[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 6 (Thursday, January 11, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H349-H392]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STEM CELL RESEARCH ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2007
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 509 of House Resolution
6 and as the designee of the majority leader, I call up the bill (H.R.
3) to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for human
embryonic stem cell research, and ask for its immediate consideration.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
January 11, 2007--On Page H349 the following appeared: Mr.
DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 209 of House
The online version should be corrected to read: Mr. DINGELL. Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to section 509 of House
========================= END NOTE =========================
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 3
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 ``Stem Cell Research
Enhancement Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH.
Part H of title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 289 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section
498C the following:
``SEC. 498D. HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH.
``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law (including any regulation or guidance), the Secretary
shall conduct and support research that utilizes human
embryonic stem cells in accordance with this section
(regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived
from a human embryo) .
``(b) Ethical Requirements.--Human embryonic stem cells
shall be eligible for use in any research conducted or
supported by the Secretary if the cells meet each of the
following:
``(1) The stem cells 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.
``(2) Prior to the consideration of embryo donation and
through consultation with the individuals seeking fertility
treatment, it was determined that the embryos would never be
implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded.
``(3) The individuals seeking fertility treatment donated
the embryos with written informed consent and without
receiving any financial or other inducements to make the
donation.
``(c) Guidelines.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
the enactment of this section, the Secretary, in consultation
with the Director of NIH, shall issue final guidelines to
carry out this section.
``(d) Reporting Requirements.--The Secretary shall annually
prepare and submit to the appropriate committees of the
Congress a report describing the activities carried out under
this section during the preceding fiscal year, and including
a description of whether and to what extent research under
subsection (a) has been conducted in accordance with this
section.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 509 of House Resolution
6, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Boehner) each will control 90 minutes.
[[Page H350]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
General Leave
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and to insert extraneous material into the Record on the pending bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the House passed last year, on May 24, 2005, the Stem
Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 by a vote of 238-194. On July 18,
2006, the Senate followed suit and passed the bill by a vote of 63-37.
The President then vetoed this legislation on July 19, the first and
only veto of his 6 years in office.
President Bush's veto came in the face of bipartisan and bicameral
Congressional backing for the legislation, as well as strong public
support for embryonic stem cell research. The language before us today
is identical to the language we passed on May 24. It is identical to
the language that passed the Senate on July 18. It is identical,
regrettably, to the language vetoed by the President.
By considering the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 today,
we are reasserting our commitment and dedication and devotion to the
passing of this lifesaving legislation. The time has come for it to be
in law and for President Bush to join us in signing this legislation
into law.
Stem cells are the foundation cells for every organ, tissue and cell
in the body. Embryonic stem cells, unlike adult stem cells, possess a
unique ability to develop into any type of cell, and their capacity to
do this exceeds any other self which we are aware now.
Embryonic stem cell research holds the potential for developing
treatments for many dreaded diseases, including Lou Gehrig's disease,
cancer, cystic fibrosis, heart disease, lupus, multiple sclerosis,
osteoporosis and pulmonary fibrosis.
The unique properties of embryonic stem cells were not lost on
everyone, and I will now quote from an individual who has thought
rather considerably on this matter. On August 1, this statement was
made:
``Scientists believe further research using stem cells offers great
promise that could help improve the lives of those who suffer from many
terrible diseases, from juvenile diabetes to Alzheimer's, from
Parkinson's to spinal cord injuries. And while scientists admit they
are not yet certain, they believe stem cells derived from embryos have
unique potential. Most scientists, at least today, believe that
research on embryonic stem cells offer the most promise because those
cells have the potential to develop in all of the tissues of the
body.''
The man who said this was our beloved President, Mr. Bush, and I
think it is time that the House should listen to his words and
disregard his veto.
I urge my colleagues to pass a piece of legislation that the public
wants, that the scientific community needs, that will benefit our
people and that will move forward scientific research of vast help and
importance to our people.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to yield the
remainder of my time to the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado
(Ms. DeGette), and that she be permitted to control the time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 3, a bill to expand
taxpayer funding of human embryonic stem cell research. I support stem
cell research with only one exception, research that requires the
killing of human life. Taxpayer-funded stem cell research must be
carried out in a way that is ethical and in a way that respects the
sanctity of human life.
Fortunately, ethical stem cell alternatives continue to flourish in
the scientific community. Earlier this week we learned that amniotic
non-embryonic stem cells may offer the same research possibility as
stem cells obtained through the destruction of human embryos. We have
also seen stem cells from noncontroversial sources, like umbilical cord
blood, be used to treat humans afflicted with more than 70 afflictions.
I think we need to be funding the research that shows the most promise.
I am deeply disappointed today that Democrat leaders have pressed
ahead with this vote, rather than having hearings and markups where
breakthroughs like amniotic fluid cell research could have been fully
examined. This research offers the potential for a new consensus
approach to the difficult issue of stem cell research, and I am
disappointed that the Democrat majority was not willing to allow time
for this new development to be thoroughly examined.
We all know what is going to happen with this bill. This bill is
going to move through the House. It will move through the Senate and go
to the White House, where it was vetoed last year, and it will be
vetoed again.
We have a bill that has been introduced by Mr. Bartlett from Maryland
and Mr. Gingrey from Georgia that says, let's put more funding into
amniotic stem cell research. This is a bill that I think the Congress
can support, the House, the Senate and the White House, that really
will provide new breakthroughs in medical science.
{time} 1045
But that isn't going to be allowed today, and it is not going to be
on the floor today. Instead, we are going to go through a political
exercise that will get us nowhere. And for that, I am deeply
disappointed.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly 2 years since the House of
Representatives passed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act in an
attempt to lift the crippling ban on lifesaving research. During those
2 years, a lot has happened. The Senate overwhelmingly passed the bill,
President Bush issued the first veto of his 6-year Presidency to kill
it, new elections were held, and a rash of new pro-research Members
won, in many cases defeating incumbents who oppose this research.
Public support has surged for stem cells. Over 71 percent of the
public now supports this research, a stunning 20 percent increase since
the vote in 2005.
There are other developments that have happened in the last 2 years.
Great progress in research is being conducted overseas, out of the
hands and out of the oversight of our distinguished scientists here at
home. Stem cell research is proceeding unfettered and, in some cases,
without ethical standards in other countries. And even when these
countries have ethical standards, our failures are allowing them to
gain the scientific edge over the U.S.
In Japan, scientists have used embryonic stem cell therapies to
reduce hepatic failure in mice. In the U.K., the government has now
committed to spending $1.3 billion on stem cell research in the next 10
years. Singapore is spending $7.5 billion on biomedical research over
the next 5 years and is actively courting American stem cell
researchers.
The first embryonic stem cell line may have been created in the
United States, but the majority of new lines are being created
overseas. We were once on the cutting edge of this groundbreaking
research, but we have now effectively handed over the reins to those
outside our borders while our own researchers remain tethered by a
restrictive 6-year-old policy and we still have no Federal ethical
standards over this research.
But there is one thing that has not changed since we last considered
this bill. Millions of people in this country and around the world are
still stricken by disease, accidents are still leaving people
paralyzed, too many people are becoming victims of Alzheimer's,
Parkinson's, heart disease, sickle cell anemia, diabetes, and many
other debilitating diseases. Cancer hasn't been cured.
Some suggest that it is Congress' role to tell researchers what kinds
of cells to use, adult stem cells, cord blood, so-called ANT, amniotic,
and others. I suggest we are not the arbiters of research. Instead, we
should foster all of these methods, and we should
[[Page H351]]
adequately fund and have ethical oversight over all ethical stem cell
research. Embryonic stem cell research has shown the most promise of
almost any current research today for potentially curing these and
hundreds of other diseases and injuries.
The distinguished minority leader is wrong when he says amniotic stem
cells are a substitute for embryonic stem cells. The researcher at Wake
Forest University in fact says specifically that these cells are not a
substitute, and we need to have both types of research, as well as all
of the other kinds to have the maximum potential to cure disease.
The minority leader said we need to foster the kind of research that
has the most promise. And there is the one place we will agree today,
because the most promise, all researchers agree, is held by embryonic
stem cell research.
Well, here we are again, and here we are going to come time after
time until this bill passes. This bill will become law, and we will not
tire in our efforts until it does for the millions of Americans who
suffer from diseases.
Mr. President, today, we want to give you another chance to do the
right thing. Today, the House will vote to give hope to millions of
Americans. I urge my colleagues to vote for life, to vote for hope, to
vote ``yes'' on H.R. 3.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members that remarks
are to be addressed to the Chair and not to the President.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Barton) and the remainder of my time to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Burgess) and I ask unanimous consent that they be allowed to
control that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) on
the floor?
Mr. BOEHNER. Not as yet.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman wish to yield first to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess)?
Mr. BOEHNER. I will.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has yielded the remainder of
his time to Mr. Burgess, and then 15 minutes of Mr. Burgess' time to
Mr. Barton; is that correct?
Mr. BOEHNER. That is correct.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas
is recognized as the controller of the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. BURGESS. I thank the distinguished Republican leader for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, here we are back again, not quite two years from when we
had this debate the last time, and a good deal has changed in the world
of science over that 2-year time interval. Unfortunately, the bill that
we have before us has not significantly changed.
We have already heard mention of the amniotic fluid stem cells that
are now available to open a broad new area of research. Have we had one
hearing in our committee, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, of
which the distinguished chairman spoke to us this morning? I think the
American people would welcome us having a hearing to understand more
about this promising new area of science. As it stands today, we will
simply have to debate the bill on the merits of information that is
well over 2 years old, and I think that is unfortunate.
Mr. Speaker, regenerative medicine, the words themselves, speaks to
great hope among the healer and patient alike that some of the most
tragic of human afflictions may one day find relief. This concept is
powerful. It is a powerful lure to participants on both sides of this
debate. And I would stress, Mr. Speaker, that on both sides of this
debate are people of good character and good will. We simply disagree
about a single point. As we proceed with today's debate on H.R. 3, I
would like to ask my colleagues whether there is any common ground by
which the two sides may seek resolution of this conflict.
The recent findings of the pleuripotent epithelial cells, an
undifferentiated mesenchymal cell that is present in all amniotic fluid
at all stages of fetal development, demonstrates how quickly the world
has changed since we last held this debate less than a year ago. Mr.
Speaker, we don't know, we don't know what the mesenchymal cell will do
if it is extracted at 11 weeks versus 40 weeks. Wouldn't it be nice to
have the researcher before our committee and be able to ask those
questions so we may make the best possible judgment for the American
people?
Well, those individuals, the researchers at the Institute for
Regenerative Medicine at Wake Forest, have determined these cells they
have extracted from amniotic fluid can adapt and form other types of
tissue, such as brain, muscle, and skeletal cells, and remain stable
for years and not form tumors into those in whom they are implanted.
That is a pretty powerful piece of information, Mr. Speaker. If I
were given the choice of a stem cell that might cure an affliction but
one might cause a tumor and the other wouldn't, I think that is
information I would like to have before I made that decision.
Clearly, this new technology, as it is further developed, may well
prove a way toward that path of regenerative medicine without
sacrificing nascent human life and in fact sacrificing human dignity.
For almost a decade, clinicians have used what is called
preimplantation genetics, where a single cell is taken from an early
gestation, the 8-cell blastocyst, a single cell is taken through
micromanipulative techniques without causing harm to the donor embryo.
This single cell is then used for genetic studies.
I have had patients in my practice who have undergone preimplantation
genetics. But this same procedure could be used to create new embryonic
stem cell lines without sacrificing human life and without endangering
fundamental human dignity. This technique was proposed by Mr. Bartlett
in the last Congress. It was brought up under suspension, and,
unfortunately, did not pass. But I believe this Congress should be
considering this again as a means towards achieving that elusive common
ground between the two sides.
As we have witnessed, science moves faster than we do here in the
United States Congress. At the very least we should strive to defend
life and attempt to establish the ethical boundaries of this
potentially lifesaving research.
Consider the words spoken by President Kennedy at his inaugural
almost half a century ago: ``Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders
of science instead of its terrors.'' H.R. 3 does not strike this
balance and does not allow us to invoke the wonders of science.
Instead, it offers a very vague outline posing as ethical guidelines
but is in no such way an ethical guideline; and, unfortunately, as a
consequence, human dignity is discarded by the wayside.
We can do better, and we should do better. Instead, we offer false
promises to those that suffer from some of the most debilitating
chronic conditions and we fail to protect what is human life and erode
the concept of humanity.
Mr. Speaker, again, let me express my regret that we are not holding
hearings in arguably what is the most powerful committee in this United
States Congress, and that is the Committee on Energy and Commerce, so
that we may fully evaluate this area of science.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman, for his information, has
consumed 5\1/2\ minutes. If there is any uncertainty, the Chair wants
to clarify it.
Pursuant to the unanimous consent request of the gentleman from Ohio,
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) will control 15 minutes of the
remaining time, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) will control
the rest of that time. So those two gentlemen, pursuant to the request
of the gentleman from Ohio, were recognized to control the time on that
side; 15 minutes for Mr. Barton, the remainder of the time is left to
Mr. Burgess.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am honored now to yield to the
distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) 3 minutes.
(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for
yielding and also in particular thank and recognize the gentlewoman
from Colorado
[[Page H352]]
(Ms. DeGette) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for their
exceptional leadership, and that of many others on the stem cell
research bill who have fought so hard to bring us to where we are
today. I am proud to be a partner with them in this effort.
Mr. Speaker, America has waited a long time for the Stem Cell
Research Enhancement Act, and I am proud to rise in support of H.R. 3
and be a part of a Congress that has made this a top priority. This
legislation has strong bipartisan support in both Chambers of Congress
and enjoys the support of up to 70 percent of the American people. Most
importantly, it offers hope and the promise of a cure to millions of
people who are living with the constant challenges and burdens of
chronic disease and disability.
Mr. Speaker, when I was injured in an accidental shooting almost 26
years ago, I was told that I would never walk again. Now, I always held
out hope that someday that would change, that through the miracles of
science and prayer, someday there would be a cure for spinal cord
injuries.
{time} 1100
It is only until now that that possibility of a cure has become truly
real.
I am the first to admit that my understanding of stem cell research
has involved ongoing education, thought and prayer. As a pro-life
Member of Congress, I have not taken my decision to support this
legislation lightly. But I have come to the conclusion that being pro-
life also has to be about caring about those people who are living
among us with some of life's most challenging conditions and diseases
and caring about the possibility of both extending and improving the
quality of life itself. That is what the promise of stem cell research
offers.
Over the years, I have had the good fortune to learn about stem cell
research from some of America's most renowned scientists as well as
pro-life leaders like Senator Orrin Hatch and a dear friend of mine who
is certainly on my mind today, Christopher Reeve.
My education on this issue has filled me with tremendous hope not
only that stem cell research might lead one day to a cure for spinal
cord injuries, but that one day a child with diabetes will no longer
have to endure a lifetime of painful shots and tests. I truly believe
that families will no longer one day have to watch in agony as loved
ones with Parkinson's or Alzheimer's disease gradually decline. I am
thrilled to be able to share this hope with millions of others.
We live in exciting times, truly at the threshold of a new generation
in medicine. Today, newly spinal-cord-injured patients, many of them
teenagers as I was, are told about developing treatments and scientific
progress. They face a world, very much the same challenges that I faced
in 1980. But they also face a time with real hope and the real promise
of a cure.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3. It is the right thing to do.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I don't disagree with a word that was just
said.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Frank of Massachusetts). How much time
does the gentleman yield himself?
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question? May I yield 2 minutes
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) before he begins the 15
minutes?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. You may. Let me explain once again. Pursuant
to the request of the gentleman from Ohio, the gentleman from Texas
controls, as a matter of right, 15 minutes of the debate time. The
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) controls the remainder. Either may
yield to anyone, including each other. So if the gentleman wishes, at
this point, to yield to the gentleman from Texas, he may do that, or
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) may proceed under his own time.
It is the gentleman's choice.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that we withdraw
the unanimous consent request of the gentleman from Ohio.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman have a new unanimous
consent request?
Let me clarify where we stand. Both gentlemen from Texas have a right
under the previous request to control time. The gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Barton) has 15 minutes. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) has
the remainder of the time. They may be recognized at either time.
Whichever one seeks recognition will be granted that recognition.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that patient clarification. In
that case, I will reserve my time. And I am going to yield to Mr.
Barton the 15 minutes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Well, you needn't do that. He already has 15
minutes. So the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) is now recognized.
And Mr. Burgess's time will be reserved.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is good to see you in the Chair.
To have one of our distinguished parliamentarians is a positive on the
body.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the Republican sponsor of the bill,
Mr. Castle, at this time.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3, the Stem
Cell Research Enhancement Act, legislation I have authored with the
distinguished lady from Colorado, Ms. DeGette, to ethically expand the
current Federal embryonic stem cell research policy.
We have a real opportunity to make history, to pass legislation that
will jump start research and may lead to treatments and cures for
countless diseases, including diabetes, HIV/AIDS, Parkinson's Disease,
Alzheimer's, ALS, multiple sclerosis and cancer. There is overwhelming
support for this research, with 70 percent of the American people
backing it.
There are also 500 universities, medical societies and advocacy
groups backing this research, ranging from the American Medical
Association and the Academy of Physicians to universities like the
University of California and Harvard University and advocacy groups
like the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation and the Michael J. Fox
Foundation.
This research may also provide a better understanding of the
biological origins of certain diseases, as well as an opportunity for
pharmaceutical testing.
However, this Nation and, more importantly, our scientists are being
held back by a policy that is out of date, short-sighted, arbitrary
and, most of all, based on politics and not science.
When the decision was made by President Bush in 2001 to allow Federal
funding for stem cell research on lines that had already been created,
it seemed that a compromise may have been struck. However, the number
of lines has shrunk from 78 to 22, and all of the lines have been
compromised.
Since that time, over 150 new and improved stem cell lines have been
created in the United States and throughout the world. Despite the fact
that these lines are much easier for scientists to use and, in some
cases, are disease specific, they are off limits to Federal
researchers.
Throughout this debate, you will hear many mistruths, and I think it
is important to set the stage early about what this bill does and
doesn't do. First, you will hear that this bill expands Federal
funding. To the contrary, this bill has nothing to do with funding. It
has to do with the source of the embryos and the quality of stem cell
lines.
Second, you will hear this bill discourages destruction of human
life, or that it uses taxpayer dollars to destroy human life. To the
contrary, this bill has nothing to do with destroying lives and
everything to do with saving lives.
It is important to understand we are only talking about embryos that
are going to be thrown away otherwise as medical waste. We support all
options for couples, including embryo adoption, but if the couple
decides to discard their embryos as medical waste, we would like them
to be available to research.
You will hear this legislation will encourage the creation of embryos
for the sake of research. Again, not true. Our bill specifically states
that the embryos must have been created for the purpose of fertility
treatment, and no money may have exchanged hands.
