[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 94 (Tuesday, July 18, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H5352-H5359]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ALTERNATIVE PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL THERAPIES ENHANCEMENT ACT
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (S. 2754) to derive human pluripotent stem cell lines
using techniques that do not knowingly harm embryos.
The Clerk read as follows:
S. 2754
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Alternative Pluripotent Stem
Cell Therapies Enhancement Act''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSES.
It is the purpose of this Act to--
(1) intensify research that may result in improved
understanding of or treatments for diseases and other adverse
health conditions; and
(2) promote the derivation of pluripotent stem cell lines,
including from postnatal sources, without creating human
embryos for research purposes or discarding, destroying, or
knowingly harming a human embryo or fetus.
SEC. 3. ALTERNATIVE HUMAN PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL RESEARCH.
Part B of title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 284 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section
498C the following:
``SEC. 409J. ALTERNATIVE HUMAN PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL
RESEARCH.
``(a) In General.--In accordance with section 492, the
Secretary shall conduct and support basic and applied
research to develop techniques for the isolation, derivation,
production, or testing of stem cells that, like embryonic
stem cells, are capable of producing all or almost all of the
cell types of the developing body and may result in improved
understanding of or treatments for diseases and other adverse
health conditions, but are not derived from a human embryo.
``(b) Guidelines.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this section, the Secretary, after
consultation with
[[Page H5353]]
the Director, shall issue final guidelines to implement
subsection (a), that--
``(1) provide guidance concerning the next steps required
for additional research, which shall include a determination
of the extent to which specific techniques may require
additional basic or animal research to ensure that any
research involving human cells using these techniques would
clearly be consistent with the standards established under
this section;
``(2) prioritize research with the greatest potential for
near-term clinical benefit; and
``(3) consistent with subsection (a), take into account
techniques outlined by the President's Council on Bioethics
and any other appropriate techniques and research.
``(c) Reporting Requirements.--Not later than January 1 of
each year, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to the
appropriate committees of the Congress a report describing
the activities carried out under this section during the
fiscal year, including a description of the research
conducted under this section.
``(d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed to affect any policy, guideline, or regulation
regarding embryonic stem cell research, human cloning by
somatic cell nuclear transfer, or any other research not
specifically authorized by this section.
``(e) Definition.--
``(1) In general.--In this section, the term `human embryo'
shall have the meaning given such term in the applicable
appropriations Act.
``(2) Applicable act.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the
term `applicable appropriations Act' means, with respect to
the fiscal year in which research is to be conducted or
supported under this section, the Act making appropriations
for the Department of Health and Human Services for such
fiscal year, except that if the Act for such fiscal year does
not contain the term referred to in paragraph (1), the Act
for the previous fiscal year shall be deemed to be the
applicable appropriations Act.
``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of
fiscal years 2007 through 2009, to carry out this section.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
General Leave
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and to insert extraneous material on the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support for the alternative
Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapy Enhancement Act. Now, that is a mouthful.
As an advocate of increased funding for health care research, I am
eager to support legislation that would continue funding for this
groundbreaking research that shows great promise for translating
research into real cures for people who suffer from debilitating
illnesses like diabetes and Parkinson's.
As I have said in the past on this floor, I feel strongly that
Congress should do its best without delay to ensure that our American
citizens benefit from the latest advancements in medical research.
Great advancements are possible from research on adult stem cells and
other pluripotent cells, and such research should be encouraged.
This legislation would provide valuable dollars to promote stem cell
research into new and promising areas. And it should be recognized as
an important compromise measure that addresses the many ethical issues
deeply held by many Members in this body on both sides of the issue
that are associated with the question of Federal funding for stem cell
research.
With this legislation, the important research can continue to expand.
With time, I am hopeful that we will see some of the miracle cures that
all of us have been so fervently praying for for many years.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues will seize the opportunity to
advance scientific and medical research in a morally ethical way by
voting in favor of S. 2754.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to myself.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 2754, the so-called
Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act.
This bill may seem innocuous on its face. It just tells the Secretary
of HHS to research these alternative therapies. But, in fact, it has
several key problems. The first one is it sets a disturbing precedent.
The bill requires the Secretary of HHS to conduct research into so-
called alternative therapies. These therapies, however, do not exist.
And they would shift precious resources from the NIH into this fake
research that doesn't really exist.
Secondly, as a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, I
am very concerned when we direct the NIH to pursue one type of research
over another. Congress never directs the course of research.
Imagine if we told the NIH, Congress, I guess because we are the uber
researchers now, to pursue one type of cancer research over another
type of cancer research.
Thirdly, alternative methods for creating pluripotent stem cells are
not a real scientific prospect at this time.
As I mentioned during the debate on the last piece of legislation,
these types of research have been hypothesized from time to time, but
no one has actually had any clinical application. The only promise has
been shown in embryonic stem cell research.
Frankly, this bill does worse than nothing. This bill diverts
attention and resources away from embryonic stem cell research, which
is the research that really shows promise for diseases that affect tens
of millions of people, diseases like nerve damage, Alzheimer's,
Parkinson's and so many others.
