![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.916666666666667in"
height="1.1159722222222221in"}

# Legislative Bulletin...........................................July 19, 2006

> **Contents:**
>
> **H.R. 810** --- Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 -- **Vote
> to Sustain Presidential Veto**

H.R. 810 --- Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 --

(Castle, R-DE)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}:** The bill is expected to be vetoed
by President Bush and a "veto message" will be forwarded to the House
with the vetoed bill for reconsideration.

This bill was originally passed in the House by a vote of 238-194 on May
24, 2005. It is expected to pass the Senate later today, July 18, 2006.
President Bush is expected to veto the bill as early as today or
tomorrow, and the bill will be forwarded to the House. The vote on H.R.
810 is to either sustain or override the President's veto -- the first
of his Administration. For additional information on the process in the
House regarding vetoed bills, please see the "Brief Veto History"
section below.

**[Summary]{.underline}:** H.R. 810 creates a new provision in the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289 et seq.) requiring the
Secretary of HHS to "conduct and support research that utilizes human
embryonic stem cells \..." The bill defines as eligible for federal
funding human embryonic stem cells that:

-   were derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro
    fertilization clinics, were created for the purposes of fertility
    treatment, and were in excess of the clinical need of the
    individuals seeking such treatment;

-   it was determined would never be implanted in a woman and would
    otherwise be discarded; and

-   were donated with written informed consent and without receiving any
    financial or other inducements to make the donation.

The bill requires final guidelines from NIH within 60 days of enactment
and an annual report from the HHS Secretary describing the research
conducted.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}: It is legal in the United States
to destroy and conduct research on living and dead human embryos *with
non-federal funds*.** This bill would require the federal funding of
research using [human embryos]{.underline}, which is currently
prohibited under federal law and the President's stem cell policy.

**REVERSAL OF CONGRESSIONAL FUNDING BAN AND PRESIDENT BUSH'S POLICY**

**President's Policy:**

> H.R. 810 will reverse President George W. Bush's federal stem cell
> policy announced in an address to the nation on August 9, 2001. In
> that address, the President stated that **no federal funds** will be
> used for:
>
> "the derivation or use of stem cell lines derived from newly destroyed
> embryos;
>
> "the creation of any human embryos for research purposes; or
>
> "the cloning of human embryos for any purpose."
>
> The President's policy did allow federal funds to be used for stem
> cell lines that had come from embryos already destroyed prior to
> August 9, 2001. At the time, the President stated, "The embryos from
> which the existing stem cell lines were created have already been
> destroyed and no longer have the possibility of further development as
> human beings." The President stated his policy permits federal funding
> of research using the more than 60 existing stem cell lines that have
> already been derived, but will not sanction or encourage the
> destruction of additional human embryos. He said in his address, "This
> allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research
> without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer
> funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human
> embryos that have at least the potential for life."

*Source:
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-1.html>.*

> To see a list of those stem cell lines that are *currently* eligible
> for federal funding, please visit:
> <http://stemcells.nih.gov/research/registry/eligibilityCriteria.asp>.

**Congressional Funding Ban:**

Since fiscal year 1996, Congress has included in the Labor, HHS and
Education Appropriations bill a rider that has been signed into law,
which states the following:

SEC. 509.

\(a\) **None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for
--**

> \(1\) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes;
> or
>
> \(2\) **research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed**,
> discarded, or **knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death**
> greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45
> CFR 46.208(a)(2) and section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act
> (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)).
>
> \(b\) For purposes of this section, the term human embryo or embryos
> includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR
> 46 as of the date of the enactment of this Act, that is derived by
> fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one
> or more human gametes or human diploid cells. (emphasis added)

*Source: Section 509 of the FY05 Omnibus Appropriations Act (H.R. 4818)*

> **\[Explanation of cross-references**: 45 CFR 46 is the part of the
> Code of Federal Regulations that contains protections for human
> subjects in federally funded research. 45 CFR 46.208(a)(2) requires
> that unless an experiment involving a human fetus is designed to
> benefit that particular child, **it cannot involve anything greater
> than a minimal risk of harm** (defined as a risk comparable to that
> involved in routine examinations or the activities of everyday life).
> These federal regulation protections cover all human embryos from
> implantation in the womb until birth; the appropriations rider on
> human embryo research (Sec. 510 above) covers all other human embryos
> (those not implanted in the womb).
>
> The Public Health Service Act (42 USC 289g (b)) requires that in
> assessing allowable risk, a child intended for abortion must be
> protected as fully from harmful research as the child intended for
> live birth. The argument that an embryo or fetus is unwanted or would
> be destroyed anyway cannot be used to justify harmful experimentation
> at taxpayers expense.\]

**THE HUMAN EMBRYOS AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH UNDER H.R. 810:**

H.R. 810 will allow federal funds for the destruction of and research on
human embryos from in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinics.