Even worse, you will hear mistruths spread by a physician hired by
the pro-life movement. Specifically, he says cures and treatments have
been found using adult stem cells for 65 to 72 diseases. However, if
you look at the science and not the hype, you will see a scientific
research study published by three leading researchers in the Science
Magazine this past summer who found that, in truth, the number is 9,
far less than 65.
[[Page H353]]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter this study into the Record.
Adult Stem Cell Treatments for Diseases?
(By Shane Smith, William Neaves, Steven Teitelbaum)
Opponents of research with embryonic stem (ES) cells often
claim that adult stem cells provide treatments for 65 human
illnesses. The apparent origin of those claims is a list
created by David A. Prentice, an employee of the Family
Research Council who advises U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-
KS) and other opponents of ES cell research (1).
Prentice has said, ``Adult stem cells have now helped
patients with at least 65 different human diseases. It's real
help for real patients'' (2). On 4 May, Senator Brownback
stated, ``I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record the listing of 69 different human illnesses being
treated by adult and cord blood stem cells'' (3).
In fact, adult stem cell treatments fully tested in all
required phases of clinical trials and approved by the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration are available to treat only nine
of the conditions on the Prentice list, not 65 [or 72 (4)].
In particular, allogeneic stem cell therapy has proven useful
in treating hematological malignancies and in ameliorating
the side effects of chemotherapy and radiation. Contrary to
what Prentice implies, however, most of his cited treatments
remain unproven and await clinical validation. Other claims,
such as those for Parkinson's or spinal cord injury, are
simply untenable.
The references Prentice cites as the basis for his list
include various case reports, a meeting abstract, a newspaper
article, and anecdotal testimony before a Congressional
committee. A review of those references reveals that Prentice
not only misrepresents existing adult stem cell treatments
but also frequently distorts the nature and content of the
references he cites (5).
For example, to support the inclusion of Parkinson's
disease on his list, Prentice cites Congressional testimony
by a patient (6) and a physician (7), a meeting abstract by
the same physician (8), and two publications that have
nothing to do with stem cell therapy for Parkinson's (9, 10).
In fact, there is currently no FDA-approved adult stem cell
treatment-and no cure of any kind-for Parkinson's disease.
For spinal cord injury, Prentice cites personal opinions
expressed in Congressional testimony by one physician and two
patients (11). There is currently no FDA-approved adult stem
cell treatment or cure for spinal cord injury.
The reference Prentice cites for testicular cancer on his
list does not report patient response to adult stem cell
therapy (12); it simply evaluates different methods of adult
stem cell isolation.
The reference Prentice cites on non-Hodgkin's lymphoma does
not assess the treatment value of adult stem cell
transplantation (13); rather, it describes culture conditions
for the laboratory growth of stem cells from lymphoma
patients.
Prentice's listing of Sandhoff disease, a rare disease that
affects the central nervous system, is based on a layperson's
statement in a newspaper article (14). There is currently no
cure of any kind for Sandhoff disease.
By promoting the falsehood that adult stem cell treatments
are already in general use for 65 diseases and injuries,
Prentice and those who repeat his claims mislead laypeople
and cruelly deceive patients.
References
1. Posted at the Web site of DoNoHarm, The Coalition of
Americans for Research Ethics (accessed 8 May 2006 at http://
www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm).
2. D. Prentice, Christianity Today 49 (no. 10), 71 (17 Oct.
2005) (accessed 8 May 2006 at www.christianitytoday.com/ct/
2005/010/24.71.html).
3. S. Brownback, ``Stem cells,'' Congressional Record, 4 May
2006 (Senate) (Page S4005-S4006) (accessed 8 May 2006 at
http://frwebgate6.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/
waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=122359256098+2+2+0 &WAI
Saction=retrieve).
4. According the latest version of the list, accessed 12 July
2006.
5. See chart compiling and analyzing Prentice's list of 65
diseases allegedly treated by adult stem cells at the
supplemental data repository available as Supporting Online
Material on Science Online at www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/
full/1129987/DC1.
6. D. Turner, Testimony before Senator Sam Brownback's
Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee on 14 July 2004
(accessed 8 May 2006 at http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/
testimony.cfm?id=1268&wit_id=3676).
7. M. Levesque, Testimony before Senator Sam Brownback's
Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee on 14 July 2004
(accessed 8 May 2006 at http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/
testimony.cfm?id=1268&wit_id=3670).
8. M. Levesque, T. Neuman, Abstract #702, Annual Meeting of
the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, 8 April
2002.
9. S. Gill et al., Nat. Med. 9, 589 (2003).
10. S. Love et al., Nat. Med. 11, 703 (2005).
11. M. Levesque, Testimony before Senator Sam Brownback's
Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee on 14 July 2004
(accessed 8 May 2006 at http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/
testimony.cfm?id=1268&wit_id=3670); L. Dominguez, Testimony
before Senator Sam Brownback's Science, Technology and Space
Subcommittee on 14 July 2004 (accessed 8 May 2006 at http://
commerce.senate.gov/hearings/
testimony.cfm?id=1268&wit_id=3673); S. Fajt, Testimony before
Senator Sam Brownback's Science, Technology and Space
Subcommittee on 14 July 2004 (accessed 8 May 2006 at http://
commerce.senate.gov/hearings/
testimony.cfm?id=1268&wit_id=3674).
12. K. Hanazawa et al., Int. J. Urol. 7, 77 (2000).
13. M Yao et al., Bone Marrow Transpl. 26, 497 (2000).
14. K Auge, ``Stem cells infuse kin with hope,'' Denver Post,
24 Aug. 2004.
11 May 2006; accepted 13 July 2006.
Published online 13 July 2006; 10.1126/science. 1129987.
Include this information when citing this paper.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There was a general permission granted under
the request of the gentleman from Michigan so that any extraneous
material may be entered under a unanimous consent request already
granted.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out that adult
stem cells were discovered in 1960, and embryonic stem cells were only
isolated in 1998. And since 1998, there have been great advances in
animal models in the areas of diabetes, spinal cord injury and macular
degeneration.
Finally, you will hear about the research concerning amniotic fluid
stem cells conducted by Dr. Atala at Wake Forest University. While
exciting, this is nothing new, nor do these stem cells have the same
capacity to divide into all cell types in the body, as embryonic stem
cells do. Yet you will hear opponents say they do.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter the letter in the Record on that
as well.
Wake Forest Institute for
Regenerative Medicine,
Winston-Salem, NC, January 8, 2007.
Hon. Diana DeGette,
Hon. Michael Castle,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Representatives DeGette and Castle: I am writing in
regard to my research that was published in Nature
Biotechnology that found that stem celts obtained from
amniotic fluid have been able to differendate into several
cell types. This research has the potential to open up an
important field of inquiry that could be critically important
to the development of treatments within the field of
regenerative medicine.
I understand that some may be interpreting my research as a
substitute for the need to pursue other forms of regenerative
medicine therapies, such asthose involving embryonic stem
cells. I disagree with that assertion. It is very possible
that research involving embryonic stem cells will have
critical implications for advancing research into amniotic
fluid stem cells. It is essential that National Institute of
Health-funded researchers are able to fully pursue embryonic
stem cell research as a complement to research into other
forms of stem cells.
Your legislation, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of
2007, H.R. 3, would update the current federal embryonic stem
cell policy and allow federally funded researchers to conduct
research on an expanded set of embryonic stem cells within an
ethical framework. I believe this legislation would speed
science in the regenerative medicine field, and I support its
passage.
Sincerely,
Anthony Atala, MD.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair just would repeat that under a
unanimous consent request from the gentleman from Michigan, Members
already have permission to insert extraneous material into the Record.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, if it is appropriate, I would like to yield
2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. To clarify, the gentleman has 67 minutes,
these two would then come out of that, and may at any time rise to be
recognized and yield to whomever he wishes.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 3, a
bill that compels taxpayers to support the destruction of early human
life.
This legislation, which calls for taxpayer funding of embryonic stem
cell research, is unnecessary.
First, it is already legal to conduct research on human embryos with
private or State funds. It is also legal to conduct research on
embryonic stem cell lines that come from human embryos already
destroyed prior to August 9 of 2001. Thus, the debate today is not
aimed at stopping embryonic stem cell research; it is aimed at
prohibiting the Federal funding of it because it is so controversial.
Second, plenty of more successful alternatives of non-embryonic stem
cell research already exist and are treating
[[Page H354]]
patients every day. Despite a quarter-century's research in mouse
embryonic stem cells and 7 years in human variety, embryonic stem cells
have yet to yield any successful clinical trials in humans. Adult stem
cells, however, have treated patients suffering from 72 different
diseases in published clinical applications. Researchers have also
achieved similar results with stem cells derived from umbilical cord
blood, treating more than 70 different types of diseases.
And just last week, Wake Forest and Harvard University announced
breakthrough technology in amniotic fluids.
In May of 2006, a poll conducted by the International Communications
Research showed 48 percent of Americans oppose Federal funding of stem
cell research that requires the destruction of human embryos, and only
39 percent support such funding.
I believe the most effective way to counter disease in the long run
is to support research that will prevent the occurrence of the disease.
That is why I strongly supported efforts in 1998 to double the funding
for the National Institutes of Health, which we accomplished over a 5-
year period of time. We should continue to prioritize that research and
continue to work on the stem cell research that does not involve the
taking of the human life.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield now 2 minutes to
the distinguished new Member from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from Colorado for her
efforts on this issue which are so important to America.
Mr. Speaker, when I think of stem cell research, I think of Ronald
Reagan slumbering through the twilight of his life with Alzheimer's,
and I think of Christopher Reeve, Superman, laid low by paralysis and
the host of physical ailments that accompany paralysis. Those are
images we all share in our national consciousness.
When I think of my father's struggles with Alzheimer's, I think how
science might one day through stem cell research find a way to prevent
others from suffering as he did and as my mother did as his caretaker.
Many people like to frame the stem cell debate as pro-life and pro-
choice. For Ronald Reagan and Christopher Reeve, the question was a
matter that they had no choice in. And for each public face of a
political leader or a movie star, there are thousands of ordinary
citizens like my father who suffer daily from diseases for which there
are no cures.
My hometown, Memphis, Tennessee, is the proud home of St. Jude
Children's Research Hospital. St. Jude is the patron saint of forgotten
and impossible causes. Saint Jude's Hospital has given hope where no
hope existed. It has made possible the impossible. This is because St.
Jude is a research hospital focused on medical advancement.
Let us each remember that science is our friend, not our foe, and we
must embrace science. The issue of stem cell research should not be a
political football tossed about with callous disregard for the very
real suffering of people with Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, spinal cord
injuries, cancer, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes,
osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. We must not tie the hands of
scientists and physicians with the bureaucracy and red tape. We must
commit ourselves to the health of our citizenry. Like St. Jude, we must
remember the forgotten, and we must have the vision to see
possibilities in what appears impossible.
I ask all of my Members to join in voting for this bill.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady
from Florida, the distinguished Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in very
strong support of H.R. 3, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.
I stand with 500 of America's most respected research groups in
support of this bill. The bottom line is that this bill is about saving
and improving lives.
As a mother and grandmother, I fear that the untapped potential of
stem cell research may be falling by the wayside. Let us remember, only
when the embryo is implanted in a uterus to grow can life be sustained.
Unless a couple has an option of donating remaining embryos, a
failure to pay storage fees means the embryos will be disposed of as
medical waste.
Listen up, America. H.R. 3 gives us a choice. We can use the promise
of embryonic stem cell research to save lives, or we can let that
promise be thrown away.
Millions of people around the country support this life-affirming and
life-enhancing research. People with cancer, Parkinson's and
Alzheimer's want this bill to pass. Your friends and neighbors and your
constituents back home want this bill to pass because it gives hope
where hope doesn't exist now.
It will let the research on stem cells continue under ethical
guidelines and will provide millions of Americans suffering from
debilitating and terminal diseases the hope that they need and want.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill. And I certainly commend
Ms. DeGette, as well as Mr. Castle, for their leadership on this bill.
{time} 1115
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to recognize and
yield 3 minutes to a new Member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Walberg).
Mr. WALBERG. Thank you for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I am honored to come before you today and join my
distinguished colleagues to address an issue close to my heart. My
initial entry into politics came as a member of a right-to-life
organization, my home county of Lenawee, Michigan. I am proud to say
that during my 16 years in the Michigan House of Representatives, I
established a 100 percent pro-life voting record.
As I begin my first term in the U.S. House with the same ardent
commitment to the sanctity of life, I want to preface my remarks by
saying I wholeheartedly support stem cell research in all cases except
one, any form of research that requires the eradication of human life.
The legislation this Congress is considering not only destroys human
life and could ultimately lead to human cloning, but also is
antiquated. Embryonic stem cell research has seen consistently
disappointing and with fruitless results, while nearly every month more
studies come out showing that ethical, adult stem cell research
continues to flourish.
Just this week my wife and I were heartened to learn about stem cells
derived from amniotic fluid and placentas. It is time for Congress to
catch up with the remarkable and ethical developments taking place in
the scientific community.
In truth, this debate isn't really even about the science of stem
cell research, but rather how such research will be financed. Taxpayers
should not be expected to fund this research, especially when it
continues to be illegal in the private sector, though unsuccessful to
date.
On behalf of the men and women in my district and across the pro-life
districts of the country, I urge my colleagues to cast a vote for both
the sanctity of life and fiscal responsibility.
This vote was made even more personal and poignant to me this past
Sunday when I read an article talking about a couple who will be giving
birth to a child this next week as a result of having an embryo saved 2
weeks after Katrina hit, where literally National Guard troops, the
Governor of Louisiana, troops from Illinois as well, moved literally
hell and high water to save not only this couple's embryo, but 1,400
other embryos.
The question comes, if we are going to talk about discarded embryos,
or those not wanted, which ones of those 1,400 that were saved as a
result of moving hell and high water by our government would be the
ones that we would discard?
Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to support life and to support
good science and vote against this proposal.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished new Member from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire) for his maiden
floor speech.
Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. Having
worked for a large academic medical center, I have
[[Page H355]]
seen the promise that embryonic stem cell research holds for Americans
suffering from chronic disabilities such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's,
diabetes, and spinal cord injuries.
We all know people with these disabilities and a vote for this bill
is a vote for them. This bill says specifically that it only applies to
embryos that would otherwise be discarded by the fertility clinics. So
a vote for this bill is a pro-life vote. We must pass this bill for the
millions of Americans that suffer from debilitating medical conditions
today and the millions more that will tomorrow.
This is something that is deeply personal to me. I am a pro-life
Democrat. The reason I am supporting this bill is because this is a
pro-life vote. There is nothing more important that we can do in this
Congress than to support life. This is a pro-life vote. I urge my
colleagues to pass this bill.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of ethical, moral, and effective
stem cell research. This debate is not whether embryonic stem cell
research is permitted. It already is. This debate is not about whether
the Federal Government should fund embryonic stem cell research. It
already does. What I do believe is that embryonic stem cell research
crosses ethical boundaries, and that is the bigger question today. But
given the track record of stem cell research, where should we focus
taxpayers' dollars today?
Now, this is bowl season in America, championship season. So we go to
the scoreboard to see where we are with stem cell research in this
country today, and the score is very clear. Adult stem cell research,
there are 72 clinical applications currently available today and more
being developed. Where are we with embryonic stem cell research today?
We are at zero. So the score today is 72-0.
So you can talk about the ethical and the moral issues, and certainly
I stand on the side of life. But when we start talking about one of the
other stewardships that this body has, it is what is our responsibility
to the taxpayers with the limited amount of dollars that we have for
research in this country today. Certainly one of the things that we
should be looking at is results, a novel thing for Congress sometimes
to look at.
I come from the private sector recently to Congress. We didn't invest
our money in things that were losers. One of the things we know today
is that currently embryonic stem cell research is not yielding any
clinical applications that we can use in an effective way.
So doesn't it make sense that as we sit down and allocate our
resources, look at our research patterns as we move forward, we ought
to be investing our money where we are getting results? Certainly there
are a lot of people who will get up and talk and make emotional
appeals. I am not insensitive to that.
There are a lot of people that have huge issues going on today in
their lives. One of the things we want to do is make sure that we are
applying Federal resources in a way that we can actually benefit from
them and not talk about the politics.
So if you want to vote for effective stem cell research in this
country today, you are going to want to vote against H.R. 3, the Stem
Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard from several speakers on the other side
that allegedly adult stem cells have cured a myriad of diseases.
Apparently, the scorecard is now up to 72. In fact, as the researchers
have shown, Dr. Shane Smith, William Neaves and Steven Teitelbaum, the
opponents say that a myriad of diseases have been cured by adult stem
cells, but, in fact, adult stem cell treatments fully tested, fully
tested in all required phases of clinical trials, have cured nine
conditions, not 65 or 72; and all of those conditions were blood-
related conditions.
They were not the kinds of conditions that embryonic stem cells have
shown promise for and have shown hope for. Embryonic stem cells have
only been around for about 8 years, and the President's restrictions
have greatly hampered research; but, nonetheless, these cells show
great promise.
The researchers conclude: ``By promoting the falsehood that adult
stem cell treatments are already in general use for 65 or more diseases
and injuries, Prentice and those who repeat his claims mislead lay
people and cruelly deceive patients.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I want to thank Congresswoman DeGette and Congressman
Castle for bringing this bill before the House. It is something for me
that is personal. I have a child with epilepsy.
Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, this bill holds out promise for millions
and millions of people across the country, whether they have
Alzheimer's or diabetes or Parkinson's or Huntington's or someone who
has epilepsy. It is something that we need to allow science to move
forward on. It is this kind of promise, this kind of opportunity, and
it is my job, I believe, as a Congressman, and it is this House's job,
to improve people's lives. This has been done in so many laboratories,
but now is being hampered.
I want to thank Congresswoman DeGette and Congressman Castle for the
way they have managed this particular bill. I want to thank the House
for the way it has been civil and respectful of both sides of the aisle
on both sides of the issue.
This is one where there are firm convictions on either side. But for
someone like me, who has a child with epilepsy, where there is hope,
there is promise for her, that she can get better from this disease,
this is something we need to pass, we must pass.
This is a pro-life bill, as one of my colleagues said earlier, and I
urge the passage of this bill. I ask all of our colleagues to support
this bill, and I hope that the President, Mr. Speaker, will take a
second look at this and will certify and support this bill and not veto
it as he has in the past.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago I talked about the process and
the people that convinced me to vote for H.R. 810. I discussed what the
idea of pro-life means to me. I remembered my late husband, Bill
Emerson, to this body and talked about the victims of cancer and
paralysis and muscular dystrophy and dementia in my district and
throughout the Nation. We talked about something upon which we can all
agree: human life is precious.
It is a sad reality, though, that human embryos are discarded in this
country every day. They are certified as waste and disposed of in the
earliest stages of their prenatal lives.
Defeating this legislation will not change that fact. Embryos that
can't live outside the mother's womb will be discarded regardless of
what we do today.
Where we have the opportunity to make a difference is to take the
pleuripotent stem cells which hold great promise for medical research
and the afflictions I mentioned earlier and use them to help other
precious lives survive, to defeat diseases for which we know no cures
and to give a fulfilling, meaningful existence to millions. Like all
medical breakthroughs, it will take a lot of hard work and a little
luck.