I support all legitimate research, but Congress and the White House
should not be giving false hope to patients across America who just
want to have cures for their diseases.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
I rise in support of this legislation, which will allow funding for
research that is already showing some real promise and, at the same
time, avoids the moral and ethical perils of research involving the
destruction of human embryos.
Pluripotent cells have the ability to grow into any cell in the body.
Like other stem cells, pluripotent cells are used in the treatment of
debilitating conditions where the replacement of damaged or
malfunctioning cells is needed. Using adult stem cells drawn from bone
marrow and umbilical cord blood system cells, scientists have
discovered new treatments for scores of diseases and conditions such as
Parkinson's disease, juvenile diabetes, and spinal cord injuries.
Thousands of people have already benefited from these advances; and
with continued research, thousands more stand to benefit in the near
future.
{time} 1730
The success of these treatments shows the merit of adult stem cell
research and demonstrates the need for further research.
Last year Congress took action in this area by passing the Stem Cell
Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005. As a cosponsor of that
legislation, it was a bill which expanded the number of stem cell
options available to Americans suffering from life-threatening
diseases.
Today's legislation will allow us to take another step forward and
open up even more avenues for promising research for individuals and
families.
The concerns with embryonic stem cell research are real and deeply
held by many Americans. But Americans are not the only ones who have
reservations about moving forward with research that destroys human
embryos. In fact, many nations currently refuse to support embryonic
stem cell research of any kind. And last year the United Nations
adopted a resolution declaring a prohibition on ``all forms of human
cloning inasmuch as they are incompatible with human dignity and the
protection of human life.'' Voting along with the United States on this
strong declaration were 84 nations, including Germany, Austria,
Australia, Italy, and Portugal.
The legislation before us today upholds these principles and will
help to further establish our Nation's leadership in ethical and
effective scientific research.
[[Page H5354]]
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the prime cosponsor of H.R.
810.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I do rise in opposition to S. 2754, which is the Alternative
Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act. This is authored by
good friends and people I respect greatly, Senator Santorum and Senator
Specter and particularly the gentleman in this House who is here on the
floor, Mr. Bartlett, for whom I have great admiration. But I have
looked at it considerably, and after many discussions with him and
others, I disagree this is the way to go about this, and I must oppose
it.
Put simply, the legislation mandates the National Institutes of
Health to support highly speculative research, some of which has been
deemed unethical by the President's own Bioethics Council, and this
mandated research may violate current law because embryos will be
destroyed with Federal dollars.
While I appreciate the fact that this legislation acknowledges the
very real fact that embryonic stem cells have more potential for
treatments and cures than adult stem cell research, and I think that is
a very important point, I might add, this legislation is a delay to
cures. Why is it a delay? It requires researchers to develop new ways
to create or isolate embryonic stem cells before the research with
embryonic stem cells can even begin. So you add a whole additional step
to the process. And in speaking with Dr. Leon Kass, the former director
of the President's Bioethics Council, it could take years to develop
these isolation techniques, which means the research is being held up
even further.
Why not go with the tried and true method of isolating embryonic stem
cells from 5-day-old blastocysts created for the purposes of IVF, no
bigger than the tip of a pencil, that would never be implanted in a
woman and are slated for medical waste. And then let the research begin
immediately.
It would be one thing if these methods were scientifically proven,
but they are not. And if they are not, they may never be. My friend
from Maryland may talk about single-cell biopsy and its promise in
mouse stem cell research, but the Bioethics Council deemed that
particular procedure unethical as well because it may very well lead to
the destruction of the embryos.
Why not leave the current law alone? The National Institutes of
Health can already fund research grants examining alternative methods
of derivation. In other words, most of this can be done without being
mandated. There is absolutely no reason to mandate this research.
I ask my friends who support embryonic stem cell research to vote
against this legislation. It is a distraction for the NIH. It is a
distraction for our researchers. And it is a delay to cures, which is
most important. The only legislation which provides a direct path to
potential cures is H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.
Put together, this bill would mandate research, some of which the
President's own Bioethics Council has concluded is unethical. And for
those who have raised this issue repeatedly, it permits the possibility
of destroying embryos as part of the mandated research.
I would encourage all in the House to oppose this legislation.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
(Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I participated
in a news conference with about a dozen Snowflake babies who were
adopted as embryos, along with five colleagues who are medical doctors.
Very few media came to see these children and record their smiles,
squirms, dancing, and other delightful antics. How can anyone look at
them and say that it would have been okay to kill them to produce stem
cell lines? I can state unequivocally that it is morally reprehensible
and scientifically unnecessary to kill human embryos to provide raw
fodder for scientific research.
For the vast majority of scientists and medial researchers,
pluripotent stem cells hold the most promise for understanding human
diseases and treating devastating conditions. That is why they are
coveted.
To some, the manner in which these pluripotent stem cells would be
obtained under the Castle-DeGette bill, by using taxpayers' dollars to
kill a human embryo, is secondary to the hope for cures that they
represent to sick patients.
To me and millions of other Americans, deliberately taking the lives
of innocent human embryos is an unacceptable trade-off. A number of
scientists have now proven what I have argued for the past 5 years. It
is scientifically unnecessary to destroy human embryos to obtain
pluripotent stem cells. Indeed, at least one procedure is almost
immediately ready for human clinical application.