The in vitro fertilization process involves combining an egg with sperm
to create a human embryo. At this stage, clinics are able to determine
whether or not the human embryos have the genetic makeup of a male or of
a female. According to IVF clinics, a human embryo that is "graded" as a
"quality" embryo is then implanted into a woman's womb (often more than
one at a time) to try and achieve implantation and a full-term
pregnancy. Those human embryos graded as "abnormal" are "discarded,"
according to various clinics.

(See: <http://www.advancedfertility.com/embryoquality.htm>).

Those human embryos deemed "quality" human embryos that are not
implanted into the womb are then usually frozen in a controlled-rate
freezer and immersed and stored in liquid nitrogen in a tank (at -196
degrees Centigrade), in a process called Cyroproservation (to see a
photo of a human embryo storage freezer, please visit:
<http://www.advancedfertility.com/cryotank.htm>).

The frozen human embryos can be stored for many years and can be
defrosted to be implanted into a woman's womb. Some parents place their
unused frozen human embryos through an official adoption process with
other couples (see:
<http://www.nightlight.org/snowflakes_description.asp> and Congressional
testimony: <http://www.stemcellresearch.org/testimony/strege.htm>). More
commonly, parents allow the IVF clinic to offer their unused frozen
human embryos to other infertile female patients through the clinic
(see:
<http://embryodonation.org/downloads/pdf/DonationConsentGeneric.pdf>).

**The Number of Human Embryos Eligible for Destruction and Research
Under H.R. 810:**

Many of the human embryos do not survive the freezing and defrosting
process. A group of RAND researchers estimated that only 65% of the
human embryos survive the freeze-and-thaw process.

The most comprehensive study of the number of human embryos currently in
existence at IVF clinics was done by the non-profit research
organization RAND. In 2003, RAND released a study that found that as of
April 11, 2002, nearly 400,000 human embryos have been "frozen and
stored since the late 1970s."

Of the 400,000, 2.8% (11,000 total) have been made available by their
parents for research, while the "vast majority of frozen \[human\]
embryos are designated for future attempts at pregnancy."

The vast majority of stored human embryos, 88.2%, are being held for
"family building;" 2.3% are awaiting donation to another patient (for
implantation in her womb); and 4.5% are held in storage for other
reasons, including lost contact with a patient, patient death,
abandonment, and divorce.

The RAND researchers noted that based on current, non-federally funded
research results, if all 11,000 embryos were used to create embryonic
stem cell lines (the cell culture lines federal funds would be used for
under H.R. 810), "about 275 embryonic stem cell lines could be created"
and that "the actual number is likely to be much lower." The University
of Wisconsin used 18 human embryos (that were grown for five days from
the date of their conception before being destroyed) to create five
embryonic stem cell *lines*. The Jones Institute used 40 embryos of the
same age, to create only three stem cell *lines*.

*Source: How Many Frozen Human Embryos Are Available for Research? RAND
Law &*

*Health Research Brief, May 2003,
<http://www.rand.org/publications/RB/RB9038/>*

**NO TREATMENTS TO DATE FOR HUMANS OR ANIMALS FROM EMBRYO STEM CELL**

**RESEARCH:**

As of July 2006, [no animals or human patients have been successfully
treated]{.underline} with human embryonic stem cells (see:
<http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm>).

**H.R. 810 AND HUMAN CLONING:**

Because the bill overrides current law, if a human embryo clone was
created by an in vitro fertilization clinic for fertility purposes, H.R.
810 would allow federal funds for research on the human clone embryo.
Opponents of H.R. 810 have noted that most of the organizations most
actively promoting H.R. 810, such as the Biotechnology Industry
Organization and the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research,
are also strong supporters of a certain type of cloning they call
therapeutic cloning. Senator Orrin Hatch, the sponsor of a pro-human
cloning bill, referred to H.R. 810 as a critical first step, an apparent
reference to a pro-cloning bill being the next step.

**[Brief Veto History]{.underline}:** Since President Bush took office
in January of 2001, he has yet to issue a veto. The most recent
instances of a vetoed bill were in 2000 by President Clinton, during the
106^th^ Congress:

-   H.R. 8, Estate Tax Elimination Act. The House sustained the veto
    (the bill failed) by a vote of 274-157 on September, 7, 2000. [Roll
    Call No. 458](http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2000/roll458.xml).

-   H.R. 4810, Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. The House
    sustained the veto by a vote of 270-158 on September 13, 2000. [Roll
    Call No. 466](http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2000/roll466.xml).