But I can't stand in this House today and say to a little boy I know
with muscular dystrophy named James, to a young man suffering from
paralysis in Campbell, Missouri named Cody, to my daughter's friend,
Will, I will not say to them, never. I will not stand in the way of
their progress. I will not help them extinguish their dreams for
themselves and others with their same afflictions. I will not let any
of our short lives be shortened unnecessarily so.
This bill is not about hope. This bill is about the pursuit of cures
for diseases that afflict us, diseases that take our loved ones and
destroy families and freeze us in single moments of time in which we
become helpless. This bill is about fighting back and not letting any
part of human life, no matter how small, be wasted.
No one I have met who has urged the support of this issue to me would
mind
[[Page H356]]
going to the grave untreated by the benefits of embryonic stem cell
research as long as we are trying, as long as we never say never to
them. No one I have ever met who has urged the support of this issue to
me, Mr. Speaker, would mind going to the grave untreated by the
benefits of embryonic stem cell research as long as we are trying, as
long as we never say never to them.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I would point out in response to one of the previous speakers that
embryonic stem cell research has actually been present on the animal
model for over 25 years.
Mr. Speaker, it is now my great pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, in one of my favorite plays of all
time, ``Inherit the Wind,'' the attorney Henry Drummond is talking to
his client and his client's fiancee about a lesson of life based upon
an experience that Drummond had when he was 7 years old, and by his own
admission, a self-described expert on rocking horses.
He saw in the store window, Golden Dancer, a rocking horse with a red
mane, blue eyes, beautiful gold with purple spots on it, and there
would always be a plate glass window between him and Golden Dancer
because it would have cost a week of his father's salary. But on his
next birthday as he woke, he saw at the foot of his bed, Golden Dancer.
His mother had scrimped on groceries, his father had worked nights for
a month and they had purchased the very high-priced Golden Dancer.
He jumped out of the bed and jumped on to the rocking horse. As he
began to rock, it broke. It busted in half. Golden Dancer was made of
rotten wood. Despite all the glitz and glamour around it, it was held
together by spit and sealing wax. They had purchased Golden Dancer, but
at too high a price.
{time} 1130
Often for us as individuals as well as society, we go after Golden
Dancers, and they are purchased at too high a price. Embryonic stem
cell research in my opinion is a Golden Dancer, and it would be
purchased at too high a price. It is a glitzy golden dream that is out
there.
Last year we were discussing this bill, a lot of doctors and genetic
researchers on this floor, the overwhelming majority of whom were
opposed to this process, because we can do the research without having
to go through objectionable processes and procedures to do it, without
having to deal with the issue of innocent life.
If embryos are being destroyed, it is not right that taxpayer money
should be used to expand that process in what I find to be a morally
objectionable way and objectionable process regardless of what that
Golden Dancer may or may not be. To me, this is still an issue of
ethics: Does the manner in which we spend our tax dollars promote a
policy that one form of innocent life at a stage is more important than
another innocent life at a different stage? Will we, by our tax
policies, condone tax spending, condone a policy that says innocent
life can be destroyed for utilitarian purposes? Because if we do that,
whatever the reason may be, in my contention that cheapens society and
it cheapens us, and it gives us a cavalier attitude of life at the
beginning of the process which leads to a cavalier attitude of life at
the end of the process and who knows in between.
This is a Golden Dancer that for me is too high a price for what it
does to us as a people and as a society.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished new Member from Ohio (Mr. Space).
Mr. SPACE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask you to support Federal
funding of embryonic stem cell research. My remarks today are made, Mr.
Speaker, both as a legislator and as a father.
My wife, Mary, and I are the proud parents of two beautiful children.
My youngest child, my son, Nicholas is 16 years old. He is a great kid,
typical in so many ways. He loves football, argues with his sister and
struggles with the awkward challenges of adolescence. But Nicholas also
suffers from juvenile diabetes.
For the last 10 years, he has waged a battle against this devastating
disease, undergoing thousands of injections and blood tests. He has
done so without complaint and without self pity as his parents, my wife
and I, are extraordinarily proud.
As Nicholas approaches adulthood, Mr. Speaker, our family fears for
what the future brings. For as difficult as this disease is to live
with on a daily basis, most troubling of all is what potentially awaits
someone who suffers from this disease: amputations, blindness, kidney
failure, even premature death.
Mr. Speaker, we have before us not simply an opportunity to help my
son and the millions of other Americans who depend upon the promise of
this science; we have an obligation. This research represents the only
meaningful hope for a cure in my son's lifetime.
While this measure is likely to pass, our President is likely to veto
it. I am addressing my remarks not to the cameras, not to those who are
inclined to vote for this legislation, but to those of you who do not
have the will to stand up to a Presidential veto. We as a Congress must
be resolute in making life better for our citizens. We are compelled to
promote a society where the value of life rules supreme, where
compassion prevails and where light overcomes darkness.
The measure before you does not destroy life; it potentially gives
life to those who need it, and it affords purpose to embryos that are
otherwise destined for destruction. There is no time to wait. For every
hour we debate, lives are being lost. This is no Golden Dancer. This is
indeed a golden opportunity.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from North Carolina.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues who have spoken before
me on the side of life have been extremely eloquent, and I am very glad
that they have spoken this morning.
I have listened to the debate this morning, and I want to say that
many people are very cynical about our government and about Congress in
general, and I can understand why this debate would make even more
people cynical. To say to the American people that by approving more
Federal dollars to do embryonic stem cell research would cure all of
these diseases that are brought out and that those of us who oppose
spending more Federal dollars on embryonic stem cell research are
stopping the advance of science is one of the most cynical things I
have ever heard said on this floor and, I think, will tend to make more
people think that Members of Congress who are pro-life are cruel and
unkind.
As my colleagues have said, the score board is 72-0. Nothing
efficacious has come out of embryonic stem cell research in 25 years of
research. In fact, a lot of negative things have happened. And to
mislead the American public is cruel. It is just absolutely cruel to
make people think again that they could be cured.
Thirty years ago, I lost a side of my right eye completely from a
detached retina. You can't implant retinas. You can't transplant
retinas. The only thing that could possibly help me would be a new
retina to be grown.
So I support stem cell research. I support Dr. Atala's work in North
Carolina at Wake Forest because they are actually growing organs from
people's own stem cells. That research has enormous potential. Adult
stem cell research has done good things. Embryonic stem cell research
creates tumors and rejection. Dr. Atala would tell you that himself. It
is not the way to go.
What we need to be doing is promoting stem cell research and to do
all that we can. My husband is diabetic. I am very empathetic to the
fact that research could do a lot to help us with diseases, but this is
not the route to go. Killing human life does not have to be
accomplished to create efficacious treatments for people and diseases.
Again, I am so disappointed in the way this has been presented to the
American people. We are doing embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic
stem cell research and stem cell research are two different things. My
colleagues never use the word embryonic. They always say stem cell
research. Pro-lifers support stem cell research; we just don't support
the destruction of life to get there.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
[[Page H357]]
Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker alleged that Dr. Atala, who is
doing the embryonic stem cell research, said that it is not the way to
go, that embryonic stem cell research is not the way to go.
In fact, in the letter that my distinguished colleague Mr. Castle has
already submit for the record, Dr. Atala specifically says that
amniotic stem cell research is not a substitute for embryonic research.
And he further says: It is essential that National Institutes of Health
funded researchers are able to fully pursue embryonic stem cell
research as a complement to research into other forms of stem cells.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished new member from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Mr. Speaker, if I could just tell one story about a small State in
the northeast, Connecticut, a place where we made 2 years ago a
historic $100 million investment in stem cell research. And there will
be others that will speak much more ably about the moral and ethical
and scientific rationales for the bill before us; let me talk about the
practical rationales from our standpoint in Connecticut.
Our success investing $10 million a year in stem cell research was a
bittersweet one, because it was only made necessary by the failure of
the Federal Government to act on this question. We responded to the
cries of thousands of families throughout Connecticut that wanted us to
give them not only hope but tangible support when it came to
researching cures and treatments for the diseases that afflicted their
family members.
The problem being that, because of the Federal prohibition on the use
of Federal funds for scientific research, Connecticut is now having to
do back flips to find ways to invest our money. We are having to invest
in bricks and mortar, invest in stealing sciences from other of the few
remaining States that allow for State funding of stem cell research.
This is a highly inefficient means to spend the State of
Connecticut's money, and one of the reasons that I was sent down to
this august body was to make stem cell research, to make investment in
scientific research, not a 50-State strategy, but to make it a national
priority.
We hear from people on the other side of the aisle, I think, a very
wise caution that we shouldn't make promises today or throughout the
debate that embryonic stem cell research will definitely lead to a cure
of this disease or a treatment for that disease. But the point being
here is that there are no promises, there are no guarantees, but that
what our families wants is a removal of the ceiling that we have placed
on scientific research in our States and our Federal institutions so
that that hope may become a reality.
From the citizens of Connecticut who have made great strides on this,
as the author of that bill in the State of Connecticut, I am very
proud, ten times prouder than I was to vote for it in the State of
Connecticut, to vote for it today.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).
(Mrs. SCHMIDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. SCHMIDT. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3, and urge a ``no'' vote
on this question before the House. I strongly oppose H.R. 3, the Stem
Cell Research Enhancement Act. A human embryo is human life.
H.R. 3 would use Federal tax dollars, tax dollars of hardworking
Americans to fund the destruction of human life. This research is
already permitted. The debate is not about stopping it but about who is
going to pay for it.
To my colleagues who support this legislation, I share your concern
for finding future medical treatments to improve lives, but disagree
with your focus on embryonic stem cell research. There are other
promising techniques to produce stem cells, techniques that do not
involve the destruction of human life. Moreover, these techniques have
actually achieved results. Cord blood has saved the lives of people
with leukemia and other blood-related diseases.
This week a series of encouraging research reports reveal the promise
of stem cells obtained from amniotic fluid. These share the
characteristics of embryonic stem cells, but obtaining them does not
damage the embryo. We should focus on funding alternative sources of
stem cell research, something we can all support.
H.R. 3 advances the proposition that this body must choose between
science and ethics. That is not the case. Let's be aggressive in
looking at alternative ways to save human lives through stem cell
research, ways that do not compromise our moral values and the lives of
the unborn.
I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill and work towards
finding and funding methods that do not involve the destruction of
human life.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am now delighted to yield 2 minutes to
another new Member, the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Patrick J. Murphy).
Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as
an original cosponsor of this legislation and a strong supporter of the
medical miracle of embryonic stem cell research.
Mr. Speaker, there is a woman named Shelbie Oppenheimer who is
watching today in my district of New Hope, Pennsylvania, who simply
wants to see her 8-year-old daughter Isabella go to her senior prom in
10 years.
Shelbie lives with her husband Jeff and their 8-year-old daughter,
and over a decade ago, Shelbie was diagnosed with ALS, Lou Gehrig's
disease. She was 28 years old. Shelbie vowed to fight the disease and
looked at embryonic stem cell research as her best and perhaps only
hope to fill her dream of seeing her daughter grow up.
{time} 1145
Now confined to a hospital bed in her own living room, Shelbie
continues to fight on. Though forced to speak through a respirator, she
told me, ``Patrick, my voice is too soft to be heard, so please tell my
story.''
There are countless stories of heartache and hope across America just
like Shelbie's. Mr. Speaker, I know Shelbie is watching us today, and I
hope we make her proud.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from the Keystone State of Pennsylvania (Mr.
Dent).
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
(Mr. DENT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3, the
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007.
Although the purpose of this legislation is straightforward, the
significance cannot be understated. H.R. 3 would expand the limited
number of embryonic stem cell lines currently available for federally
funded research. Permitting research on additional embryonic stem cell
lines will advance a field that scientists agree holds the greatest
potential to provide groundbreaking therapies for some of the most
vexing diseases of our time.
I believe stem cell research, all forms of stem cell research, adult,
cord blood, amniotic, embryonic, should be pursued. This discussion is
not about a competition. The promise of stem cell research, to find
treatments for the most devastating diseases like Parkinson's, juvenile
diabetes, coronary heart diseases, cancer and spinal cord injuries, is
too great not to explore every single possibility.
That said, embryonic stem cell research raises serious ethical
questions that have been raised by some of my colleagues today. I
strongly believe that H.R. 3 is the most responsible way to ensure that
we are observing the highest possible standards of ethical and clinical
practice by setting meaningful ethical guidelines for embryonic stem
cell research that will serve as the benchmark for scientific study
throughout the world. H.R. 3 provides these ethical guidelines.
First, in order to be considered for this research, the donated cells
must come from an in vitro fertilization clinic, have been created for
the purpose of fertility treatment and be in excess of the clinical
need of the individuals seeking treatment.
[[Page H358]]
Second, the in vitro facility has to certify that these cells would
be otherwise discarded if not donated and that the cells are not
destined for implantation.
Third, the donors of these cells have to sign a written consent form
providing for such a donation and confirm that they have not received
any inducements, financial or otherwise, to make the donation.
We took one important step last year in Congress in addressing these
ethical dilemmas that are raised by this emerging field of science. We
enacted a law which prohibits the practice of fetal farming where human
fetal tissue would be deliberately created for the purpose of
scientific research. H.R. 3 will take another step in ensuring that
research is adhered to the highest possible principles of scientific
inquiry and respects critical ethical boundaries while advancing some
of the most critical research of our time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5\1/2\
minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, by now, most of my colleagues know that, on Sunday, a
team of scientists from Wake Forest University and Harvard Medical
School announced the stunning news that they had discovered a new,
readily available source of potentially lifesaving stem cells derived
exclusively from amniotic fluid.
For those of us who passionately support extending ethical stem cell
research to effectuate cures and mitigate disease, news of this
breakthrough was particularly encouraging. News media around the world
seemed to appreciate the enormity and the historical significance of
the findings. ABC News said, ``Stem cells discovered in amniotic fluid:
Researchers say stem cells can be taken from amniotic fluid with no
harm to mother or fetus.'' They pointed out that stem cells they drew
from the amniotic fluid donated by pregnant women hold much the same
promise as embryonic stem cells.
The L.A. Times said, ``Stem cells in amniotic fluid show great
promise, a study finds they offer key therapeutic benefits but avoid
controversy.''
Mr. Speaker, for those of us who strongly support taxpayer funding
for ethical stem cell research, and I would note parenthetically that
the Bush administration spent over $600 million on stem cell research
at NIH in 2006 alone, the news of this breakthrough suggests that we
can and must do more to finance this kind of ethical research.
And for those of us who oppose taxpayer subsidies to facilitate the
destruction of human embryos, this latest breakthrough is yet another
vindication and underscores the fact that ethical alternatives to
embryo-destroying research are available now, and they are likely to
expand.
Let me reiterate one more time, especially for the press, that we on
the pro-life side strongly support stem cell research as long as it
does not require the killing of human embryos. In that vein, let me
remind my colleagues that I was the prime sponsor of the bipartisan
Stem Cell Therapeutic Research Act of 2005, a law that authorized $265
million for cord blood and bone marrow stem cell programs, including a
new nationwide program to collect, research and help disseminate these
vital stem cells.
By way of update, last fall, pursuant to the new law, the Bush
administration issued contracts to establish a national inventory of
umbilical cord blood. Contracts totaling $12 million were awarded and
more contracts are expected this year. The establishing of this
national cord blood inventory marks the beginning of the effort to
increase the total number of available umbilical cord blood units,
making lifesaving cord blood stem cells available to Americans in need
of a transplant. I believe that is really good news to patients
suffering from a myriad of diseases such as sickle cell anemia and
leukemia.
Mr. Speaker, it was just 6 months ago, in July, on this floor that
opponents of Roscoe Bartlett's alternative pluripotent stem cell
legislation belittled and scoffed that adult and cord blood stem cells
were capable of pluripotency, the ability of stem cells to grow into
any cell in the body. Despite the fact that numerous scientists had
published findings of pluripotency in cord blood stem cells and adult
stem cells, Ms. DeGette dismissed alternative sources for pluripotent
stem cells as ``fake.''
She called it ``fake research that doesn't really exist'' and that
``alternative methods for creating pluripotent stem cells are not a
real scientific prospect at this time.''
Mr. Speaker, that statement was false then, and it is false now. The
scientific evidence clearly refutes it. In 2005, researchers from the
University of Minnesota Medical School verified that umbilical cord
blood stem cells expressed pluripotency genes and can repair
neurological damage.
In like manner, researchers at the University of Pittsburgh
demonstrated that placental stem cells express pluripotency genes and
potentially form any tissue with no signs of tumor formation. As I
think my colleagues know by now, tumor formation is a catastrophic
problem with embryonic stem cells.
Recently, researchers in France and Switzerland discovered that they
could turn pluripotent bone marrow stem cells into insulin-secreting
cells, an important step in curing diabetes, and the list goes on.
And now Wake Forest has come to this same conclusion, this time about
amniotic-fluid-derived stem cells. And I will quote from the report.
This is their report issued this weekend: ``We conclude,'' the authors
say, ``that amniotic-fluid-derived stem cells are pluripotent stem
cells capable of giving rise to multiple lineages including
representatives of all three embryonic germ layers. Newsweek got it,
and they also talked about it as well: ``A New Era Begins: Stem Cells
derived from amiotic fluid show great promise in the lab and may end
the divisive ethical debate once and for all.''
Let me just finally say, where will this all take us if this bill
were to be passed and signed into law? We would see the demise, the
destruction over time, if it worked, of millions of embryos. Let me
just quote Robert Lanza, medical director of Advanced Cell Technology,
an advocate of embryonic stem cell research, who said that because of
the likelihood of immune rejection, it may require, his words,
``millions'' of embryos to be destroyed. Is that the future you want to
promote with the DeGette bill? Millions of embryos killed? Let's adopt
them, as we are seeing now.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Frank of Massachusetts). The gentleman
may state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. What would I need to do to yield the time I am
controlling to Mr. Castle?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Make a unanimous consent request to do that.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to
the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and ask unanimous consent that
he be allowed to control that time.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
January 11, 2007--On Page H358 the following appeared: gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Castle) and
The online version should be corrected to read: gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle) and
========================= END NOTE =========================
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished new Member from Florida (Mr. Klein).
Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, my name is Ron Klein, and I
represent Florida's 22nd Congressional District, which is in Southeast
Florida. I am truly honored to be here today and to be part of this
incredibly important effort led by Congresswoman Diana DeGette and
Congressman Mike Castle, both of whom have been relentless crusaders
toward leading this bipartisan effort in Congress to expand the use of
embryonic stem cell research.
As a member of the Florida State Senate for the past 10 years,
leading efforts to utilize and fund embryonic stem cell research was
not just a priority of mine but a passion. We all have our own family
stories about why medical cures need to be discovered today, not 10
years from now.