The Bartlett-Santorum bill represents common ground into promising
ways the Federal Government can support pluripotent stem cell research
without sacrificing life for medicine.
The Bartlett-Santorum bill will amend the Public Health Service Act
to require NIH to conduct and support basic and applied research to
develop techniques for the isolation, derivation, production, or
testing of stem cells that have pluripotent or embryonic-like
qualities. It was approved by the Senate earlier today by a unanimous
recorded vote of 100-0.
``It's surprising what you can accomplish when no one is concerned
about who gets the credit.'' Ronald Reagan, 1989.
President Bush will sign the Bartlett-Santorum bill into law because
it meets his ethical standards for promoting pluripotent stem cell
research without the creation of human embryos for research purposes or
discarding, destroying, or knowingly harming a human embryo or fetus. I
am proud of President Bush's unwavering defense of the sanctity of
life. I am grateful for his support and the support of my colleagues
for ethical pluripotent stem cell research.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure I am actually speaking
on the right bill, and I am speaking to the Alternative Pluripotent
Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, and I thank my colleague from
Colorado for yielding.
I do rise in opposition to a politically motivated bill brought to
this House today to provide cover for certain Members who have tough
elections ahead of them. It seems really simple: Vote for one type of
stem cell research and then you can oppose another. This way you can
appeal to voters on both sides of the issue.
But this bill is rather meaningless because there is nothing
preventing researchers now from conducting research on stem cells
derived from sources other than embryos.
I wish to enter into the Record a letter from the American Society
for Cell Biology, which contains 27 signatories including Nobel Prize
winners, chancellors of universities, researchers from across this
country who are opposing this legislation not because it is evil but
because it is a waste of resources.
The truth is there exists no way to extract embryonic stem cells
without then having to discard those embryos, which, by the design of
the underlying legislation, would have been discarded anyway. This
would not be done without the expressed approval of the donating
parent.
If you truly support giving hope to the millions of Americans who
suffer today from diseases like ALS, cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes,
then you support feasible embryonic stem cell research that can be done
today.
And those of you who claim that there is no hope for stem cell
research are wrong. NIH-funded research, limited as it currently is,
has already shown definite progress in this area. In the case of heart
disease, scientists have been able to successfully use stem cells to
create and transplant living heart cells in rats. The promise of these
advancements for the human heart is incredible. This is surely a pro-
life piece of legislation if there ever was one.
And there are so many more examples of the lifesaving potential of
the
[[Page H5355]]
stem cell research we already know about, but our scientific
researchers only need the resources to do this.
So I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on this bill as a
show of support for enactment into law of H.R. 810, voted for in a
bipartisan way in this House, today voted for in the Senate. This is
what the American people want. This is what we have supported. This is
the only vehicle by which we can ensure expanded stem cell research and
the ability to save lives.
The American Society
for Cell Biology,
Bethesda, MD, July 17, 2006.
Hon. Orrin Hatch,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hatch: The Senate will shortly be considering
legislation to permit the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
to fund research with additional and new and existing human
embryonic stem cell (hESC) lines. As staunch supporters of
biomedical research and particularly research with hESCs, we
trust that you will exert your influence to ensure passage of
H.R. 810. Scientists engaged in ESC research are counting on
you and like-minded Senate colleagues to assure its passage.
The President must also be persuaded not to veto this
legislation, for if we continue on the path he set 5 years
ago, United States investigators will be out of the running
in converting embryonic stem cells into important new
therapies. It is especially frustrating and demeaning that
American scientists are prohibited from using their NIH grant
funds for research with the hundreds of hESC lines generated
outside the United States or generated in this country with
private funding.
Also, S. 2754, the ``Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell
Therapies Enhancement Act,'' sponsored by Senators Specter
and Santorum, seems to us, superfluous. Ostensibly, it is
intended to authorize research ``to derive human pluripotent
stem cell lines using techniques that do not harm embryos.''
However, at present, such research is currently permissible
and, therefore, does not require congressional legislation;
indeed, the National Institutes of Health may currently be
funding such efforts.
Moreover, all the alternative procedures advanced in the
report by the President's Council on Bioethics and other
alternative methods that have been suggested encounter
equally vexing ethical concerns. Hence, S. 2754 is unneeded
and if passed would deflect from the current urgent need for
generating new stem cell lines from excess IVF-derived
blastocysts.
Sincerely,
Peter Agre, M.D., Vice Chancellor for Science and
Technology, James B. Duke Professor of Cell Biology, Duke
University School of Medicine, Nobel Prize in Chemistry,
2003; Bruce Alberts, Professor of Biochemistry and
Biophysics, University of California, San Francisco,
President Emeritus, National Academy of Sciences; Mary C.
Beckerle, Ph.D., Ralph E. and Willia T. Main, Presidential
Professor, University of Utah, President, American Society
for Cell Biology; David Baltimore, President, California
Institute of Technology, Nobel Prize in Physiology or
Medicine, 1975; Paul Berg, Cahill Professor of Biochemistry,
Emeritus, Stanford University, Nobel Prize in Chemistry,
1980; J. Michael Bishop, Nobel Prize in Physiology or
Medicine, 1989; Helen M. Blau, Ph.D., Donald E. and Delia B.