-   H.R. 4733, Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. The
    House overrode the veto (and passed the bill into law) by a vote of
    315-98 on October 11, 2000. [Roll Call No.
    523](http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2000/roll523.xml).

[Process for a Vetoed Bill:]{.underline}

-   The House and Senate pass an identical bill.

-   The President vetoes the bill and sends a veto message to the House.

-   The Speaker "lays a veto message before the House on the day it is
    received\...When the message is laid before the House, the question
    on passage is considered as pending."  

-   Consideration of a vetoed bill (a privileged matter) generally takes
    precedence over other floor matters (it can interrupt other floor
    business), *except* in certain specific instances: a motion to
    adjourn, a question of privilege under the Constitution (such as a
    blue-slip resolution), and unfinished business with the previous
    question order (such as a bill with the previous question ordered to
    passage on the day before, but the House adjourned before voting on
    passage of the bill).

-   If the House does *not* wish to proceed immediately to reconsider
    the bill, three motions are in order:

    1.  motions to lay on the table (if passed, a motion to take it from
        the table is in order at any time);

    2.  motions to postpone consideration to a day certain (it becomes
        unfinished business on that day); or

    3.  motion to refer to committee (a motion to discharge is highly
        privileged and in order at any time).

-   If none of the above three motions are offered, the House proceeds
    to debate the override question under the hour rule and then votes
    on the question of overriding the veto.

-   If the veto is sustained, the bill is referred to committee. Since
    the bill has been rejected (when the veto was sustained), a motion
    to take the bill from committee is not privileged.

> [Note]{.underline}: It is not clear what the options are after the
> veto is sustained and referred to committee. Also, according to the
> Parliamentarian's office, neither the House nor Senate is *required*
> to act on a vetoed bill (there were instances during the 106^th^
> Congress when the House and Senate chose not to act upon a vetoed
> bill).

[The Vote on H.R. 810 -- Sustaining the Presidential Veto:]{.underline}

When a vote is requested on a vetoed bill, the question is: "Will the
House, on reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the
President to the contrary notwithstanding." Thus, it is as if the bill
is up for normal consideration again, [only the threshold for passage is
now 2/3 of those voting]{.underline}. **If a member opposes the bill and
voted NO when it was originally considered and passed, then he would
vote NO again (still opposing the bill, thereby voting to sustain the
President's veto).**

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: The bill was introduced on February
15, 2005, and referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce,
which did not consider the bill.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.
According to news reports, in FY04 NIH spent \$24.6 million funding the
research allowed on cell lines created from cells removed from human
embryos prior to August 2001. **H.R. 810 requires federal funding of
human embryo research regardless of the date on which the stem cells
were derived from a human embryo, which would likely lead to millions of
dollars in additional federal spending.**

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: An Energy and Commerce
Committee report citing constitutional authority is unavailable.

**[Administration Position]{.underline}:** The Administration opposed
original passage of H.R. 810 and released a Statement of Administration
Policy (SAP) on May 24, 2005, which stated:

> "The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 810, which
> would require Federal taxpayer dollars to be used to encourage the
> ongoing destruction of nascent human life. The bill would compel all
> American taxpayers to pay for research that relies on the intentional
> destruction of human embryos for the derivation of stem cells,
> overturning the President's policy that supports research without
> promoting such ongoing destruction. If H.R. 810 were presented to the
> President, he would veto the bill."

To read the full SAP, please visit:

<http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/109-1/hr810sap-h.pdf>.

**[Outside Organizations]{.underline}:**

The following is a partial list of outside organizations opposing H.R.
810 (note: groups that scored the original House vote and are likely to
score it again are noted with an asterisk):

> National Right to Life Committee\*
>
> US Conference of Catholic Bishops
>
> Family Research Council\*
>
> Christian Coalition\*
>
> Concerned Women for America\*
>
> Focus on the Family
>
> Christian Medical Association
>
> Eagle Forum\*
>
> Traditional Values Coalition
>
> Southern Baptist Convention
>
> Susan B. Anthony List
>
> Republican National Committee for Life
>
> Cornerstone Policy Research
>
> Culture of Life Foundation
>
> Religious Freedom Coalition
>
> Coral Ridge Ministries
>
> Center For Reclaiming America

**[Does the Bill Create New Federal Programs or Rules?]{.underline}**:
Yes. The bill would override current federal funding bans and the
President's current administrative policy to require the HHS Secretary
to fund human embryonic research, including research on currently living
human embryos stored in freezers at IVF clinics.

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}**: No.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}:** Derek V. Baker;
[derek.baker@mail.house.gov](mailto:Derek.baker@mail.house.gov);
202-226-8585

\###