In my district, which includes Ft. Lauderdale, Boca Raton, Pompano
Beach and West Palm Beach, we have so many retirees who moved to
Florida to live out their golden years. But as they age, as we know
with our own
[[Page H359]]
families, many of them are afflicted with Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and
many other serious ailments. To them, the stem cell battle is
critically important, and every day that passes without scientists and
researchers having all the tools at their disposal is another day of
suffering.
From juvenile diabetes to paralysis, the potential of stem cell
research in all of its forms presents one of humanity's greatest leaps
toward the ultimate goal of preserving, prolonging and improving the
quality of our lives.
Funding stem cell research is also a great investment in our future,
not only from a personal health standpoint but also from an economical
and cost-efficiency perspective. Finding cures and therapies may reduce
the cost of hospitalization and other expensive aspects of our health
care system. It will also create careers and jobs in the 21st Century
that will lead the world.
I am incredibly proud to be part of this effort to increase stem cell
funding resources, and I look forward to casting my vote and doing
whatever is necessary to support comprehensive stem cell research and
funding in the United States.
Thank you for your attention, your vote, and thank you to the
millions of Americans who are watching and waiting.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to yield 5
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Linder.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
In January of 2005 University of Florida scientist Michael Atkinson,
a gene therapy advocate, said: ``Two years ago, the embryonic stem cell
field was hype, hype, hype. It is still that way in California, but I
think that field has hit a bit of a wall.''
Why? Because after 25 years of animal research, embryonic stem cells
have produced not one single instance of cure or even a palliative
result. Not one.
They have produced some results, though. Their versatility is now
believed to be a disadvantage. As explained in a letter to Senator John
Kerry, signed by 57 noted scientists in the fields of biology,
microbiology, chemistry and medicine, they said: ``Embryonic stem cells
are difficult to develop into a stable cell line. They spontaneously
accumulate genetic abnormalities in culture and are prone to
uncontrollable growth and tumor formation when placed in animals.''
Why is this such an important issue for politicians? Why don't we pay
some attention to what does work?
Multipurpose adult progenitor cells have been or are being assessed
in human trials for treatment of spinal cord injury, Parkinson's,
stroke, cardiac damage, multiple sclerosis and more. These cells can be
taken from the patient so they have no risk of rejection and no ethical
problems.
{time} 1200
They are showing positive results in 72 different diseases, and I
will submit that list for the Record.
STEM CELL RESEARCH TREATMENTS--ADULT 72 AND EMBRYONIC 0
[Check the Score: Adult Stem Cells vs. Embryonic Stem Cells Benefits in
Human Patients (from Peer-Reviewed Studies).]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Embryonic Stem
Adult Stem Cells Cells
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancers:
1. Brain Cancer. 0
2. Retinoblastoma..................................
3. Ovarian Cancer..................................
4. Skin Cancer: Merkel Cell Carcinoma..............
5. Testicular Cancer...............................
6. Tumors Abdominal Organs Lymphoma................
7. Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma..........................
8. Hodgkin's Lymphoma..............................
9. Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia....................
10. Acute Myelogenous Leukemia.....................
11. Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia...................
12. Juvenile Myelomonocytic Leukemia...............
13. Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia................
14. Cancer Of The Lymph Nodes: Angioimmunoblastic
Lymphadenopathy...................................
15. Multiple Myeloma...............................
16. Myelodysplasia.................................
17. Breast Cancer..................................
18. Neuroblastoma..................................
19. Renal Cell Carcinoma...........................
20. Soft Tissue Sarcoma............................
21. Various Solid Tumors...........................
22. Ewing's Sarcoma................................
23. Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia................
24. Hemophagocytic Lymphohistiocytosis.............
25. Poems Syndrome.................................
26. Myelofibrosis..................................
Auto-Immune Diseases:
27. Systemic Lupus.................................
28. Sjogren's Syndrome.............................
29. Myasthenia.....................................
30. Autoimmune Cytopenia...........................
31. Scleromyxedema.................................
32. Scleroderma....................................
33. Crohn's Disease................................
34. Behcet's Disease...............................
35. Rheumatoid Arthritis...........................
36. Juvenile Arthritis.............................
37. Multiple Sclerosis.............................
38. Polychondritis.................................
39. Systemic Vasculitis............................
40. Alopecia Universalis...........................
41. Buerger's Disease..............................
Cardiovascular:
42. Acute Heart Damage.............................
43. Chronic Coronary Artery Disease................
Ocular:
44. Corneal Regeneration...........................
Immunodeficiencies:
45. Severe Combined Immunodeficiency Syndrome......
46. X-Linked Lymphoproliferative Syndrome..........
47. X-Linked Hyper Immunoglobulin M Syndrome.......
Neural Degenerative Diseases And Injuries:
48. Parkinson's Disease............................
49. Spinal Cord Injury.............................
50. Stroke Damage..................................
Anemias And Other Blood Conditions:
51. Sickle Cell Anemia.............................
52. Sideroblastic Anemia...........................
53. Aplastic Anemia................................
54. Red Cell Aplasia...............................
55. Amegakaryocytic Thrombocytopenia...............
56. Thalassemia....................................
57. Primary Amyloidosis............................
58. Diamond Blackfan Anemia........................
59. Fanconi's Anemia...............................
60. Chronic Epstein-Barr Infection.................
Wounds And Injuries:
61. Limb Gangrene..................................
62. Surface Wound Healing..........................
63. Jawbone Replacement............................
64. Skull Bone Repair..............................
Other Metabolic Disorders:
65. Hurler's Syndrome..............................
66. Osteogenesis Imperfecta........................
67. Krabbe Leukodystrophy..........................
68. Osteopetrosis..................................
69. Cerebral X-Linked Adrenoleukodystrophy.........
Liver Disease:
70. Chronic Liver Failure..........................
71. Liver Cirrhosis................................
Bladder Disease:
72. End-Stage Bladder Disease......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The record of embryonic stem cells today is zero. In an animal model
of Parkinson's, rats injected with embryonic stem cells showed a slight
benefit in about 50 percent of the rats, but one-fifth of them died of
brain tumors caused by the embryonic stem cells.
Just recently, we have heard the promise of research using the
mother's amniotic fluid. We have been told by some that we are doing
this to give people hope. How cruel. They are not looking to the
Federal Government for hope. They are looking to scientists for cures,
and adult cells show by far the most promise.
One of the cruelest examples of political demagoguery I have ever
heard was in the last Presidential campaign when John Edwards said,
``If John Kerry were President, Christopher Reeve would walk.'' A
spokeswoman for the Howard Hughes Medical Institute said, not in
response to that, but she said no one in human embryonic stem cells
will tell you that therapies are around the corner. Dr. John Edwards
seemed not to agree.
We are not here speaking on behalf of the half-therapies that show
promise because private capital is flowing into that research. Private
investors look for hope, too. They hope to make money, and they invest
their dollars where they can do so.
Do you wonder why private investment is not flowing into embryonic
stem cell research? Might there be a hidden agenda here? Might there be
a hidden agenda at play in this issue? Could it be that the proponents
of this bill want to succeed in getting a bill signed into law in which
the government approves the ending of a human life? Are we seeking here
a way to get the government's imprimatur on ending life that is not
useful so that the product of that death can be put to more useful
purposes? That is called the Hegelian Principle, that which is not
useful can be destroyed for the benefit of useful purposes.
This has been used by governments before. Hitler believed in it. I
want to hastily assure everyone on both sides of this issue that I
compare no one to Hitler. But he believed that that which was useful
was good, and that which was not useful was not good. The first Germans
in the gas ovens were not Jews. They were retarded children in Catholic
homes cared for by nuns. They were exterminated. The line was then
moved slightly, and the next to go were the crippled soldiers from
World War I. The line was then moved to include the Jews, and the
German people, being desensitized, accepted it. That is what we are
doing here today, we are laying down a line between that life which is
useful and that which is not. Moving that line in the future will be
less of a lift.
In closing, let me point out that if these researchers were taking
this embryonic tissue from the just-laid eggs of loggerhead turtles or
bald eagles, they would be fined and jailed. Surely we can do as much
for humans.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished new Member from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak).
Mr. SESTAK. I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill, H.R. 3. While I am
about to
[[Page H360]]
talk to a personal story, the issue of stem cell research is not just
personal, it is much more than that.
A year and a half ago, I retired from the U.S. Navy as my then-4-
year-old daughter, Alex, was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor.
She is here today thanks to the wonderful medical treatment that she
received from our Nation's doctors and nurses including high-dose
chemotherapy with stem cell infusion.
The medical coverage I received from our country as a military member
allowed my daughter to receive the best care it had to offer, the care
every American child should have access to. And that is why I ask to
speak to this bill today above all others.
The best of medical care today may not be good enough for tomorrow.
Take a case such as my daughter's: there is a chance that brain tissue
may be harmed by the very treatments intended to save young lives.
Why would we preclude the medical promise that stem cell research
offers for tomorrow's recuperative treatment or cure, not just for my
daughter, but for all those Americans whose lives are inflicted by
serious disease, or who now pass prematurely from us when they might
not?
Embryonic stem cell research may mean that every day 3,000 of our
loved ones affected by Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, or diabetes or spinal
cord injury might have the quality and the full time of life they would
not otherwise have.
I thought about life every day as I lived in the pediatric oncology
ward at Children's Hospital, just down the street from here. I always
wondered if the children there would have a chance to experience life
to its fullest.
I understand debates, and I respect those couched in moral terms; but
when the bargain we are offered is the opportunity that a child might
live, how can we not strike that bargain?
I would hope that we would not let young or old lives be shortened by
the worst of plagues, which is, ``what might have been'' for them. For
the promise of life, its quality, is the congressional tasking we are
most charged with to promote the general welfare. I urge all my
colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Tim Murphy).
Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, over 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson told us: ``I
tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and that His
justice cannot sleep forever.'' Although he was talking about the
issues of the day, those words ring true for all of us in this Chamber
because all of us want to do the right and the just thing. Our words
here for or against embryonic stem cell research will not change what
is true and just. We seek knowledge, we pray for wisdom, but our
thinking does not make it so in one way or the other.
I believe life begins at conception. Others do not. If we are to err
on any side, on what side should we err? There are opinions on each
side of this issue about when life begins. There are common opinions
that we all must work together to help treat disease. There is confused
information regarding what works. Research tells us adult stem cell
research works. Amniotic stem cell research has been revealed to have
much promise. Embryonic stem cells after 20 years of research tells us
it does not.
What is important to know is there is nothing in Federal law that
limits academic research. We do not stop the States from pursuing
research. We do not limit private companies. Research has not been
hampered. And nothing is stopping research from treating disease. What
we are all commonly pursuing is ways to treat disease, and our concern
is how do we do this in a just and ethical way.
When I would be involved in pursuing medical research studies at the
University of Pittsburgh, we had to put forth our study in front of the
human subjects review panel. They scrutinized research very carefully
to make sure it did no harm to anyone. Sometimes what one researcher
considered to be a small and innocuous risk, others said, no, you
cannot get involved in that portion of research. Whatever it is,
sometimes just evaluating the outcome of some treatment on a child that
someone thought, as small as it might be, might be invasive. That was
because we were guided by the ethical principle of ``first do no
harm.''
But here we are faced with recent studies that say amniotic stem cell
research has tremendous promise, and for some reason we are rushing
this week to say we must pass this bill on embryonic stem cell research
when perhaps we should really be pursuing further scientific
information so this House can do its job with hearings, with gathering
information to give us the knowledge we need and pray for the wisdom we
seek.
I hope in all of this that we would continue to be guided by the idea
of first doing no harm, and I would hope that we would also look at the
fundamental basis of this bill that refers to the idea that these
children would otherwise be discarded. I don't think that is a road we
want to use.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to now yield 1 minute to the
distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlelady from Colorado for her leadership on
this issue over the years, and I thank the former Governor of Delaware,
our colleague, Congressman Castle, for his leadership on this. This
bill in my opinion reflects the best in bipartisan cooperation to try
to respond to the American public and their concerns and their needs.
Mr. Speaker, today for the third consecutive day in this 110th
Congress, the new Democratic majority in the House is considering very
important legislation that will pass on a bipartisan basis. On Tuesday,
we passed legislation implementing the 9/11 Commission's
recommendations to make America safer. That bill passed 299-128 with 68
Republican votes. Yesterday we passed a long overdue increase in the
Federal minimum wage by a vote of 315-116 with 82 Republican votes.
That is a positive message to the American public that we can and we
want to work together. There will not be unanimity, but today we will
pass H.R. 3, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007,
legislation offered, again, by the gentlewoman from Colorado and the
gentleman from Delaware.
Mr. Speaker, it is not a bold prediction to say that this legislation
will pass today, because this House approved identical legislation last
May by a vote of 238-194 with 50 Republicans joining 187 Democrats and
one Independent. There are, as that vote reflects, bipartisan concerns
about this legislation. It is my personal belief that they have been
addressed in this legislation carefully drafted to do so. The Senate
passed the bill by a vote of 63-37 before the President vetoed it last
July.
Mr. Speaker, in short, the DeGette-Castle bill would increase the
number of embryonic stem cell lines eligible for federally funded
research. Current policy limits, as we all know, the use of Federal
funds for research only to those stem cell lines that existed when
President Bush issued an executive order on August 9, 2001. This policy
severely restricts the potential for lifesaving breakthroughs because
only 22 of those 78 stem cell lines are available for research and a
vast majority of those 22 lines are aged, contaminated or have been
developed through obsolete methods.
It cannot be stressed enough, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation only
authorizes Federal research funds for stem cell lines generated from
embryos that would otherwise be discarded by fertility clinics. That
seems to me to be a critical consideration for all who will vote on
this legislation.
I believe this legislation does not seek to destroy life. Others
disagree. I understand that. It seeks to preserve and protect life. In
fact, former Senate majority leader Dr. Bill Frist who formerly opposed
this legislation but now supports it has stated: ``I strongly believe
that embryonic stem cells uniquely hold specific promise for some
therapies and potential cures that adult stem cells cannot provide.''
I believe, Mr. Speaker, we have a moral obligation to provide our
scientific community with the tools it needs to save lives and this
legislation in my view accomplishes exactly that. We understand this is
a difficult issue to many Americans and that it raises important
questions that humanity
[[Page H361]]
has yet to adequately answer. That is why this legislation also directs
HHS and the National Institutes of Health to issue ethical guidelines
that will ensure the highest standards of scientific investigation.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation enjoys the overwhelming support of
Members of this Congress and the American people, many of whom are
affected by diseases such as ALS, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and
injuries of the spinal cord and nervous system. This legislation
represents the hope of millions of Americans who are waiting for us to
take action. That is why we have urged action early in this session.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill, as they have
before; and I urge the President to reconsider his veto when this
bipartisan legislation reaches his desk. Again I congratulate Ms.
DeGette and Mr. Castle for working together assiduously and without
flagging on behalf of the American people. This is a good bill for our
country and for those who face great challenges of health.
{time} 1215
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Colorado and the
gentleman from Delaware deserve our thanks for sponsoring the Stem Cell
Research Enhancement Act and working with so many families on a
bipartisan basis who have been impacted by diseases that may find cures
as a result of this vital research. Their work and dedication on this
legislation has been tremendous and praiseworthy. I also thank them for
giving me the opportunity to cast one of the most important votes I
will ever make in Congress.
Almost everyone has lost some family members and friends prematurely.
Embryonic stem cell research has the potential to cure disease and save
lives, and it is only 8 years old. These are stem cells that come from
the inner cells of discarded embryos that were never in a mother's
womb, are being destroyed as we speak. Thus, this is not a matter of
pro-life versus pro-choice, but rather a matter of humanity and the
potential of life versus disease and the certainty of death.
I am grateful the new Democratic leadership is making this
legislation a priority in this Congress, just as I was grateful the
Republican leadership gave us an opportunity for clean up-or-down vote
on legislation in the last Congress.
I pray we pass the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 and
that the President reconsiders his position and signs this bill into
law. Sometimes ideology can box you in and cause you to make wrong and
harmful decisions. I think it is time we recognize the dark ages are
over. Galileo and Copernicus have been proven right. The world is in
fact round. The Earth does revolve around the sun.
I believe God gave us the intellect to differentiate between
imprisoning dogma and sound ethical science, which is what we must do
here today. I want history to look back at this Congress and say in the
face of the age-old tension between religion and science, the Members
here allowed critical scientific research to advance while respecting
important ethical questions that surround it.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
Mr. SOUDER. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to the taking of human life.
The question that is before the House is whether or not the Federal
Government should force taxpayers to fund a procedure that requires the
destruction of innocent human life.
Congress has always refused to allow this on the issue of abortion,
only allowing Federal funding if the pregnancy endangers the life of
the mother or is because of rape or incest. There is no reason why this
same principle should not apply here. Even President Clinton's
bioethics council, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, wrote in
1999 that most would agree that human embryos deserve respect as a form
of human life.
Is it showing respect to kill embryos for research? To allow the
seeds of the next generation to be used for the doubtful sake of our
own? Furthermore, does it show respect to the consciences of Americans
who oppose the research to provide public funding for it?
President Clinton's bioethics council also wrote that the derivation
of stem cells from embryos remaining following infertility treatments,
the killing of embryos that H.R. 3 would encourage, is justifiable only
if no less morally problematic alternatives are available for advancing
the research.
Regrettably, the supporters of this bill seem to have forgotten that
advice, and their continued support for embryonic stem cell research
seems to display ignorance at the recent developments of stem cell
science. Far less morally problematic alternatives are exactly what
scientists are continuing to find. We have heard this referred to
several times.
This was the front page of the Fort Wayne News Sentinel just last
weekend: ``Stem cell find gives new hope to compromise.'' In this, in
addition to the hearing that we had last year, where we heard multiple
scientists receive testify of promising advances in non-embryonic stem
cell research, what he points out here is ``the fetus is swallowing
fluid and breathing in through the nose. Not only does it travel
through the respiratory tract, it gets into the gastrointestinal tract,
the bladder and the kidney. The stuff is chock full of fetal cells.''
They are no longer combined but are separated, and that is why the
research is working, and that is why so many scientists don't even
believe embryonic stem cells will ever work.
There are two fundamental questions here: What is the science, and,
in this case, we have proven research that is working and additional
research that shows incredible promise of working; versus embryonic
stem cell going on for 25 years, not 8 years, that is, in humans, 25
years with nothing. Not a single animal. Nothing has worked in
embryonic stem cell research. Yet we are underfunding the research that
actually works. Why?
I would argue the second point, and that is it is political. It has
to do with the fundamental question of abortion. We have deep
differences in America and in here on the taking of innocent human life
at conception, deep differences and honest differences.
But why should I, with my view, be forced, and the many Americans who
believe this is the taking of innocent life and killing and murder for
that matter, why should we be forced to pay for it? I just do not
understand the intensity of trying to drive this down our throats.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the taking of human life.
Mr. Speaker, the question that is today before the House is whether
or not the Federal Government should force taxpayers to fund a
procedure that requires the destruction of innocent human life.
Congress has always proudly refused to allow this on the issue of
abortion, only allowing federal funding if the pregnancy endangers the
life of the mother or is due to rape or incest. There is no reason why
the same principle should not apply here.