Baxter, Professor, Director, Baxter Laboratory in Genetic
Pharmacology, Stanford University School of Medicine.
Michael S. Brown, MD, Nobel Prize in Physiology or
Medicine, 1985; Linda Buck, Ph.D., Howard Hughes Medical
Institute, Division of Basic Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer
Research Center, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 2004;
Johann Deisenhofer, Regental Professor, Investigator, Howard
Hughes Medical Institute, The University of Texas
Southwestern Medical Center, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1988;
Joseph L. Goldstein, M.D., Regental Professor of Molecular
Genetics and Internal Medicine, University of Texas
Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Nobel Prize in
Physiology or Medicine, 1985; Larry Goldstein, Investigator,
Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Department of Cellular and
Molecular Medicine, University of California, San Diego
School of Medicine; Alfred G. Gilman, M.D., Ph.D., Dallas,
Texas, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1994; Paul
Greengard, Professor, The Rockefeller University, Nobel Prize
in Physiology or Medicine, 2000; Lee Hartwell, Ph.D.,
President & Director, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center,
Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 2001; Dudley
Herschbach, Baird Research Professor of Science, Harvard
University, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1986.
H. Robert Horvitz, Professor of Biology, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Nobel Prize in Physiology or
Medicine, 2002; Douglas Koshland, Carnegie Institution,
Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute; Paul C.
Lauterbur, Center for Advanced Study Professor of Chemistry &
Distinguished Professor of Medical Information Sciences,
University of Illinois, Nobel Prize for Physiology or
Medicine, 2003; Sean J. Morrison, Investigator, Howard Hughes
Medical Institute, Director, Center for Stem Cell Biology,
University of Michigan; Eric N. Olson, Department of
Molecular Biology, University of Texas, Southwestern Medical
Center at Dallas; Thomas D. Pollard, MD, Sterling Professor
and Chair, Molecular Cellular and Developmental Biology, Yale
University; Randy Schekman, HHMI Investigator, Dept. of
Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California,
Berkeley; Phillip A. Sharp, Institute Professor and Center
for Cancer Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1993; Maxine F.
Singer, A.B., Ph.D., D.Sc., President Emerita, Carnegie
Institution of Washington; Harold Varmus, MD, President,
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Chair, Joint Steering
Committee for Public Policy, Former Director, National
Institutes of Health, Nobel Laureate in Medicine or
Physiology, 1989; Eric Wieschaus, Department of Molecular
Biology, Princeton University, Nobel Prize in Physiology or
Medicine, 1995.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\
minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, many of us have been impacted, directly or
indirectly, by diseases like juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's,
Alzheimer's, Lou Gehrig's disease, and so on. I have friends, as many
people here do, who have had these diseases, and my heart goes out to
these families. And on the other hand, many oppose embryonic stem cell
research because they see the embryo as a human life, which I do as
well.
So where do we go with this? I mean on the one hand we are going to
create a huge problem for those who believe in life beginning at
conception, and we have a desire to also help people who need the stem
cell research that think that these are the solutions. So I would
differ with some of my friends here, in that the British have done more
than 2,000 replications where they have extracted stem cells without
destroying the embryo. It has been done. This is not something that has
never occurred before. This is not pie in the sky. This is a very real
possibility to resolve this dilemma: Are you going to try to preserve
human life, as many of us who are pro-life see it, and also have stem
cell research? The Senate saw it 100-0. So why over here now, in order
to pass a particular bill, are we trying to destroy this bill? It makes
no sense to me.
So with that, I certainly urge passage of Senate 2754.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I would just correct the gentleman from
Nebraska. I was in England over the Memorial Day recess, meeting with
all of the major researchers. None of them have found clinical
application in just taking cells out of embryos. They all agree that
embryonic stem cell research shows the most promise.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for
her great work on this issue.
The real debate here today in Congress is about whether or not the
President is going to veto the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.
What the Republicans have done is to bring out so many red herrings
that we might as well put an aquarium out here in the well of the
House. It is to distract. It is to divert.
The central issue is whether or not this body this week is going to
vote for a victory for science, a victory for progress, a victory for
millions of Americans who are struggling to survive in the face of a
devastating disease. This bill, as it passes the House and has already
passed the Senate and we vote on it later on this week, is a
magnificent milestone in our journey to realizing the life-giving
potential of stem cells. Twenty-one million Americans have diabetes;
4.5 million Americans have Alzheimer's; 1.5 million Americans suffer
from Parkinson's disease; and more than 1 million people in our country
have muscular dystrophy. You can go down the list: spinal cord, heart
disease. You can go through all of those diseases. Just take one,
Alzheimer's. By the time all of the baby boomers have retired, 15
million Americans will have had Alzheimer's, 15 million baby boomers.
Embryonic stem cell research is one of the most promising paths to
the treatment and cure of all of these devastating diseases.
{time} 1745
Nevertheless, President Bush is now threatening to use his very first
veto to prevent scientists from using Federal funds to search for these
cures. He is threatening to use his very first veto to dash the hopes
of patients and their families.
