholic Church and his faith has touched so many in Michigan's Upper Peninsula and beyond. Father Gauthier's has focused on education throughout his entire life. Born to Leo and Margaret Gauthier on February 26, 1929 in Marquette, Michigan, he attended grade school in the Catholic school of Marquette. In 1949, he studied at the Salvatorian Minor Seminary and St. Francis Major Seminary in Wisconsin, earning his Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy in 1951. He then went on to complete four years of theology at St. John's Provincial Seminary in Plymouth, Michigan. On June 4th, 1955 at St. Peter Cathedral, Bishop Thomas L. Noa, D.D. ordained Father Lawrence T. Gauthier as a priest of the Holy Catholic Church. Although he had obtained a major goal in his career, he continued to pursue his education. In 1960, Father Gauthier attended Catholic University where he earned his Masters Degree in school administration and counseling. From 1965-1973 he undertook post graduate studies in his hometown of Marquette at Northern Michigan University in Education Systems. He also studied at Mount Mary College in Cincinnati, Ohio and Catholic University in Washington, D.C. in the field of Religious Education. As a priest, Father Gauthier has dedicated his entire life and career to the church. He served as administrator of two missions in the diocese and also as pastor at Nativity Parish in Sault Ste. Marie, St. Michael's Parish in Marquette and St. Louis the King Parish in Marquette. During those years in the church, he continued his devotion to education by spending the greater part of his priestly ministry in the field of Catholic Education serving as principal of Loretto Central High School in Sault Ste. Marie, Holy Name High School in Escanaba and Bishop Baraga Central High School in Marquette. In 1968, he was appointed Superintendent of Catholic Schools for the Diocese of Marquette and three years later was appointed Superintendent of Catholic Education focusing on not only Catholic schools but also for all religious education throughout the Diocese. Throughout his 50 years of ministry, Father Gauthier has held many positions in the church. He was the Director of Evangelization and served as Secretary, Treasurer and then as President of the Priests' Council. He was a member and President of the Priest Personnel Board and also a member of the Diocesan Reconciliation Board. He spent several terms on the St. Joseph's Association for Priest Retirement and was also a consultant to the Bishop. Although Father Gauthier is retired now, he continues to help parishes and serve his faith. He continues his 30th year as Director of the Propagation of the Faith, Director of the Holy Childhood Association, the Home Mission and in 2000 he was assigned as the Catholic Relief Services Director. Once again for the third year, Father Gauthier has been assigned to represent the senior priests of the dioceses on the Priests' council. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in thanking Father Lawrence T. Gauthier for his service to the Holy Catholic Church and his tireless dedication to the value of education and involvement in his faith community. Beyond the incredible credentials, leadership roles and accomplishments that span his lifetime, Father Gauthier has shown unwavering commitment to the people he has served. He has truly done God's work through his teachings and as a role model for parishioners.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, let me thank the chairman and the ranking member for their hard work on this legislation. This amendment here is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve amendment. Basically, it says no funds made available by this act shall be used to accept deliveries of petroleum products to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. When we did the energy bill, and I sit on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, our amendment was made in order and was accepted by the committee. Our amendment then was a little more detailed. It said there would be no oil going into SPR until the cost of a barrel of oil dropped below $44 for 2 consecutive weeks under the New York Stock Exchange. If we put that triggering provision into this amendment, there would have been a point of order and this amendment would have been accepted under the rules of the House. Therefore, we have changed it and said no more delivery of petroleum products to the SPR fund. So I am joined by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) to support this amendment. When I go back to my district, many of my constituents express their concern with rising gasoline prices. I suspect most Members are hearing the same thing when they go home to their own districts. In an already fiscally constrained economy, these high gasoline prices yield yet another burden to America's families' already-tight purse strings. The high cost of gasoline and oil has long been a problem and one that Congress has long grappled with. Today, oil is hovering around $49 a barrel which some experts predict could spike as high as $60 a barrel this summer. With Memorial Day just around the corner, we are seeing prices at the pump reaching over $2 a gallon, with some parts of the country seeing prices as high as $2.44 a gallon. How high does the price have to go and for how long before we take action? It is no secret, there are no quick fixes or easy fixes when it comes to the problem of high gasoline and oil prices; but there is no reason to continue filling the SPR with petroleum products when our economy is suffering due to sky-high oil and gas prices. The suspension of oil delivery to the SPR would put additional barrels of oil out into the world market to stabilize the world's oil supply and provide some relief at the pump to our consumers. To continue filling the SPR sends the wrong message to the American public who continues to struggle because of these record-breaking gas prices, and it does nothing to help reduce the skyrocketing prices at the pump. It just does not make economic sense to add more pressure to what we all know is a very tight oil market when the effect is creating even higher gas prices for consumers here at home. Finally, suspending the filling of the SPR does not hurt our energy security. The reserve is already filled to 95 percent capacity. It has approximately 695 million barrels that are now in storage. That is the highest it has ever been in our Nation's history. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that will take pressure off the price of a barrel of oil and hopefully at the gas pump at home. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. For fiscal year 2006 and 2007, the Army Corps has implemented new guidelines for determining whether a harbor is considered high use and, therefore, eligible to be considered to be funded for dredging in the President's budget. In order for a harbor to be considered high use, it must move at least 1 million tons of cargo per year. This would have severe ramifications on small, rural harbors, such as Ontonagon Harbor in my district, which has typically been included in the President's budget. If the harbor is not dredged, the future of our paper company, Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation, which relies on the harbor for coal and limestone deliveries, and White Pine Power, a revitalized coal plant that depends on the harbor for coal deliveries by ship for its power generation, will be in jeopardy. Without this yearly dredge, these communities are subject to harsh floods and the inability to receive goods they need through these harbors. I seek assurance from the gentleman that he will work with the Corps and us to reevaluate this policy that could affect not only my small harbors, but small harbors throughout this country.

Mr. STUPAK. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their assurances. I look forward to working with them on this issue. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. STUPAK

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

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

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

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

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

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