Even President Clinton's bioethics council, the National Bioethics
Advisory Commission) wrote in 1999 that ``[M]ost would agree that human
embryos preserve respect as a form of human life.'' Mr. Speaker, is it
showing respect to kill such embryos for research--to allow the seeds
of the next generation to be used for the sake of our own? Furthermore,
does it show respect to the consciences of Americans who oppose this
research to provide public funding for it?
President Clinton's bioethics council also wrote that, ``the
derivation of stem cells from embryos remaining following infertility
treatments''--the killing of embryos that H.R. 3 would encourage--``is
justifiable only if no less morally problematic alternatives are
available for advancing the research.'' Regrettably, supporters of H.R.
3 seem to have forgotten this advice, and in their continued support
for embryonic stem cell research seems to display ignorance at the
recent developments of stem cell science, for less morally problematic
alternatives are exactly what scientists are continuing to find.
Mr. Speaker, as scientists have worked to find useful therapies using
embryonic stem cells, such research has encountered only problems. Such
stem cells have shown to be too unstable and likely to form tumors when
transplanted into adult tissues. Indeed, despite more than 80 research
projects investigating human embryonic stem cells funded by the
National Institutes of Health since 2002, to date there have been no
verifiable reports of any human clinical trials being conducted using
embryonic, not adult, stem cells--in the U.S. or anywhere else.
[[Page H362]]
Despite these facts, the sponsor of H.R. 3 has stated publicly that
embryonic stem cell research could help cure diseases that affect 110
million Americans. Unfortunately, scientists have been complicit in
this deceit. For example, to justify this hype, stem cell researcher
Ron McKay has said bluntly that people need a fairy tale.
Meanwhile, adult stem cell research continues to show increasing
promise. There are currently 72 therapies showing human benefits using
adult stem cells. In fact, it seems our whole scientific paradigm of
cellular development has been wrong. It now appears that stem cells do
not lose their pluripotency as they develop from the embryo to
differentiated tissue types, and that adult stem cells are much more
elastic than previously thought. This means that embryos are no longer
the unique source of pluripotent stem cells we once thought they were.
Pluripotency is the real goal; and if that can be found in adult stem
cells, embryonic stem cells and the destruction of human life are no
longer necessary.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I ask my opponents to consider that they
do not need to believe a human embryo is the moral equivalent of a
child in order to oppose this bill. Rather, they need merely to
consider the drastic step it would be to provide public sanction--
through federal funding--for life-destructive research that has, at
best, ambiguous potential; when more promising and more ethical
alternatives are available. Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, this bill
and this research are morally wrong, but also, they are simply
unnecessary. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 3.
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC, July 17, 2006.
Efforts To Discredit Adult Stem Cell Advances or ``Science by Fairy
Tale''
This week's debate on federal funding for embryonic stem
cell research is full of disinformation. Among the many
pieces of distortion you may come across is a recent letter
published in ScienceExpress, written to discredit Dr. David
Prentice, a high profile critic of embryonic stem cell
research. Dr. Prentice is formerly Professor of Life Sciences
at Indiana State University, and Adjunct Professor of Medical
and Molecular Genetics for Indiana University School of
Medicine. He is now Senior Fellow for Life Sciences, Center
for Human Life and Bioethics, at the Family Research Center.
Apparently, in the ``open-minded'' spirit of scientific
inquiry, since Dr. Prentice opposes destructive embryonic
stem cell research (as do more Americans, when fully informed
about the nature of the research), his credibility is being
attacked by ``scientists'' who have an agenda of research-at-
all-costs-including-creation-of-human-embryos-purely-for-
destructive-research.
I am attaching Dr. Prentice's useful guide demonstrating
the 72 adult stem cell applications for humans. I also want
to emphasize, that after twenty- five years of embryo stem
cell research, there are zero human applications for using
embryonic stem cells in patients.
I am also attaching a response to the distortions printed
in ScienceExpress--distortions which I expect will be abused
in this week's debate. As this response points out,
illuminating the scientific facts about embryonic vs. adult
stem cell research:
``It remains absolutely true that adult stem cells have
benefited patients suffering from at least 72 diseases and
conditions, where patient improvement is documented by peer-
reviewed scientific publications.''
Pointing out that ClinicalTrials.gov shows 565 currently
active FDA-approved clinical trials (and a total of 1170
total trials, including those that no longer need to recruit
patients), the response also notes this critical fact about
embryonic stem cell research:
``There are no human trials of embryonic stem cells, and
there never have been. Nor are there any peer-reviewed
references for human treatments with embryonic stem cells,
because animal trials have yet to show that embryonic stem
cells are safe or effective enough to initiate even Phase I
human trials for any condition.''
I hope this information is helpful to you.
____
Do No Harm, The Coalition of Americans for Research
Ethics,
Washington, DC.
Misleading, or an Inconvenient Truth?
Do No Harm is disappointed to see a new low in scientific
publishing with Science's June 13 online posting of a Letter
to the Editor that is a transparent personal attack on Dr.
David Prentice, a founding member of Do No Harm.
The Letter purports to analyze Do No Harm's list of adult
stem cell treatments, which lists diseases and conditions in
which human patients have benefited from stem cell treatments
and provides peer-reviewed references on these trials. Do No
Harm clearly states that these are simply cases where adult
stem cells have shown ``benefits to human patients'', have
produced ``therapeutic benefit to human patients''; Dr.
Prentice is quoted here as saying that adult stem cells have
``helped patients.''
But the authors of the Letter engage in semantic
gymnastics, creating a straw man so they can knock it down
and then claim they have discredited Do No Harm. They twist
our statements into claims that these treatments all
currently provide a ``cure,'' are ``generally available,'' or
are ``fully tested in all required phases of clinical trials
and approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.''
(Such a claim would have been ridiculous, in part because
some dramatic advances have occurred in other countries where
FDA approval is not a relevant factor.)
Regarding two diseases, the Letter implies that the list
cites only one peer-reviewed reference and does so
inaccurately. However, the Letter's supplement acknowledges
an additional four references showing ``improved long-term
survival'' for patients receiving adult stem cells.
Do No Harm thanks the Letter's authors for pointing out
some references that were inadvertently included, as well as
some new references to include, so the list could be properly
updated. Dr. Prentice is submitting a formal response to
Science, and we hope the journal will belatedly give him the
courtesy of a published reply. This courtesy is normally
accorded by prior notice, and simultaneous publication of the
response with an original Letter of this nature.
That the authors of the Letter should bring up the subject
of FDA-approved clinical trials is especially odd, because
the federal government documents a great number of current
trials using adult stem cells at various phases of
investigation. A check of ClinicalTrials.gov shows 565 such
trials currently active and recruiting patients, and a total
of 1170 trials in all (including trials that no longer need
to recruit more patients). There are no human trials of
embryonic stem cells, and there never have been. Nor are
there any peer-reviewed references for human treatments with
embryonic stem cells, because animal trials have yet to show
that embryonic stem cells are safe or effective enough to
initiate even Phase I human trials for any condition.
It remains absolutely true that adult stem cells have
benefited patients suffering from at least 72 diseases and
conditions, where patient improvement is documented by peer-
reviewed scientific publications. There are likely others,
undoubtedly more to come, and many more accounts of people
who have benefited from such research. That is the real
success of adult stem cells: helping human patients. It is a
success that no one can claim for embryonic stem cells.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Mitchell).
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman.
Mr. Speaker, just a few months ago, the American people sent a clear
message to Washington: It is time to expand our investment in embryonic
stem cell research. I heard that message loud and clear from my
constituents in Arizona who believe as I do that the best way we can
honor life is to use science and ethical research to discover
treatments for the millions of Americans who suffer from diseases such
as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Lou Gehrig's and Huntington's disease.
The people of my district understand that we have a moral obligation
to invest in embryonic stem cell research because it provides the best
hope for a cure for these diseases and many others.
Last year, I met a fellow Arizonan who helped me understand just how
important this fight for cures is to so many people and so many
families. His name is Phil Hardt, and he suffers from Huntington's
disease. Huntington's disease results from the genetically programmed
degeneration of brain cells that causes uncontrolled movements, loss of
intellectual faculties and emotional disturbances. It is a terrible and
agonizing disease that has no cure. But with the promise of embryonic
stem cell research, there is hope for a cure.
But, Mr. Speaker, today Phil and people like him all over the country
need more than hope. They need action. They need action from this
Congress, for us to once again pass this important legislation. And
they need action from the President.
Mr. Speaker, I am asking you to urge the President that he has in his
hands the opportunity to improve the lives of so many people and help
so many families. The American people support ethical embryonic stem
cell research, and so does a vast bipartisan majority in Congress. When
this legislation reaches the President, I hope he does the right thing,
to honor life by signing this legislation into law.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in respectful opposition to H.R.
3, the
[[Page H363]]
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, a bill, Mr. Speaker, that
authorizes the use of Federal tax dollars to fund the destruction of
human embryos for scientific research.
The late President Ronald Reagan wrote, ``We cannot diminish the
value of one category of human life, the unborn, without diminishing
the value of all human life.''
The supporters argue that this debate today is between science and
ideology or dogma; that destroying human embryos for research is
necessary to cure a whole host of maladies, from spinal cord injuries
to Parkinson's. But the facts suggest otherwise, and physicians on our
side have and will continue to make the case for the ethical
alternative of adult stem cell research and new breakthroughs, past and
present.
But, Mr. Speaker, the debate over the legitimacy or potential of
embryonic stem cells, I believe, is actually not the point of our
debate today. We are here simply to decide whether Congress should take
the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use them to
fund the destruction of human embryos for research.
This debate is not really about whether embryonic stem cell research
should be legal. Sadly, embryonic stem cell research is completely
legal in this country and has been going on at universities and
research facilities for years. But proponents of this legislation
apparently don't want to just be able to do embryonic stem cell
research, they want me to pay for it. And like more than 40 percent of
Americans, I have a problem with that.
You see, I believe that life begins at conception and that a human
embryo is human life. And I believe it is morally wrong to create human
life to destroy it for research. But I believe it is also morally wrong
to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of Americans who believe that
life begins at conception and use it to fund research that they find
morally offensive.
This debate then, Mr. Speaker, is not about what an embryo is. This
debate is about who we are as a nation. Not will we respect the
sanctity of human life, but will we respect the deeply held moral
beliefs of nearly half of the people of this Nation who find the
destruction of human embryos for research to be morally wrong.
Despite what may be uttered in this debate today, I say again, this
debate is not about whether we should allow research that involves the
destruction of human embryos. This debate is about who pays for it.
Last year here in Congress, I was surrounded by dozens of snowflake
babies, Mr. Speaker, children born from frozen embryos. I couldn't help
but think of that ancient verse: I have set before you life and
blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children
may live.
It is my fervent hope, Mr. Speaker, and my prayer, as we stand at the
crossroads of science and the sanctity of life, that we will choose
life.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Indiana and several other people have
said they don't think taxpayers should fund this research. But, in
fact, we have a national consensus in this country in support of
taxpayer funding for embryonic stem cell research, 72 percent, to be
exact. We fund all other types of this research, so we have this
national consensus.
My constituents in the First Congressional District of Colorado, the
vast majority, the majority, do not want to fund this war. That doesn't
mean, Mr. Speaker, that they don't have to pay their taxpayer dollars.
We should fund this with taxpayer dollars because the NIH and our
public institutions are the driving force behind basic research for the
private researchers, for the foreign researchers and for all of this
wonderful research that is going to, we hope, cure diseases.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
new Member from Illinois (Mr. Hare).
Mr. HARE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues,
Congresswoman DeGette and Congressman Castle, for introducing the Stem
Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 and for their strong leadership
on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, last Thursday was a bittersweet day for me. I had the
incredible honor of being sworn in as a new Member of the United States
Congress in front of my family, friends and constituents. Yet part of
me was sad that my friend and mentor, Congressman Lane Evans, wasn't in
my place.
Lane served as a distinguished Member of this body for 24 years until
Parkinson's disease forced him to retire at the end of the 109th
Congress. Lane's battle with Parkinson's is a testament to his
incredible spirit that never caused him to ask, Why me, although
retiring meant he had to leave Congress when there was still so much he
wanted to do, helping veterans, working families and his constituents.
Mr. Speaker, Lane is just one of millions of Americans struggling
with chronic illnesses that are curable with the advancement of stem
cell research.
Spencer House is the son of my very good friend Doug. He suffers from
diabetes and must take four insulin shots each and every day. But Doug
is encouraged by the hope that lies in embryonic stem cell research to
offer his son a more normal life. And he is not alone. Poll after poll
shows that the majority of Americans support ethical embryonic stem
cell research as a way towards preventing others from having to live
with illnesses like Parkinson's disease, diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer's
and spinal cord injuries.
I am an original cosponsor of this commonsense legislation because
the science of stem cell research is clear: Embryonic stem cell
research has the potential to treat and cure some of our most
debilitating injuries and diseases.
Mr. Speaker, today we decide whether to give the American people hope
or continue to prolong the suffering of those who struggle with curable
chronic diseases. I urge all my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 3.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
(Mr. KIRK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Illinois and rise in
strong support of Federal funding to accelerate stem cell research.
{time} 1230
In the last Congress, I helped craft the bipartisan consensus to back
stem cell research here in the House, and our bipartisan coalition is
even stronger today.
America is home to more Nobel prizes in medicine than any other
nation. Our record of medical achievement led the way to eliminating
smallpox and saves half of all people diagnosed with cancer. This
legislation will help us save the other half. It offers hope to anyone
suffering from diabetes, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's. It represents
the strong will of parents and patients who have banded together with
effective voices, like the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, the
American Heart Association, and the American Cancer Institute.
This legislation offers a powerful message to both political parties,
Republican and Democrat, that one of our American legacies is to lead
the world in the freedom of intellectual inquiry, in scientific
research, in medical science, and especially in that most
quintessential American value, optimism and the expectation of better
days for our children.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation directly supports the research of Dr.
John Kessler at Northwestern University and his work to treat spinal
injuries, Dr. Mary Hindrix at Childrens and her work to prevent
metastasis in cancer and Professor Robert Goodman of Northwestern for
his research to explore a cure for ALS.
We are going to pass this bipartisan bill with a thunderous
bipartisan majority, sending to the Senate as an expression of the
American people as pro-research, pro-science pro-American leadership
and supporting hope for patients everywhere.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted now to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished new Member from New York (Mr. Hall).
(Mr. HALL of New York asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. HALL of New York. I thank the gentlewoman. Today, I rise in
support of H.R. 3, the Chamber's effort to improve the lives of
millions of Americans by once again advancing the Stem Cell Research
Enhancement Act.
[[Page H364]]
For many Americans, including relatives and friends of mine who
suffer from the effects of Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, paralysis, and
other devastating illnesses, embryonic stem cell research provides the
hope of a better life or even perhaps a cure.
Last year, Johns Hopkins University released the results of stem cell
therapy tests on frogs in the laboratory using frog embryonic stem
cells which showed paralyzed frogs recovering the use of their hind
quarters. Now, one can't necessarily extrapolate from laboratory
experiments to humans; but until we try, we will not know.
There has been a lot of debate about this bill, what it is and what
it is not. I would just suggest that by allowing the Federal Government
to support research on embryonic stem cells, regardless of when they
were derived, this bill will allow science to move forward unimpeded in
the quest to cure some of our most crippling diseases.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak in support this chamber's effort
to improve the lives of millions of Americans by once again advancing
the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.
For many Americans suffering from the effects of Alzheimer's,
Parkinson's, paralysis, and other devastating illnesses embryonic stem
cell research provides the hope of a better life, or even perhaps a
cure.
There has been a lot of debate about what this bill is, and what it
isn't.
What this bill is an opportunity to expand the resources the federal
government can bring to bear in supporting breakthroughs in medical
technology.
Under current policy, only stem cell lines derived before August 2001
can be used for research. But according to the National Institutes of
Health, of the 78 stem cell lines that were declared eligible for
federal funding by the President, less than one third are still
available.
To make matters worse, many of the available lines are contaminated
with ``mouse feeder'' cells, making their therapeutic use for humans
uncertain.
By allowing the federal government to support research on embryonic
stem cells regardless of when they were derived, this bill would allow
science to move forward unimpeded in the quest to cure some of our most
crippling diseases.
What this bill isn't is an attempt to devalue human life.
Under this bill, stem cells could only be used for research if they
would never be used by fertility clinics and be discarded, and only if
the donor of the embryo gave full consent.
Instead of being discarded, these embryos could help researchers
unlock the cures to Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, MS, cancer, and other
conditions. Certainly, advancing these goals is consistent with a
reverence for human life.
Last year, Congress overwhelmingly passed this bill on a bipartisan
basis, and it's clear that the majority of the American people want
this research to go forward.
It is my sincere hope that we will again pass this bill by an
overwhelming and bipartisan margin, and send it to the President for
his signature.
I would urge the President not to repeat his previous mistake of
allowing ideology to trump science by vetoing this bill. Instead of
placating his narrow political base, the President should heed the will
of the great majority of the American people by signing this bill into
law.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield now to the
gentleman and new Member from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth) 1 minute.
(Mr. YARMUTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. YARMUTH. I thank the gentlewoman.
Mr. Speaker, the progress that has been made of late in the area of
adult and amniotic fluid stem cell research is astounding. In my own
district, the University of Louisville is curing paralysis in lab
animals using adult stem cells. But with each new discovery, the
scientists say the same thing: none of these areas of research can
replace the vast unique and still unchartered potential of embryonic
stem cells.
Politics interfering with scientific advancement is nothing new. In
Louisville, public controversy was a major obstacle before our
pioneering doctors successfully implanted the first artificial heart
and performed the first hand transplant. Had the politics of the day
prevailed, additional lives would have been lost and incredible
progress halted.
Today, again on the cusp of discoveries that could save lives, we
find ourselves at a similar crossroads. Will we aid progress or impede
it?
And none--not one of the embryos in question could ever grow into a
human life. The researchers are speaking exclusively of embryos that
would otherwise be discarded.
We can no longer afford to let politics stand in the way of science
and allow America to fall behind the rest of the world's medical
advances, especially now as the research being conducted with embryonic
stem cells holds the unprecedented potential to revolutionize medicine.
I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 3.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair at this point would remind Members
to be careful not to pass between the Chair and Members speaking and
also to be careful not to have conversations in direct proximity to
Members who are addressing the House.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to recognize the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry) for 2 minutes.
(Mr. FORTENBERRY asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin with a story. Several weeks ago, I
was reading some of our national publications, and I came across a very
small article that reported how Swiss scientists were taking amniotic
fluid from preborn children, children who had been diagnosed in the
womb with heart disease, and they were taking adult stem cells from
that amniotic fluid and beginning the process of growing heart valves
that would inevitably be placed in those children because of that heart
disease.