[[Page H5356]]
Research is medicine's field of dreams from which we harvest the
findings that give new knowledge to the causes, the treatment and
prevention of disease and the development of cures. Hope is what this
debate is all about. Hope is the most powerful four-letter word in the
English language, and I have no doubt that, in the end, hope is going
to win.
But if we don't, if President Bush is successful, we will be snuffing
out that flickering candle for medical cures that has just been lit. We
will be condemning the afflicted to another generation of darkness. We
will be ending the hope for a child with muscular dystrophy, who can't
understand why his body is getting weaker while his friends are getting
stronger, a veteran with spinal cord injury, a spouse who watches her
husband lose his memory.
Let us not let President Bush veto hope. Let us not let President
Bush veto hope. We must not let President Bush veto hope.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\
minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
(Mr. GINGREY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
Santorum-Bartlett pluripotent stem cell bill, and I want to take this
opportunity to say on the floor of the House of Representatives that I
am proudly both pro-life and pro-science.
Today is a great day for the American people. Today they get to see
their Members of Congress stand up for the sanctity of human life as
well as the hope of medical research. No longer as a society do our
hands need to be tied to choose one or another; nor are we forced to
trade one person's life for the chance to improve another's. No. Today,
Mr. Speaker, I am here to say that technology has advanced and research
has shown that there are methods to obtain embryonic-like stem cells
ethically. It is because of the potential of these advances that the
Federal Government should invest their financial resources in the
promise of pluripotent stem cell research.
My good friend from Delaware, Mr. Castle, said earlier, you know, why
go through another step? We have already got this proven technique that
the Castle-DeGette bill calls for of obtaining stem cells, embryonic
stem cells, from human embryos by just simply putting them in a
blender, churning them up and easily getting those embryonic stem cells
out.
I am saying to you and my colleagues, that is too much collateral
damage. The collateral damage is destruction of human life. This is a
better way. We can utilize embryonic stem cells from what Mr. Bartlett
has described in his bill and Senator Santorum, and I think that is the
way to go. I commend him for this bill, and I commend it to my
colleagues.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues and fellow
citizens across the country, my family, too, has been touched by the
scourge of disease. I have seen firsthand the devastating effect that
disease can have on a loved one and on a family. That is why I am a
strong supporter of stem cell research, research on adult stem cells
and stem cells derived from umbilical cord and placenta blood.
Adult stem cell research has already proven successful and worthy of
our investment of taxpayer money. It has proven so useful in fact that
therapies derived from adult stem cells are treating patients today
throughout the country.
Before the House today we have a bill that supports new and even
broader horizons in stem cell technology, H.R. 5526, the Pluripotent
Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act.
To be sure, positions on embryonic stem cell research are deeply held
by every Member. This legislation focuses on what scientists at many of
our country's most esteemed research universities have developed,
embryonic stem cells that do not require the destruction of the embryo.
Scientists seeking the same compassionate cures to many of our most
debilitating diseases have recognized that science and ethics need not
be divorced to produce positive results for patients.
Adult stem cell therapies and pluripotent stem cell therapy present
exciting and hopeful new possibilities and treatments and even cures to
families with loved ones facing the scourge of disease. This is good
news worth repeating. We can do worthwhile and groundbreaking stem cell
research to benefit patients without destroying human life.
Mr. Speaker, science and technology must always serve humanity, not
the other way around. H.R. 5526 is faithful to that principle. We can
both conform to the highest bioethical standards and provide the
potential for hopeful medical advances. I urge its passage.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of our Nation's scientists and
medical research. Today the Senate passed three bills. Now, I believe
that it is important to pursue all types of research, and the bill that
we are debating presently is something that NIH and our researchers can
already do.
But let me be very clear: only H.R. 810, which this Chamber passed
over a year ago, H.R. 810 is the only bill that holds the tremendous
potential to cure some of life's most challenging conditions and
diseases.
Mr. Speaker, we stand at the threshold of a new generation in medical
research. I believe firmly that H.R. 810 and stem cell research will
fundamentally change the course of medicine within the next decade and
well into the future in so many ways.
We are limited only by the bounds of our own imagination. As long as
our Nation's scientists and medical researchers have the tools and
resources that they need, I believe that there is no limit to what they
can cure. H.R. 810 and stem cell research offers the hope to cure
Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, juvenile diabetes, and even spinal
cord injuries.
Mr. Speaker, I remember a time more than 25 years ago when I stood in
the locker room of the police station as a young police cadet. A police
officer's gun accidentally went off. That bullet went through my neck
and severed my spinal cord. I have been paralyzed ever since. I was
told that I would never walk again.
But, Mr. Speaker, today is an exciting time in medical research. I
firmly believe in a day in the very near future when a child with
juvenile diabetes will not have to endure a lifetime of painful shots
and tests; that families will not have to watch in agony as a loved one
with Alzheimer's gradually declines; and, Mr. Speaker, I believe in a
day when I will walk again.
Today, Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity to move research forward.
H.R. 810 removes the restrictions that have been placed on it and
offers hope to millions of Americans and people around the world.
This is an important time. I ask the President not to veto this bill,
but to join with us in passing H.R. 810 and changing the world for the
better.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of S. 2754.
Make no mistake about it, Congress is not debating banning stem cell
research. It is legal. It is a question, though, of whether or not we
will use the public's money to fund research that many Americans find
morally and ethically reprehensible.
I support this bill because, without destroying innocent human life,
it prioritizes additional research with the greatest potential for
near-term clinical benefit, like umbilical cord blood and adult stem
cells. That research is already yielding treatment to fight diseases
like leukemia and lymphoma.
Mr. Speaker, our sacred Declaration of Independence states that every
American has the right to life, and I am personally opposed to any
measure that would create life just to destroy it.
This it is not the first nor the last time that I believe Congress
will debate this important question, but
[[Page H5357]]
whenever doubt or conflict arises, I hope that Congress will always,
always, Mr. Speaker, err on the side of life.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation does not advance potentially lifesaving
stem cell research. Despite its nice sounding, albeit hard to
pronounce, name, the bill simply tells the National Institutes of
Health to continue doing what they are already doing. This bill really
is here to serve as political cover so that opponents of H.R. 810, the
Castle-DeGette bill, can claim that they did something. It is really
both useless and superfluous.
Instead of spending our time debating bills that would not advance
the science of stem cell research, we should be looking for real ways
to promote this vital research. We should be empowering our scientists
by opening up new resources and new opportunities for them to expand
their research. We should be providing patients and families with real
hope for the future, not passing empty bills.
Mr. Speaker, I am fortunate to represent the University of Wisconsin-
Madison, where Dr. Jamie Thomson and his team were the first to derive
and culture human embryonic stem cells in a laboratory. Embryonic stem
cells open the possibility of dramatic new medical treatments,
transplantation therapies and cures. But at 9 p.m. on August 9, 2001,
the hope and promise of this embryonic stem cell research was greatly
curtailed by the administration's restrictions on Federal research
dollars for stem cells.
We need to end these irrational restrictions. We need to enact H.R.
810 into law. H.R. 810 is real progress, and it provides our scientists
with the tools that they need to continue their life-saving research.
Please vote against the distraction before us right now.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\
minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).
(Mrs. SCHMIDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I just want to give this audience here
three reasons to support this bill: first, it funds groundbreaking stem
cell research. The types of stem cells promoted by S. 2754 possess
similar potential to differentiate into any cell in the human body as
embryonic stem cells. This bill authorizes funding for pluripotent stem
cell techniques that do not involve the derivation from a human embryo.
Two, it is noncontroversial. It does not authorize Federal funding
for research that would create, discard, destroy, knowingly harm human
embryos or fetuses, avoiding this sensitive and controversial issue.
Pluripotent stem cells derived from methods that do not result in the
destruction of human embryos possess the ability to differentiate into
all human cells, just like embryonic stem cells. This bill does not
mandate any techniques or methods for deriving or creating alternative
pluripotent stem cells. It simply establishes the guidelines for the
type of research authorized for funding.
Finally, it supports scientific research. Researchers exploring
alternative methods of deriving stem cells will benefit from Federal
funding.
Mr. Speaker, no one in this room is untouched by the need to have
good quality research. In my own family, my cousin has Lou Gehrig's
disease. We need responsible research. This is responsible research.
Background: Scientists believe that stem cell therapies may be used
to treat a wide variety of illnesses, from degenerative neurological
diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and Lou Gehrig's, to other
conditions like diabetes and heart disease.
Pluripotent stem cells, of which embryonic stem cells are one type,
can produce all of the cell types of the developing body. However, they
need not be derived from human embryos.
A May 2005 White Paper published by the President's Council on
Bioethics described, in depth, various methods of deriving pluripotent
stem cells without destroying embryos.
In keeping with the recommendations of the President's 2001 policy on
Federal stem cell research and the Dickey amendment, S. 2754 would
authorize appropriations for the Secretary of HHS to conduct research
into developing techniques ``for the isolation, derivation, production,
or testing'' of pluripotent stem cells that do not involve the
destruction of human embryos.
Bottom Line: S. 2754 will allow federal funding for stem cell
research that is ethically sound because embryos will neither be
created, harmed, nor destroyed.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Schwarz).
Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, this bill, while well-
intentioned, raises obfuscation and disingenuousness to an art form. It
says nothing that truly supports embryonic stem cell research. It
promotes technology which does not exist in a form which will help cure
human disease.
Only the central cell mass of the blastocyst, in this case those
which would be used in in vitro fertilization but instead will be
tossed in the trash, are pluripotent.
{time} 1800
While I strongly support adult and umbilical cord stem cell research,
and there are clinical uses for both now, and they should be supported
and research continued.
The true stem cell bill is H.R. 810, the Castle-DeGette bill. It is
the bill endorsed by the legitimate scientific community, and the bill
which holds the most promise for cures for diseases which today have no
cure. It is the bill which is truly pro-life.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfortunate that
Mrs. Capps, Mr. Markey, Ms. Baldwin and others have attacked our
motives on this floor. I think it degrades the debate. This is not
about political cover, but how we can support stem cell research that
is ethical and works, and promote research on pluripotent cells that do
not destroy human embryos.
Let me remind my colleagues that way back on September 11, 2001, Dave
Weldon and a group of us began working on the umbilical cord blood bill
that was finally, several years later, signed into law by the
President. That legislation, signed on December 20, 2005 provides $265
million over 5 years to create a new, aggressive, robust, cord blood
and bone marrow transplantation program.