Mr. Speaker, my spirits lifted. I had hope again. You see, my
daughter Kathryn is 6 years old and she suffers from complete atrial
ventricular septal defect, a severe form of heart disease. She has had
three open-heart surgeries thus far. We are probably looking at a
fourth in the coming months, and in that surgery it is likely she will
need a mechanical valve which further complicates her difficulties.
This is why this article was so meaningful to me.
You see, adult stem cells from bone marrow sources and umbilical cord
sources and now amniotic fluid are showing real therapeutic value in
the treatment of 72 diseases currently, and this avoids the ethically
divisive issue of the destruction of unborn human life, the destruction
of unborn human embryos.
Embryonic stem cell research has shown no therapeutic value to date,
is highly controversial, and many taxpayers do not wish to have their
money spent here. So, Mr. Speaker, I say, why not? Why not invest our
limited resources in adult stem cell research that is showing great
promise and giving real hope? This is good public policy. This is the
right thing to do.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield to the
distinguished gentlewoman from the Energy and Commerce Committee, my
colleague, Ms. Eshoo, 2 minutes.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues Congresswoman DeGette
and Mr. Castle for the outstanding work they have done in bringing this
bill before the House. I am proud to support it, and I think that this
is a very important moment for the Congress. Why? Because this bill
really represents hope for the American people.
I often say to my constituents that I am in the business of hope, to
give hope to people with what I do and the vote that I cast. There is a
reason why this bill is an overwhelmingly bipartisan bill, because 72
percent of the American people support stem cell research.
There is only one type of stem cell research that is not funded by
the Federal Government today and that is embryonic stem cell research.
There are tax dollars for all the others: for cord blood, for amniotic,
and for adult. That is why we have the bill before us today.
We all have constituents, we all have members of our families that
have diseases that have befallen them and injuries that have befallen
them and where they come to us and say, please, take action on this. So
as someone that considers herself in the business of hope, I am
especially proud to not only be a part of this effort but also be part
of a new Congress that is giving hope to
[[Page H365]]
people that a Congress will take action on those things that are really
relevant to people in their day-to-day lives: that the American people,
the working people of our country, be given a raise in the minimum
wage; that people across this country will be given substantial hope
that we will take action on this bill; and that, hopefully, the
President will continue the line of hope by changing his mind and
signing the legislation into law.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would again urge Members not to
cluster around the floor manager. The Chair understands it is necessary
to have conversations, but please respect the Members speaking and to
approach the floor manager, when it is necessary, no more than one at a
time.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am now very pleased to recognize my
friend and colleague from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) for 3 minutes.
(Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
This debate is really one of the most fundamental, important debates
this body can undertake. Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker: I support stem
cell research using adult stem cells, cord blood, and amniotic stem
cells. I do not, however, support destroying life in the name of
research.
H.R. 3 fails to address the most basic essential ethical question of
when does life begin and when should life, including human embryos, be
open to experimentation and scientific research.
As elected representatives, we have been cloaked with America's
legislative responsibility. With this responsibility we are entrusted
to determine the ethical and moral bounds of scientific research and to
determine what value America places on human life. I believe our work
today must reflect America's belief that all life has value, from the
human embryo to those in the twilight of their life. We must not
legislate shortcuts for one life over another.
Embryonic stem cell research requires the killing of human embryos,
which if left to grow would become children. Where do we as a Nation
draw the ethical and moral line on scientific research as to when life
begins, and at which stage of human life are we willing to sacrifice
one life to promote the life of another?
The good intentions of the proponents of H.R. 3 do not answer these
questions. The proponents do not allow us, as America's elected
representatives, to draw the ethical and moral line for human life.
Under H.R. 3, when do embryos become human life? After 40 hours? After
2 days or 14 days?
H.R. 3 leaves the research guidelines to an administration official.
As elected leaders, we should not entrust an unnamed individual to set
America's guidelines on the value of human life. Mr. Speaker, I believe
that human embryos, as life, should be treated and valued with the same
respect as you and me.
While the promise of embryonic stem cells is still questionable,
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 72 diseases and injuries. As science learns
more about the building blocks of life, researchers announced this week
that stem cells found in the placenta and the amniotic fluid hold the
key stem cells for research. These stem cells can be obtained while
protecting life. This research offers science the ability to provide
hope to those who suffer from disabling injuries and diseases while
protecting all human life.
Let me be clear: I am committed to funding ethical scientific
research that will unlock the origins of diseases and develop cures
that can help my constituents. We cannot, however, let science leapfrog
our ethics. I urge Members to protect life at all stages and vote
``no'' on H.R. 3.
Mr. Speaker, this debate on H.R. 3, the Stem Cell Research
Enhancement Act, is really one of the most fundamental, important
debates that this body can undertake.
Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker, I support stem cell research using
adults stem cells, cord blood, and amniotic stem cells. I do not,
however, support destroying life in the name of research.
H.R. 3 fails to address the most basic, essential, ethical question
of when does life begin? And when should life, including human embryos,
be open to experimentation and scientific research?
As elected representatives of the people, we have been cloaked with
America's legislative responsibility. With this responsibility, we are
entrusted to determine the ethical and moral boundaries of scientific
research and to determine what value America places on human life?
I believe our work today must reflect America's belief that all life
has value from the human embryo to those in the twilight of their life.
We must not legislate ``short cuts'' for one life over another, which
this legislation does. Embryonic stem cell research which requires the
killing of human embryos, which if left to grow would become children.
Where do we, as a nation draw the ethical and moral line on
scientific research as to when life begins? And at which stage of human
life are we willing to sacrifice one life to promote the life of
another?
The good intentions of the proponents of H.R. 3 do not answer these
questions. The proponents do not allow us, as America's elected
representatives, to draw the ethical and moral line for human life.
Under H.R. 3, when do embryos become human life? After 40 hours?
After 2 days? H.R. 3 is silent on when embryos become human life--it
doesn't 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. 3 will claim that this legislation will leave the
research guidelines to an unelected and unnamed administration official
within 60 days. A bureaucrat will set the guidelines, for scientific
research and experimentation on human life!
As elected leaders we should not entrust an unnamed individual to set
America's guidelines on the value of human life.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that human embryos, as life, should be treated
and valued with the same respect, as you and me.
While the promise of embryonic stem cells is still questionable,
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 72 diseases including, Parkinson's disease,
spinal cord injury, Juvenile Diabetes, brain cancer, breast cancer,
lymphoma, heart damage, rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile arthritis,
stroke, and sickle cell anemia.
As science learns more about the building blocks of life, researchers
announced this week that stem cells in human amniotic fluid hold the
key stem cells for research. These stem cells can be obtained while
protecting human life.
These stem cells are found in the placenta and the amniotic fluid of
pregnant women. These stem cells hold the same promise as embryonic
stem cells, including an ability to grow into brain, bone, muscle and
other tissues that could be used to treat a variety of diseases. This
research offers science the ability to provide hope for those who
suffer from disabling injuries and diseases while protecting all human
life.
Let me be clear, I am committed to funding ethical scientific
research that will unlock the origins of diseases and develop cures
that can help my constituents.
We cannot, however, let science leap-frog our ethics, our morals, and
our responsibility to protect human life at every stage of development.
I urge Members to protect human life at each stage of development. Vote
``No'' on H.R. 3.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding, and I rise in opposition to this bill.
If this bill becomes law, it will establish a new precedent for our
government. For the first time, we will be funding researchers who are
knowingly destroying human embryos in the course of their research, and
that is really what this debate is essentially about.
This Congress enacted legislation over 10 years ago, and President
Bill Clinton signed it, specifying that no Federal funds will be used
for research that involves the destruction of a human embryo. This
piece of legislation takes us down a path that overturns that.
Now, the advocates for this legislation assert that this is necessary
because of the great potential of embryonic stem cells, and I rise
essentially as a physician and a concerned American to challenge that
notion based on
[[Page H366]]
my understanding of embryonic stem cells. And by the way, we have heard
it said repeatedly that embryonic stem cells have only been studied for
8 years. They have been studied for 25 years in the mouse. Eight years
in the human model, but 25 years in the mouse.
All embryonic stem cells form tumors. All of them. Indeed, if you are
in the research lab, that is how you determine you actually have an
embryonic stem cell. You put it in an animal, and it forms a tumor
called a teratoma.
{time} 1245
They have never been shown not only to be really good and
therapeutic, but they have never been shown to be safe. Before an
embryonic stem cell therapy could ever be approved by the FDA, it would
have been to be shown to be both effective, which embryonic stem cells
have never been shown to be; and as well, safe, and the very nature of
embryonic stem cells renders them unsafe.
So why is this such a critical debate? Why is this such an important
debate? It is simply because this is not necessary and it is morally
wrong. It is morally wrong because it takes us down a path where we
will be saying certain forms of human life are expendable and can be
discarded. And it is totally unnecessary, because they have never been
shown to be therapeutically useful.
Furthermore, we were just amazed to discover that in the amniotic
fluid are cells that behave just like these embryonic stem cells, but
they don't form tumors. It is not ethically controversial to use them,
and they have all the potential that embryonic stem cells have been
shown to have in the lab.
So I would encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this
legislation. Support the President of the United States, and just
remember, just remember, that there are absolutely no restrictions on
this research in the private sector. This is all about Federal dollars
and how they are going to be used.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
Member from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).
Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, let me, first of all, say that, for the
most part, this discussion has gone on without name calling, although
it has happened once today, and so I want to start out by saying, I am
coming to this floor to make a point, and not an accusation.
It is important for me to say because there are words used here,
morality and moral and ethical, and in the last election, in my State,
the word religion was used with this discussion because stem cell
research was on the ballot.
I want to say very clearly, there is no conflict between religion and
science. There was a man by the name of Paul who visited Turkey, and
while in a city called Ephesus, he learned the people, went back and
wrote a letter to them. And he said, ``Now Glory be to God who, by his
mighty power at work within us, is able to do far more than we would
ever dare to ask or even dream of, infinitely beyond our highest
prayers, desires thoughts or hopes.''
Science is but another word for hope. And hope stands on tippy toes
looking for healing, looking for cures, searching for the ideal.
I will not be a hopeless pessimist. I realize that whenever we are
able to use the scientific advancements, that we are not becoming the
enemies of faith, but rather it is another way to praise God and his
constantly evolving creation.
Now, there was a great Baptist clergyman by the name of Harry Emerson
Fosdick, and in his book, ``The Modern Use of the Bible,'' he says,
``If there are fresh things to learn concerning the physical universe,
let us have them, that we may find deeper meaning when we say `The
heavens declare the glory of God.' ''
Now, it is my hope that we will not be as troglodytic as our
ancestors who refused to peer through the lens of Galileo's telescope;
that we are men and women who will do every single thing we can to
bring about whatever we can, within our human powers, to cure the
beastly diseases that wreak havoc in the lives of Americans and people
all over this country.
Should science succeed in fulfilling the much vaunted optimism
expressed by advocates of stem cell therapy, much of the credit should
go to the community of faith.
Because I accept the Holy Bible as the inspired and interminable Word
of God, I consider myself to be a Christian fundamentalist. I accept,
as an inseparable component of my faith, the omnipotence, omnipresence,
and omniscience of God. Therefore, I am baffled by my fellow
fundamentalists who seem to be utterly opposed to and terror-stricken
by the advancement of science, including stem-cell research. The
propagation of knowledge and the dismantling of the boundless awe-
inspiring mysteries of God's world are viewed by some in our faith as a
foreboding foray toward undermining and diminishing the glory of the
Creator. However, the opposite is true. When the human intellect makes
strides that sets the world agog, it is God, from whom all knowledge
stems, who is honored. Let us keep in mind that scientific advancement
is not an enemy of faith, but yet another way to praise God and His
constantly evolving creation.
Contemporary men and women of faith, as always, stand at the
crossroads. In a real sense, religion has always been impelled to wage
war in some area or another. The pressing question is shall we march
across the battlefields of faith with open arms toward the magnificent
revelations of God's great truths, or, do we use our inherent power and
influence to signal a retreat from the bright and simmering sunshine of
expanding scientific scholarship. The potential life-saving issue of
stem cell research is before us. The scepter is in the hands of the
enlightened community of believers. Our failure to speak out on the
medical need for stem-cell research will allow earnest but erroneous or
misguided souls who wish to constrain such study to force us back to a
time when the faithful waged its fiery finger of scorn at the
irreverence of scientific inquiry. Like the majority of people of
faith, I totally reject the notion that today's community of believers
are as troglodytic as our ancestors who refused to peer through the
lens of Galileo's telescope. Nonetheless, this is a testing time.
Doctor Harry Emerson Fosdick, the legendary Baptist clergyman of the
first half of the 20th century, profoundly addresses the issue of
flowering faith in his wonderfully inspiring book, The Modern Use of
the Bible: ``If there are fresh things to learn concerning the physical
universe, let us have them, that we may find deeper meaning when we
say, `The heavens declare the glory of God.' ''
Should science succeed in fulfilling the much vaunted optimism
expressed by advocates of stem-cell therapy, much of the credit should
go to the community of faith. Every experiment that leads to greater
medical breakthroughs is a discernible display of the earthly presence
of God and of the presence of particles of His divinity in us.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to the time that is
left.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Frank of Massachusetts). The gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Burgess) has 26\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman
from Delaware (Mr. Castle) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) has 46 minutes remaining
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the chairwoman of the Rules Committee.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank both my colleagues, Mr. Castle
and Ms. DeGette, for their tenacity on this bill. Stem cell research
has the potential of reaching every man, woman, child on the planet.
And without your tenacity, I am not sure we would still be here today.
Thank you for that.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today not just as a Member of Congress, but as a
microbiologist and a citizen.
During recent years in Washington, politics has often stood in the
way of the consensus and conclusions of the scientific community.
One of the victims of that reality has been funding for stem cell
research. I hope that today we can put aside our differences and
together, achieve something that not just our scientists believe in,
but the American people both want and deserve.
New medical technologies are always met with concern, but today many
of the technologies are saving lives. Many of you remember the debate
about organ transplants, in vitro fertilization, that we should never
do that. The same will soon be said about embryonic stem cells, if we
want it to be.
While all forms of stem cells should be researched, none offer as
much promise as embryonic stem cells. An overwhelming body of
international scientific research has shown them to be the only cells
capable of becoming any element of the body. They are the key to so
many of the cures that we have long sought.
[[Page H367]]
Let me provide just one example of how powerful this research could
be. There is growing evidence linking embryonic cell mutations to
cancer, including testicular and breast cancer. As a result, future
breakthroughs could one day eradicate many forms of cancer at their
source.
Because of its potential, 70 percent of Americans support embryonic
stem cell research, and we all know someone who has suffered from a
disease that embryonic stem cells could one day cure. Why would we
choose to deny hope to millions of Americans and people all over the
world?
I should add that nations throughout the world have embraced
embryonic stem cell research.
I just want to say that, for all my colleagues who have second
thoughts about this bill, let me ask you to step back and think about a
loved one who could possibly benefit from this research, a neighbor, a
friend. We have all got many of them.
Your vote today should be clear. Vote for scientific research to help
people.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today not just as a Member of Congress, but also
as a microbiologist and a citizen who stands in awe of the life-saving
potential we hold in our hands.
During recent years in Washington, politics has often stood in the
way of the consensus and conclusions of the scientific community.
One of the victims of that reality has been funding for stem cell
research. The opinions of those on both sides of this issue are both
heartfelt and sincere. But I hope that today, we can put aside our
differences and unite to achieve something that not just our scientists
believe in, but that the American people both want and deserve.
New medical technologies have always been met with skepticism and
concern. There was a time in America when organ donations were
experimental, and blood transfusions were considered too dangerous to
consider. And yet today, these procedures are saving lives every hour.
The same will soon be said of embryonic stem cells--if we want it.
We may hear from some today that adult stem cells, cord blood cells,
and amniotic fluid cells are just as promising as embryonic stem cells.
But while they all show promise and should be researched, none of them
offer as much promise as embryonic stem cells.
An overwhelming body of international scientific research has shown
embryonic stem cells to be the only type of stem cells capable of
becoming any cell type in the body. They are the key to so many of the
cures we have long sought after.
Let me provide just one example of how powerful this research could
be.
There is growing evidence linking embryonic cell mutations to cancer.
At UC San Francisco, scientists have discovered elevated activity of
several embryonic stem cell genes in both testicular and breast
cancers.
Based on this new finding, scientists are hypothesizing that
misregulated embryonic stem cell genes could cause or at least advance
cancer.
In fact, recent research is showing that up to 20 percent of all
breast tumors are now suspected to originate in stem cells.
Scientists hope to learn more about the functions of genes in the
cells that make up tumors. Their examinations could show why stem cells
become cancerous and how doctors can treat them.
These breakthroughs could one day eradicate many forms of cancer at
their source.
Because of its potential, fully 70 percent of Americans support
embryonic stem cell research. And that's not surprising. Nearly
everyone has suffered from a disease, or knows someone who has, that
embryonic stem cell research could one day cure. Who wouldn't want to
end the suffering of their son, sister, father, or friend? Why would we
choose to deny this hope to millions of Americans?
Nations throughout the world have embraced embryonic stem cell
research. Their scientists are taking great strides forward. In the
end, enforcing restrictive federal research policies will only ensure
that the United States will continue to lose many of our best and
brightest scientists in this field to other countries.
Mr. Speaker, many of history's greatest medical killers now have
cures because of scientific research. Tens of millions of lives have
been saved as a result. Today, we have the potential to save millions
more, and to leave other deadly diseases behind us.
I believe people in wheelchairs will one day walk again. I believe
that we can bring about an entirely new form of health care in
America--one defined by shorter hospital stays, fewer invasive
procedures, and increasing benefits to both our patients and our bottom
line.
The bill before us today presents an ethical solution to research
that could potentially benefit almost every American. It gives our
country hope--hope that one day we won't have to watch our mothers die
of breast cancer, our grandparents suffer from Alzheimer's, and our own
children endure Type I diabetes.
If we fail to fund embryonic stem cell research, I do not believe
that we will be able to look our children and grandchildren, our
mothers or fathers, or our grandparents in the eye and tell them we did
everything we could to help them live a better, healthier, longer,
happier life.
I urge my colleagues who have second thoughts about this bill to step
back and think of a loved one who could possibly benefit from this
research. Your vote today should be clear.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), a member of the Energy and
Commerce Committee.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I gave a 1-minute earlier that
compared the hope for embryonic research with the new research that is
being done on other stem cells. But, in all honesty, we need to be
looking at everything to deal with the illnesses that we have.
Embryonic stem cell research is the hope for millions of Americans.
Embryonic stem cell research is now supported by educational and
religious affiliated institutions, but they need Federal Government
help to find the cures for spinal cord injuries, Alzheimer's and many
other illnesses.
Let me talk about two personal examples of the imperative need for
this Federal assistance to find these cures. I know of a young lady
named Monica who had her spinal cord severed in an auto accident. She
is young enough to benefit from aggressive research on a cure. We need
all the research dollars we can get into embryonic stem cell, adult
stem cells and others to be able to deal with this young lady who has
the possibility that her spinal cord could be regenerated. It may be
next year. It may be 10 years or 20 years. But let's don't take that
hope away.