That is not cover. That is all about trying to find cures. We take a
back seat to no one. We have all had sicknesses in our families, every
one of us. We just believe that we need to promote research that is
both ethical and not embryo destroying.
Let me also remind my colleagues, and this may come as a pleasant
surprise, this year we will spend $609 million on stem cell research.
Is that cover too? Of course not. We want to find cures. And we want to
do it in an efficacious manner as well as an ethical manner. I support
Roscoe Bartlett's legislation which he has brought to the floor today.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Sterns).
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I come down in this short amount of time,
Mr. Speaker, to say the claim and the facts. The claim that these folks
make is the bill takes focus away from advancing cures through
federally funded embryonic stem cell research from excess IVF embryos.
Fact. In other words, it is another way to advance those cures which
all supporters of embryonic stem cell research claim to support as well
until now.
This is a very strange argument, when all supporters of this research
and the Senate just voted to support this bill.
Claim. Alternative methods described in legislation are highly
speculative, and are either simply ideas or unproven in a human model.
We all know that the Federal money is going to cost the taxpayers a
lot. But privately, you can go out and do what you folks want to do. So
if there are so many cures for this, why not have the
[[Page H5358]]
private sector provide them for you? And all of these baby boomers that
you talk about who will not get these, of course, will in fact get
them, because the private sector can solve it.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida says this is a strange
argument, and he has got that right, because this is a very strange
bill. What it does is it says the Secretary shall conduct research into
these so-called alternatives. But these are alternatives not specified
in the legislation. But what is worse is it will take resources away
from the already minuscule amount of resources that are being put in at
the NIH to enforce the little stem cell research that is going on in
this country.
Frankly, some of the kind of research techniques that have been
discussed on the floor today, including those by my friend Mr. Bartlett
from Maryland, are techniques for alternative derivation of cells and
so on that would, in fact, involve destruction of embryos.
And Dr. Leon Cass, who is the President's own chairman of his
bioethics committee, said that it remains to be seen, in his view,
whether any of those proposals for alternate sources of stem cells will
succeed, and more discussion is surely required of some of the ethical
issues.
So even their own expert thinks this bill may be unethical. Why would
we do this when we have so many scientific advances that are just
outside of our grasp? Why would we do this when there are thousands of
embryos that are thrown away as medical waste? It would be as if your
child was in a car crash, and you decided that the ethical thing to do
would be to donate that child's organs so that someone else could live.
Why should we not allow people who have these embryos created for in
vitro fertilization to donate those embryos which are slated to be
thrown away as medical waste, in order that others may live?
We have heard the President intends to veto H.R. 810 and sign this
bill. No one will be fooled by this fig leaf. The patients of America,
the tens of millions of people who suffer from diseases like
Parkinson's, diabetes, paralysis, cancer, heart disease, they know,
they know that this research holds hope and they know that 72 percent
of Americans support this.
And I would urge the President to think hard about whether this is
where he wants to take the stand for his first veto. I would urge this
House to think very, very hard about what they will do in that tragic
incidence.
Mr. Castle and I asked the President to meet with us, so that we
could look him in the eye and explain the bill, and explain the ethical
controls that are in the bill, and explain how we too want ethical
science but that we want science that is meaningful. He refused to meet
with us. I have time tonight. If the President would like to meet with
me and Mr. Castle, we would be delighted to explain the tremendous
potential of embryonic stem cell research.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, to conclude the debate, I would
yield the remaining time to Dr. Weldon from Florida.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank Chairman Deal for yielding.
I want to commend Dr. Roscoe Bartlett. Many of you don't know him as
a doctor, but he is a doctor of physiology. He led the charge on this
issue beginning over a year ago now. Frankly, I am really surprised
anybody would get up and oppose this legislation. It has been claimed
that the Congress never directs research like this. We have had a line
item directing NIH on diabetes for years. As a matter of fact, I think
it passed as a separate authorization through the Commerce Committee.
Then we have obviously had the directed research on AIDS for years
and years and years. So there is plenty of precedent for this. As was
stated earlier, this passed the Senate unanimously. You know, the
embryonic stem cells that the opponents of this bill prefer to use, the
embryonic stem cells from the fertility clinics, if they were ever used
in a human clinical trial, first of all, you have to get over the issue
that I have been saying for years and years, that they become tumors
when you put them in animals, they become teratomas.
That is a feature of embryonic stem cells that nobody has published a
study showing the ability to turn that feature off. So they have never
been shown to be safe. But then you are going to have the genetic
mismatch issue.
And, you know, Senator Specter recently held a hearing. And he asked
Dr. Beatty, he runs the stem cell program at the NIH, and he asked him
this question. He said, would you say, then, that embryonic stem cells
are the best available, although all others ought to be pursued? I
think he was expecting this researcher to say, yes, like so many other
scientists are saying. The embryonic stem cells have the most promise.
But, no, he did not say that. He said nuclear reprogramming, where
you take a mature adult cell type, and you effectively dedifferentiate
it back to a pluripotent state, that is one of the most exciting areas
of research. And that is what this bill calls for putting more money
into.