Another example is my mother-in-law. She was diagnosed in 1996 with
Alzheimer's. And my wife and I have lived for the last 10 years
watching my mother-in-law die. She died the day after Christmas. She
hasn't known either of us for over 2 years. She was in a research
facility in Houston, at Baylor College of Medicine, that could just
monitor her progress on a yearly basis. For the last 2 years, we
couldn't take her to the hospital or to the doctor's office. And we
watched Alzheimers make that happen.
It is too late for my mother-in-law's generation. But it is not too
late to change it for the next generation, Mr. Speaker, and Members.
And to stand up here today and say it is a sin to do this research, it
is a sin not to do the research. It is not a sin to try and use
embryonic cells. It is a sin not to do this research.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
(Mr. HENSARLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favor of the unalienable
right to life and in opposition to H.R. 3.
This legislation would require increased Federal support for embryo-
destructive research, abrogating, I believe, our responsibility to
protect life as declared by our Founders in the Declaration of
Independence.
Yet, some in this Chamber, I believe, would inadvertently end life,
even in its earliest moments, in order to try to improve the lives of
others. And they do so by using research that has shown little promise
to develop effective treatments.
Mr. Speaker, there are alternatives. I support ethical stem cell
research that does not spend Federal taxpayer dollars to fund studies
that so many Americans find morally reprehensible. For example, we know
that adult stem cell research has now, to date, led to 72 different
treatments and clinical applications in humans. Additionally, we know
that umbilical cord blood is already being used successfully against
diseases like leukemia, sickle cell anemia and lymphoma.
And just this week, we all know, worldwide we heard the news that a
new source of stem cells had been found in amniotic fluid. These cells,
which can be retrieved without doing harm to a developing child, and
have
[[Page H368]]
been described as having all the positive potential of embryonic stem
cells but with much greater stability.
But, Mr. Speaker, for those who are committed only to embryonic stem
cell research, it is important for all Americans to know there is no
current prohibition on this research. Any individual, any university,
any medical center is free to use their resources to conduct this type
of research. And, indeed, hundreds of millions have already been spent,
unfortunately, with little result.
In this body we debate a number of vitally important issues. But is
there any issue more important than preserving the sanctity of life?
And shouldn't we ask ourselves, how can we preserve liberty if we
cannot preserve life? And should there be doubt, we should err on the
side of life.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman so much
for her relentless and effective leadership, and express my gratitude
to Congressman Castle.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3. I have been struck
and moved by the number of colleagues who have come here and cited
their own family members, including their children, as the driving
force behind their support. But none of us should be surprised, since
100 million Americans are afflicted with diseases that potentially
could be cured by embryonic stem cell research. And I have heard from
so many of them from my own district. Why destroy their hope?
And I rise today in the name of our beloved friend and part of our
Congressional family, Lane Evans. Lane is one of the million Americans
who suffer from Parkinson's Disease, and that has cut his career short.
And during his time in Congress, Lane was dedicated to advancing stem
cell research because he understands what it is like to struggle with
an incapacitating disease. And he understands the hope that embryonic
stem cell research holds. Why would we want to destroy that hope?
And I want to thank all of my friends from the Juvenile Diabetes
Foundation from my district and their children, who have served as
advocates in such an effective way and met with me on a regular basis
and educated me about this. And my dear friend, Bonnie Wilson, whose
daughter, Jenna, has juvenile diabetes and has lived with that for her
whole life. Why would we want to destroy their hope?
{time} 1300
Since I have been in Congress, I have received letters from people
like Liz O'Malley, and she describes the daily struggle of her son,
Seamus. Seamus has muscular dystrophy. He is only 11 years old. Stem
cell treatment may be his only hope. Why would we destroy that hope?
Illinois has already awarded $10 million in grant funding to research
institutes and hospitals because Governor Blagojevich recognizes the
advances. Now we can do it on a Federal level.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and
thank her for her strong leadership on this issue. The bill that we are
considering today addresses shortcomings in current stem cell policy
while maintaining strict ethical standards in stem cell research.
Embryonic stem cell research offers promise to millions of Americans
suffering from spinal cord injuries and chronic illnesses, including
cancer, Parkinson's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, and diabetes.
Neither Congress nor the administration should prohibit the medical
community from pursuing a promising avenue of research that can improve
the lives of millions of Americans. Embryonic stem cell research is
supported by the majority of my constituents in Maine and has
overwhelming bipartisan support across this country. I have heard from
hundreds of constituents who support this bill, including Virginia,
from Gardiner, Maine, whose mother is stricken with Parkinson's
disease.
She describes the conditions of limited mobility her mother faces as
horrific. Celia, in Madison, Maine, says her twin sister, Maura, was
paralyzed from an auto accident and hopes for a better life.
We need to ensure that our scientists can pursue the promising
research of embryonic stem cells to help these people and millions like
them. We cannot allow the politics of this issue to undermine
groundbreaking research, impede science and place at risk the health
and well-being of victims and their families.
I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 3.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY. I thank my colleague for the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3, but definitely
not in opposition to stem cell research; indeed, not in opposition to
embryonic stem cell research. That is the position, my colleagues, of
this President and most of the Republicans in this House. It is not an
issue of being opposed to research on embryonic stem cells, but it is
in opposition to research that results in the destruction of human
life.
Certainly if you ask the American public when they look at this
picture on television if they would be in favor of embryonic stem cell
research, if you could help this man, or, even more compelling, our
colleagues in this body, Lane Evans and James Langevin, the answer
would be a resounding, yes, 80 percent. I think maybe I would be one of
those who would be inclined to so vote.
But on the other hand, Mr. Speaker, if you held up this picture,
snowflake babies, and asked them, would you be willing to support
embryonic stem cell research if it meant the destruction of these
lives, or not giving these lives an opportunity to ever develop, I
think the answer, with the statistics, would be completely reversed.
Now, the Members in this body, some are strongly pro-life, some are
mostly pro-life, some are slightly pro-life and some are pro-choice,
whether we are Republicans or Democrats. But I think most of us would
say we are pretty much opposed to abortion, and we wish there would be
no need for abortions.
Well, we have an opportunity with H.R. 322, the Bartlett bill, of
which I am a very proud original cosponsor, to do it another way, to do
research, indeed, to obtain embryonic stem cells without destroying the
embryo, either through a biopsy or through using embryos that have no
chance to live. We can get viable embryonic stem cells.
The point is, we don't have to divide this body and this Nation. We
have lots of things that we can argue about legitimately in a friendly
atmosphere, and that is the way it should be in this body.
We have gotten Members, a Republican and a Democrat, Mr. Castle and
Ms. DeGette, who are very popular Members, very persuasive, but are
very committed to this issue. We have a better choice. Now with this
research from Wake Forest utilizing amniotic cells and the provisions
within the Bartlett bill, H.R. 322, let us give that a chance. Let us
give life a chance.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Georgia holds up a picture of two
beautiful little girls and says we would not want to destroy them for
research. He absolutely has that right. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I take
deep offense at any insinuation that we would kill children for this
type of research.
The thing to know, H.R. 3 specifically says the only embryos we will
allow for this research is embryos created for IVF clinics which are
slated to be thrown away, embryos which are never implanted and will
never become babies.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Last year, the President vetoed the hope and crushed the
dreams of millions of patients and their families. With the stroke of a
pen, the President used his very first veto to block this bill, the
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, and to continue to impose severe
restrictions on stem cell research. We are now giving the President a
second chance to move beyond his Luddite moment in American scientific
history to a new moment of scientific enlightenment
[[Page H369]]
and hope. We must let hope triumph over fear and science, triumph over
ideology.
Diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer's, and cancer wreak havoc on the
lives of millions of Americans. We can free our loved ones from this
pain, but only if we free science to find the keys.
Embryonic stem cell research is the flickering candle of medical
promise that gives hope for the treatment and cure of these devastating
diseases, researchers' medicines' field of dreams from which we can
harvest the findings that can give hope to millions of families.
Please do not condemn the afflicted to another generation of
darkness. It is past time to take this critical step towards fulfilling
our moral obligation to do all we can to reduce pain and suffering
around the world and to support ethical, comprehensive stem cell
research.
I thank the gentlelady from Colorado, and I thank all Members for
their work on this critically important historic litigation.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) for a unanimous-consent request.
(Mrs. BIGGERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3.
Everyone has a family member or friend who suffers from diabetes,
Alzheimer's, Parkinson's or other diseases. Unfortunately, without
Federal Government support, scientists won't have access to the stem
cells they need to develop treatments and cures for these and a host of
other diseases that touch the lives of every American.
We already are using Federal funds to support embryonic stem cell
research. But science has advanced rapidly since the President
announced his stem cell research policy. These cells were just
identified less than ten years ago, and already, the technology is
progressing by leaps and bounds. The 22 lines currently available under
the President's policy were developed using outdated techniques and
have been contaminated, possibly skewing the outcome of experiments.
There are now 125 good, pure cell lines available for use. Because
they are more diverse, not only can scientists use them to research
more conditions, but they better reflect the genetic diversity of
individuals.
I support lifting the ban on Federal funding for embryonic stem cell
research, so long as the donors give their consent and the cells made
available would otherwise be discarded and destroyed. It is simply
tragic that something so valuable would just be thrown away when it has
so much potential to alleviate so much suffering.
Given the promise that these stem cells hold, it is time to drop the
restrictions and allow researchers to do what they do best. Let's let
researchers go where the science leads them, not where politicians
dictate. In order to truly explore all the possibilities, scientists
must have access to all kinds of stem cells: adult, embryonic and those
from umbilical cord blood and amniotic fluid. That is why I plan to
vote for H.R. 3.
I am proud to support H.R. 3, and for the sake of the millions
suffering from debilitating diseases, I ask my colleagues to do the
same.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to recognize the
gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany, for a unanimous-consent
request.
(Mr. BOUSTANY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 3. As a heart and lung surgeon,
I've seen the power of hope and the harms caused by those who give
misinformation and false hope to patients and families.
Too often, proponents of embryonic stem cell research promise an
immediate cure to dying patients and their families.
From a medical standpoint, embryonic stem cells have yet to produce a
single human treatment. Embryonic cells also produce tumors and cause
transplant rejection.
Such techniques also raise grave ethical problems. The claim that
most human embryos in fertility clinics ``will be discarded anyway'' is
disingenuous. Research shows that ``the vast majority of stored embryos
(88.2 percent) are being held for family building.''
Fortunately, science continues to discover more promising lines of
stem cell research.
Adult stem cells have already been used to treat a growing number of
human diseases.
Scientists at Harvard and Wake Forest University recently reported
their success using stem cells in amniotic fluid and the placenta.
They explained that these stem cells ``remain stable for years
without forming tumors.''
All Americans depend on medical breakthroughs. Federal funding for
all types of stem cell research rose above $609 million last year.
It's disappointing that the Speaker would not permit a vote today to
increase funding for the most productive stem cell research.
Last year, the Bartlett bill passed the Senate unanimously. It would
have increased funding for embryonic stem cell research that doesn't
destroy an embryo, including embryo biopsy. The current House
leadership defeated it to score political points against the President.
It's irresponsible for Congress to spend scarce federal tax dollars
on lines of scientific research that have proven least effective.
Evidence proves it's possible to advance stem cell research without
paying biomedical firms to destroy human embryos.
Conclusion: For these reasons, I oppose H.R. 3 and urge my colleagues
to oppose this bill as well.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would repeat that the gentleman
from Michigan did get general leave for all Members to insert into the
Record. All Members have general leave to insert statements in the
Record and to also include therein extraneous material.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
Mr. CROWLEY. I thank my friend from Colorado for yielding this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of federally funded ethical stem cell
research. This important legislation would lift the ban on which stem
cell lines can be researched using Federal dollars. It provides sound
rules and regulations to govern the research of stem cells, rules such
as preventing human cloning for embryos or the deliberate destruction
of embryos. This legislation will give doctors and scientists the
ability to perform more research, to find new cures for degenerative
diseases such as Alzheimer's, spinal cord injuries, and diabetes. We as
a country excel in so much. Let us push forward on important research
rather than regressing.
With embryonic stem cell research, we could potentially save or
extend the lives of an estimated 100 million Americans. While this bill
has overwhelming support from our country's leading scientists,
biomedical researchers, patient advocacy groups and health
organizations, along with many religious leaders, and 72 percent of all
Americans.
In the past, President Bush has emphatically stated that he will veto
this legislation. I hope that this time around the President listens to
the overall majority of Americans and approves this important
legislation. I support this legislation and stand with my colleagues
here in the House.
To President Bush, I ask you to reconsider your stance on stem cell
research. Don't make your second veto of your administration as
detrimental as your first. Democrats promised America a new direction,
and we are delivering a new direction forward.
I thank the gentlelady from Colorado.
Mr. CASTLE. At this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support, but let me say not
support in the traditional sense. There are those of us who are parents
who have lost young ones and have watched and had to make the decision
of what to do with embryos that they have. I think the sanctity of life
works both ways.
One of the sanctity of life concepts is to make sure that if you are
going to lose a loved one, you respect the life and try to maximize the
benefit from that loss. I think this bill is trying to address that. I
would ask both sides not to point fingers, but to try to find that
sanctity of life is something that is interpreted in many ways.
[[Page H370]]
One of them is to make sure that if a life is going to be lost, we
have a moral obligation to maximize the potential benefit from that
loss. That is a respect for sanctity of life that is not discussed
enough.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members to address
all remarks to the Chair and not to other individuals not present in
the body.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, a couple of
numbers, there has been a suggestion an overwhelming number of the
American people support the approach contained in this bill. In fact,
the latest poll that was taken just last spring shows that only 39
percent support Federal funding of the approach found in this bill when
they are informed that it requires the destruction of embryos.
The CBS poll taken a year ago shows that only 37 percent of the
American people support more Federal funds for more stem cell lines.
Another number that is important is 70-0. That is the score of the
diseases that have been successfully treated by the use of stem cells
from adult and blood cord stem cells, zero of the number that have been
treated successfully by embryonic stem cells.
But more importantly, it seems to me as we deal with this issue, we
should recall the words of Dr. Nigel Cameron, the founder of the
journal called ``Ethics and Medicine,'' when he said in his testimony:
``Our membership in the human species is enough to distinguish the
human embryo from all other laboratory artifacts.''
It is important for us to understand that human dignity is not
reserved for adult human beings. And for us to say here at this time
that human dignity is contingent upon arbitrary criteria such as size
or location is a profound judgment that we make. It is for that reason
that President Clinton's National Bioethics Advisory Commission decided
not to permit stem cell research using IVF embryos after finding that
``the derivation of stem cells from embryos remaining following
fertility treatments is justifiable, only,'' it said, ``only if no less
problematic alternatives are available for advancing the research.''
We have seen the evidence compounding, even since we were here on
this floor, just last year, that there are morally appropriate
alternatives. Let us not follow in this direction.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. This bill is about hope. Scientists call them stem
cells; but they are really cells of hope, the hope of a life with
dignity, the hope of increased mobility, the hope of a time without
pain, and the hope of a parent to spare a newborn a life of illness and
impairment. With this bill, scientists' hands are freed to find cures
for Alzheimer's and ALS, for cancer and MS and Parkinson's and much
more.
Blocking this bill will not prevent the destruction of embryos, but
it will ensure the destruction of hopes like that of the young 19-year-
old Daniel from Austin, who wrote, ``Every day that embryonic stem cell
research is delayed will be another day of my life confined to a
wheelchair.''
{time} 1315
How cruel to block hope for those suffering from lingering diseases
that slowly drain away life and happiness and energy.
Publicly-funded, responsible stem cell research is coming. It is just
a question of how many lives are lost first, of how many families will
still be suffering before we here in Congress are able to secure the
votes to pry open the politically inspired restraints that this
administration has imposed on expediting the cures and the treatments
long awaited by so many who are afflicted and those who care for them.
Affirm life today by affirming life-saving science. Vote hope over
obstruction.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from California, a member of the committee,
Mrs. Capps.
Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Stem Cell Research
Enhancement Act. I have been so proud to be a part of the bipartisan
effort to advance federally funded stem cell research and commend the
tireless work of the bill's cosponsors Diana DeGette and Mike Castle.
It is evident that we will pass this bill today, but we know that
hurdles remain before the measure is signed into law. Along the way,
opponents of this legislation have been spreading mistruths about what
embryonic stem cell research entails and what its promises are. How
many times have we heard here on the floor today the claim that this
research involves the creation of life in order to destroy it? So I
reiterate again, the bill explicitly states that only embryos created
for in vitro fertilization that would otherwise be discarded and are
being discarded every day can be used for this type of research and
only with the explicit consent, permission given explicitly by the
donors; and also that no Federal dollars are used in the extraction
process.
It is important above all that we enact this Federal legislation even
for a State like mine, California, which does have stem cell research,
because we need in this Nation the highest ethical standards which is
what the Federal legislation can do.
By allowing research to make use of embryonic stem cells slated to be
thrown out, we are in fact giving purpose to this. And of course
through this research lives will be saved for millions now suffering
from debilitating illnesses.
Today, we have also been hearing the argument that adult or amniotic
stem cell research alone will be enough, but this is not the case. The
world's leading scientists concur that all stem cell research should be
conducted together in order to maximize the benefits.
Our President himself has stated his desire to put the United States
at the forefront of science and innovation. Getting him to sign this
bill is one way to make that happen. A vote against H.R. 3 would be
setting us back even further and would let other countries get much
further ahead of us in the effort to cure the world's most chronic and
devastating diseases.
So I urge my colleagues to vote enthusiastically in favor of H.R. 3.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia, Jack Kingston.
(Mr. KINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that this is a debate
which so many of us feel passionately about on both sides. It is such a
shame, though, that it was not allowed to go to committee. I hear over
and over again how important this bill is and actually to both sides,
proponents and opponents, yet no committee, no hearing, no amendments.
It is a pity. I certainly hope that the Democrats do go back to their
party's promise of last week and start opening things up.
Now, having said that, I wanted to make two points, and then I am
going to extend my remarks. But there is no Federal law against
embryonic stem cell research right now. Many people seem to think that
this will allow something to happen that it doesn't. The debate is more
about what types of lines.
Now, as you know, the President has approved research on 78 lines.
Twenty-two of them are being used currently in Federal funding, and I
have the list of where those 22 are, their locations, which I will
submit to the Record.
TABLE 1. NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH FUNDING
[$ in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stem cell research FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human Embryonic.................................................... 20 24 40 38 39
Non-Human Embryonic................................................ 113 89 97 97 96
Human Non-Embryonic................................................ 191 203 199 200 200
[[Page H371]]
Non-Human Non-Embryonic............................................ 192 236 273 274 273
--------------------------------------------
Total, Stem Cell Research...................................... 517 553 609 609 608
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NIH Budget Office, March 10, 2006.
Table 2. NIH LIST OF HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL LINES ELIGIBLE FOR USE IN FEDERAL RESEARCH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of stem cell lines
Name a -------------------------------------------------
Eligible Available
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BresaGen, Inc., Athens, GA.................................... 4 3
Cell & Gene Therapy Institute (Pochon CHA University), Seoul, 2
Korea........................................................