Let me see, I think I had one other quote here. This is really
interesting. Like I have said before, I am a doctor, I have treated
Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, it has affected my family. I have also
said I read the medical journals, indeed I even hired a Ph.D.
researcher out of MIT to help me keep track of all of this.
And here it is. This is Nature Magazine, published on line:
``Reprogramming Adult Human Cells to Repair Damaged Tissue May Not be
Quite as Tough as Thought.''
Researchers have devised a chemical cocktail that makes adult mouse
cells behave like embryonic stem cells, and the recipe is surprisingly
simple.
What is really exciting are a bunch of German researchers have
published this. They have taken testicular cells in a mouse model,
gotten them to behave just like embryonic stem cells, and indeed, if
you do not think this is worth pursuing and you do not want to vote for
this, I can tell you there are venture capitalists funding a company in
California devoted to doing just this very thing. And that is where
this is going.
The embryonic stem cells are going to go away, no matter how we vote
on this. Now, I personally believe this is a very, very good piece of
legislation nonetheless, and that is because you are going to learn a
lot about cell biology and embryology by studying these things. I am
morally and ethically against it, but what I have opposed are these
false claims that you are going to have all of these cures.
I mean, there is no evidence to that. Now, I have never disputed the
fact that you will gain knowledge by doing embryonic stem cell
research. And we now have the potential to do that in a very ethically
acceptable way to, I think, everybody. And this is a very, very modest
piece of legislation.
To oppose it, I don't know how else to interpret it other than to
say, you really want to kill embryos. Because we now have abundant
scientific evidence coming forward that you can create embryonic stem
cells using other methods. And there are several different pathways to
do that. And this bill is a very, very good bill.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I resent being dragged into Rick Santorum's
hapless re-election campaign by having to vote on bills designed to
provide him and other extremist Republicans with cover for their
opposition to productive embryonic stem cell research.
S. 2754, the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement
Act, directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to pour money
into far less promising methods of deriving stem cells from adult
cells. S. 3504, the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act, bans unethical forms
of research that are already prohibited by law. I sincerely doubt that
these worthless bills will convince any voter that their Senator
supports stem cell research.
I will vote for the Fetus Farming bill simply because this practice
is already against the law. Therefore, this bill is meaningless, but
also harmless.
However, I will vote against the Alternative Pluripotent bill because
it sets a dangerous precedent in choosing one form of research over the
other. Much as Congress would never instruct the NIH to cure cancer,
but only in a certain manner, we shouldn't dictate the kind of stem
cell research scientists should and should not practice. This bill
requires the Secretary of HHS to conduct research into so-
[[Page H5359]]
called alternative therapies. But these therapies do not currently
exist and their development would shift scarce research dollars away
from embryonic research.
If Senator Santorum and President Bush truly believe that it's
morally superior to discard single cells in a freezer rather than to
use them to help millions of Americans with Parkinson's, Alzheimer's,
and diabetes, then they should have the guts to say so without another
sham bill for political cover.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support S.
2754, the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act.
I am under no illusion that this bill will contribute significantly to
the advancement of stem cell research.
As a Member of the Science committee, I am committed to the
advancement of science. I believe we should explore creative
initiatives and pursue sound research. By demonizing science, we only
hurt ourselves and make it more likely that our country will fall
behind other countries in the critically important fields of science,
technology, and innovation.
The type of stem cells that this bill refers to are the most
adaptable and unique of all of the stem cell varieties. As opposed to
adult stem cells, which are limited to a genre, such as blood cells or
bone cells, pluripotent stem cells can be eventually developed into any
bodily tissue. But they cannot themselves develop into a human being.
The possibilities, and medical miracles, are literally limitless, and
only restricted by time and by funding.
The pluripotent stem cells were derived using non-Federal funds from
early-stage embryos donated voluntarily by couples undergoing fertility
treatment in an in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinic or from non-living
fetuses obtained from terminated first trimester pregnancies. Informed
consent was obtained from the donors in both cases. Women voluntarily
donating fetal tissue for research did so only after making the
decision to terminate the pregnancy.
Those who would argue against pluripotent stem cells usually approach
the topic through one of the following three questions:
1. Do the pluripotent cells have a moral status on their own? In
other words, are they considered entities that must be protected?
2. Is it unethical to derive pluripotent cells from fetal tissue?
3. Is it unethical to create human embryonic blastocysts in order to
create these pluripotent cells?
Unfortunately, however, this simple little bill and its companion,
which we are also discussing today, do not weigh the consequences of
any of these valid policy discussions. Instead, it does little to
advance the very serious and promising area of scientific research that
is reflected in H.R. 810; this research is supported by a majority of
this House, and hopefully will be reaffirmed by this House later this
week.
This bill only encourages research that does not discard, destroy, or
knowingly harm a human fetus, which is consistent with current
scientific research practices anyway. By designating this moral
boundary, this bill requires researchers to find a way to make stem
cells reap the potential benefits while skirting a politically divisive
issue.
I am not opposed to this bill, although it does not further
scientific research. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of
science, scientific research, and the promise of scientific advancement
later this week.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rehberg). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) that the House suspend
the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 2754.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will
be postponed.
____________________