Cellartis AB, Goteborg, Sweden................................ 3 2
CyThera, Inc., San Diego, CA.................................. 9 0
ES Cell International, Melbourne, Australia................... 6 6
Geron Corporation, Menlo Park, CA............................. 7
Goteborg University, Goteborg, Sweden......................... 16
Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden....................... 6 0
Maria Biotech Co. Ltd.--Maria Infertility Hospital Medical 3
Institute, Seoul, Korea......................................
MizMedi Hospital--Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea..... 1 1
National Center for Biological Sciences/Tata Institute of 3
Fundamental Research, Bangalore, India.......................
Reliance Life Sciences, Mumbai, India......................... 7
Technion University, Haifa, Israel............................ 4 3
University of California, San Francisco, CA................... 2 2
Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, Madison, WI............. 5 5
-------------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 78 22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: [http://stemcells.nih.gov/research/registry/eligibilityCriteria.asp].
a Six table entries do not have stem cell lines available for shipment to U.S. researchers because of a variety
of scientific, regulatory and legal reasons. The zeros entered in the ``Available'' column indicate that ``the
cells failed to expand into undifferentiated cell cultures.''
Mr. Speaker, I also want to say that $200 million is being spent by
private foundations and institutions on stem cell research, in addition
to $39 million over at the National Institutes of Health; in addition
to that $39 million, on nonhuman embryonic stem cell research, $96
million; on human nonembryonic stem cell research, $200 million; on
nonhuman nonembryonic stem cell research, $273 million. This is very
important.
The other thing that we keep hearing over again is that these are
leftover embryos. In fact, of the 400,000 embryos which keep getting
referred to, the RAND Corporation, which is nonpartisan, says only
11,000 have been designated for research, and of those they will
probably yield 275 stem cell lines.
And why is that important? It is important because eventually you run
out and then you start deciding to produce something. And I want to
point out, England has already crossed this path. They have already
voted on an H.R. 3, and today they are debating the hybrid stem cell
creation of an animal-human embryonic stem cell. That is a debate going
on in England today. So don't think that this bill will stay within the
boundaries of the bill if it is passed.
My colleagues today will try to tell you that all of those against
this bill are against science. That is just not the case. You can be
pro-life and pro-science; the two are not mutually exclusive. To say we
are anti-science is just a complete falsehood.
Stem cells are cells with the unique ability to divide and grow
colonies of the specialized cells that make up the tissues and organs
of the body.
Adult stem cells: unspecialized cells that can reproduce and mature
into the specialized cells of the surrounding tissue. For example: Stem
cells found in the heart can divide into more heart tissue cells.
Embryonic stem cells: unspecialized cells found in the early stages
of an embryo that can reproduce and mature into the specialized cells
of any organ or tissue in the body. For example: Stem cells found in
the early stages of an embryo can divide into and create more cells of
heart tissue, liver tissue, or any other tissue in the body.
Stem cells have been found in many tissues in the developed human
body (adult stem cells), and are found in the largest quantities in the
early stages of embryonic development in: the umbilical cord (cord
cells), embryos (embryonic stem cells), and just this week, it was
announced that stem cells have been discovered in the amniotic fluid
(amniotic stem cells) that surrounds an unborn child in the womb.
A ``stem cell line'' is created by removing a cluster of cells from
an embryo in its early stages of development. The embryo is destroyed
and the cells are grown in a culture that under the right conditions
will yield colonies of stem cells. Once the initial stem cells are
isolated they can be manipulated to reproduce over and over again.
While the Democrats will try to make this a vote for or against
embryonic stem cell research that is just a falsehood. There is no
federal law against embryonic stem cell research. On August 9, 2001,
President Bush announced that his administration would allow federal
funding for research using the 78 approved lines. Of the 78 original
derivations held to meet the August 9, 2001 criteria, there are now
twenty-one embryonic stem cell lines available and in use.
This has been the number available for about a year now, up from 17
in 2004 and just 1 in 2002. The 78 eligible lines break down as
follows:
Twenty-one available and used.
One in development (which could yet become available, that remains
unclear).
One temporarily on hold due to irregularities in its use (this is a
South Korean line, NIH investigation continues).
Thirty-one owned by foreign institutions that have not made them
available.
Sixteen of these are frozen in an undeveloped state for use when
culturing methods are perfected. These are owned by a Swedish
institution, they could very well become available when that
institution decides techniques for developing them are sufficiently
developed (i.e. high efficiency, no animal cells etc.) but we have no
control over that and cannot know how many of them will prove viable
when they are thawed.
The remaining 15 have never been made available and NIH suspects
(reasonably) they are not viable.
Seventeen have proven unviable and cannot be made usable.
Seven are duplicates of some of the 22 available lines, and are being
held in reserve to avoid over-development of those lines. These are not
being distributed and not counted among the available lines (a common
and logical practice in cell biology.)
Since each line can be replicated almost without limit, these 21
lines have made for more than 700 shipments to individual researchers
since 2001.
NIH has the capacity to make more than 3,000 more shipments available
upon request. There has been no shortage of lines.
Funding for use of the lines has been growing each year.
In FY 05, NIH spent $39 million on human embryonic stem cell work, an
increase of 61 percent over FY 04. In total, more than $130 million
have been spent.
Now, to me, it seems the Democrat party, who chose to vote against
the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Enhancement Act by a vote of 273-
154 under suspension, would be the party against science. This bill,
which was supported by the President and was voted for unanimously by
the Senate, would have directed HHS to research and develop techniques
for ``the isolation, derivation, production, or testing of stem cells
that are capable of producing all or almost all of the cell types of
the developing body, but are NOT derived from a human embryo''. And on
H.R., once again, the Democrats are NOT allowing for an open and
transparent process which would allow amendments in the form of the
substitute of some of this language.
While any potential treatments from embryonic stem cells are decades
away at best (in
[[Page H372]]
fact, there have been no therapeutic applications or even human trials
at this point) patients being treated today with adult stem cell
treatments have been found to benefit 72 different ailments, ranging
from cancers, auto-immune diseases to wounds and injuries. (Note that
though none of these are cures, peer journals show adult stem cells
benefit Leukemia and Parkinson's patients, who have gone into
remission, and those who have MS can walk more, etc.) Embryonic stem
cells have the capacity to grow and reproduce rapidly, but that same
tendency causes them to form tumors.
When cells derived from embryonic stem cells are transplanted into
adult animals, their most common fate is to die. This is in striking
contrast to the survival of adult cells when transplanted in adult
tissue. This failure of embryonic stem-cell derived tissue to survive
when transplanted seems to show that science hasn't determined how to
generate normal adult tissue from embryonic stem cells.
Embryonic stem cell science relies on the assumption that embryonic
stem cells can grow into any type of cell just because they can within
the embryo. But in reality, scientists have found that it is hard to
control the direction of the cells, and they often grow faster than
surrounding tissue, forming tumors.
Proponents of embryo-destructive research claim that there are
400,000 leftover embryos that could be used for research.
It's deeply troubling to describe any human being as ``leftover''.
This is not a matter of religious belief but of biology. A human embryo
is a human being, and each of us was once an embryo.
However, according to the non-partisan RAND corporation, the ``vast
majority of frozen embryos are held for family building'' and ``only
11,000 have been designated for research, and those 11,000 embryos will
likely yield just 275 stem cell lines''. This same study found that of
the roughly 400,000 human embryos currently frozen in storage; only 2.8
percent have been designated for research.
In Vitro Fertilization clinics are most commonly used by Caucasian
Americans--not the diverse population that the scientists claim to need
for research purposes.
As of 2006, 110 children have been born through the Nightlight
Christian Adoption agency's Snowflake Baby program.
The NIH spent 38 million federal taxpayer dollars for human embryonic
stem cell research in 2005 and through 2006, they spent $122 million on
human embryonic stem cell research. The Bush policy does not limit the
level of NIH funding and NIH determines how many grant proposals to
give. Additionally, the Journal of the American Medical Association
published an article in September 2005 that found when public funding
for research lapses, private funders almost always step in to take up
the slack.
The President will stand firm in his stance that it is possible to
advance scientific research ``without violating ethical principles by
enacting appropriate policy safeguards and pursuing appropriate
scientific techniques'' (statement of Admin. policy).
Proponents of this research will not be satisfied with the 275 stem
cell lines they may be able to get from frozen embryos. They will move
to the next step, human cloning, and begin to create custom ordered
embryos on which to experiment. In fact, Diana DeGette herself has said
``therapeutic cloning is the way to take stem cell research and all of
its promise from the lab to the patient'' (July 31, 2001 floor debate).
Harvard scientists already want to grow disease specific lines of
stem cells, which of course you would need cloning to do. According to
their website, ``To be maximally useful, stem cell science requires
using a process in which the nucleus of an egg, which contains its
genetic material, is removed and replaced by the genetic material from
an adult cell. This egg, with its new nucleus, then grows into a
cluster of cells from which investigators can derive stem cells
matching the genetic identity of the patient who donated the implanted
cells, and which are therefore unlikely to be rejected by the patient's
immune system. This technique is called somatic cell nuclear transfer,
or therapeutic cloning''.
Proponents claim that adult stem cells are no match for embryonic
stem cells. I guarantee you that those who vote in favor of this bill
today will then say embryonic stem cells are no substitute for cloned
cells. It will never be enough.
Democrats will also argue that our current quote restrictions are
causing us to fall behind other countries in research in this arena.
This is just not the case. Of the number of scientific publications on
the matter, 40 percent of those on embryonic stem cells are by
researchers in the U.S. and the others are divided by 20 countries.
A paper in the April issue of Nature Biotechnology showed that 85
percent of all human embryonic stem cell publications in the world have
used the approved lines, with the great bulk of them appearing between
02 and 05. This is a much higher number than expected.
The same study also showed that American researchers easily lead the
world in human ES cell publications, and the number of American
publications has been growing each year of this administration (as has
the number of foreign publications).
The Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005--which is now
public law--made genetically matched cord blood stem cells available to
patients who need them.
Cord blood is the blood leftover from the placenta after the birth of
a child and has been used for years. In fact, it has been used to treat
more than 70 diseases including sickle cell disease, cancer, and
genetic disorders. These cells have the ability to change into many
different types of cells in the body.
The Act is beginning to be implemented into the National Cord Blood
Inventory. HHS has begun developing contracts which are then authorized
by the Stem Cell bill to collect and store 150,000 new units of cord
blood. Cord blood stem cell research and treatment is a good way to
promote cures while still maintaining ethics.
One example of a patient who has benefited: Nathan Salley, who had
leukemia at age 11, did not respond to intense chemotherapy sessions.
When this treatment didn't work, doctors performed a cord blood
transplant which involved killing off Nathan's bone marrow cells, then
regrowing new (healthy) ones by injecting healthy umbilical cord blood
stem cells. Nine years after his initial diagnosis, Nathan is preparing
for his final year of college.
PrimeCell Therapeutics has created the first non-embryonic, adult-
derived stem cell showing the ability to transform into any cell type
found in the body (pluripotency). They have taken stem cells from one
part of the body and turned them into cells from another part of the
body, including into beating heart cells as well as brain, bone and
cartilage cells.
They are derived from the germ line, which is the most protected and
genetically pure cell line in the body, since they normally would
develop into eggs and sperm. This is the one line that remains
unaffected by the aging process.
They are autologus, meaning they come from you and are transplanted
back into you for treatment. Therefore, there is a reduced chance of
infection following transplantation and there is no risk of rejection--
meaning there will no longer be the worries involving immunosuppressant
drugs.
Other successful treatments: Scientists have grown human heart valves
using stem cells from amniotic fluid. The new valves are created in the
lab while the pregnancy progresses and are then implanted in a baby
with heart defects after it is born (AP/Wash Post).
On January 8, 2007, scientists from Wake Forest University reported
that these amniotic cells, which are easily retrieved during routine
prenatal testing and can be isolated as early as 10 weeks after
conception, were ``easier to maintain in laboratory dishes than
embryonic stem cells'' (Wash. Post). They also grow ``as fast as
embryonic stem cells, show great pluripotentiality, and remain stable
for years without forming tumors'' (Dr. Anthony Atala, Wash. Post). If
the goal of using embryonic stem cells (versus adult stem cells) is
pluripotency, we may have an even better and more flexible solution
with these amniotic cells without the complications of tumor formation.
Researchers at Northwestern have found that adult stem cells derived
from bone marrow gives rise to blood cells, which can then be
transformed into a wide variety of tissue types. In fact, they have
found like a certain type of bone marrow cell has been transformed into
white blood cells that are
responsible for fighting infections (medicalnewstoday).
Bone marrow cells have also been shown to be stretched into patterns
that could potentially transform them into smooth muscle cells similar
to blood vessel tissue (DC-Berkeley experiment, medical news today).
In conclusion, science has shown us that there are several
alternative ways to explore stem cell research without destroying an
embryo. We need to direct the NIH to fund and research these
alternatives and make them a priority. Science is flexible, and
researchers need the incentive to pursue the already proven research of
adult stem cells--not the questionable and unproven helpfulness of
embryonic stem cells.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, would the gentlewoman yield for a question?
Ms. DeGETTE. No. The gentleman can use his own time.
Mr. McHENRY. I just have a question about----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has declined to yield.
Mr. McHENRY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Well, does the gentlewoman yield for the purpose of a parliamentary
inquiry?
[[Page H373]]
Ms. DeGETTE. No. He can use his own time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman does not yield.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry does not count
against anyone's time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A parliamentary inquiry may be propounded
only if the Member holding the floor yields for that purpose and would,
in that event, count against her time.
The gentlewoman from Colorado has been recognized, and she may
proceed.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).
Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, special thanks to the leaders on this
debate, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) and the gentleman
from Delaware (Mr. Castle). They have been great leaders in a strong
bipartisan effort that has brought us here to this floor again.
I stand here today for my constituents in Missouri in strong support
of H.R. 3 and its strong ethical standards. Stem cell research holds
real promise of cures for many, many diseases we have heard about
today.
Expanding the President's artificially restrictive policy will
support the hopes of millions of Americans who struggle every day to
survive under the burden of a life-altering diagnosis or a life-ending
disease. Science, not politics, should determine the future of this
vital research.
Last Congress, this House passed this legislation with extraordinary
bipartisan effort. It is my sincere hope that we will not have to wait
much longer before this bill becomes law. Every day we wait is another
day that people suffer needlessly. We stand here with the tools in our
hands to ease the pain of so many across this country.
Decades ago, Martin Luther King called Americans to act with fierce
urgency of now. Today, it is time to act with fierce urgency on life-
saving cures. Let's pass H.R. 3 and the Stem Cell Research Enhancement
Act again, and we all urge the President to reconsider his veto.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. McHENRY. Parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, inquiry of the contents of this
legislation. Would it be appropriate to offer an amendment at this time
exempting American Samoa just as it was from the minimum wage bill?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. Under the rule
that was adopted, no amendment is in order at this time.
Mr. McHENRY. So the gentleman----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has asked the parliamentary
inquiry, and he has received the answer.
Mr. McHENRY. Further parliamentary inquiry. Further parliamentary
inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Yes. The gentleman may state the inquiry.
Mr. McHENRY. So the Chair is saying that I may not offer an amendment
exempting American Samoa from this legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is making a speech and will
suspend.
Mr. McHENRY. If the Chair will let me finish my question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. The Chair has
answered the gentleman's question, not by the Chair's own decision but
by the rule. The rule does not provide for amendments. That is the
answer to the gentleman's question.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, is the rule that we are operating
under coming out of the Rules Committee?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has not stated a
point of order, but rather a parliamentary inquiry. The House has
adopted procedures which do not allow amendments. Therefore, Members
will now proceed, and the Chair will recognize anyone who wishes to
yield time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Another point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state the point of order.
Mr. BARTON. How many times----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. No. ``How many times'' could not conceivably
be a point of order. It could be a parliamentary inquiry, but it could
not conceivably be a point of order.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I have one additional parliamentary
inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state it.
Mr. McHENRY. Is American Samoa exempted from this bill before us on
the House floor?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will respond to the gentleman:
that is not a parliamentary inquiry; that is an inquiry about the
substance of a bill. Questions about substance of legislation are not
parliamentary inquiries. Parliamentary inquiries pertain to the
procedures.
Mr. McHENRY. Additional inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. No. The Chair will not recognize the
gentleman.
Mr. McHENRY. So the gentleman will not recognize me for an additional
parliamentary inquiry?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. No. The Chair will say that having heard
several parliamentary inquiries which were not parliamentary
inquiries----
Mr. McHENRY. Well, the Chair will not answer my question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will not interrupt. The
gentleman asked several, he said, parliamentary inquiries; the Chair
answered them. The gentleman has tried to respond by making speeches
which are not in order at this point. If the gentleman wishes to get
time from the manager of the time to make his remarks----
Mr. McHENRY. Parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state the nature of the
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. McHENRY. Is there a way by which I can derive whether or not
American Samoa, like the minimum wage bill, is exempted from this
legislation?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. While the Chair is presiding, the gentleman
will not make speeches in the guise of a parliamentary inquiry. He has
asked a legitimate one, can he find out, how does he find out that
information?
The answer is as follows: he asks the gentleman on his side who
controls debate time to yield him time. He may then with that time
under the rule make the question.
The other way I could say the gentleman could find out would be by
reading the bill. Read the bill and it will tell you. But the gentleman
may get debate time and then may propound any question to the other
side that he wishes.
Mr. McHENRY. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Point of order. My point of order is, the
distinguished Speaker when he was in the minority numerous times made
points of order that were----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. Comments on the
past behavior of the Speaker might be interesting, but they are not
points of order.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Point of order. Then the distinguished Speaker
was out of order in the past.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas will suspend. And
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) is recognized to yield time for
someone who might actually want to debate the bill. The gentleman is
recognized for yielding time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3, the Stem Cell Research
and Enhancement Act of 2007. We all support advancing science to fight
disease, particularly those diseases that may have already affected our
loved ones or might affect them sometime in the future.
Like so many other areas within science and technology, discoveries
in stem cell research are occurring every day. Just this week, news
reports highlighted a significant breakthrough made by researchers from
Wake Forest University in the use of amniotic stem cells to treat
diseases and other conditions. This discovery, coupled with the
advances made in the therapeutic use
[[Page H374]]
of cord blood, bone marrow, and other stem cells, demonstrates that
effective and ethical research are not mutually exclusive.
In fact, Congress came together last May to support ethical stem cell
research. By an overwhelming majority, Congress passed the Stem Cell
Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005, which made cord blood units
collected by cord blood banks available for stem cell transplantation
or peer-reviewed research. Since its passage, cord blood banks from
around the country have collected and stored approximately 150,000 new
units of cord blood which will allow the pleuripotent stem cells within
the cord blood to be used to treat one of a number of diseases and
conditions such as heart disease, nerve damage, and certain cancers, as
well as to be used for research.
These important advances illustrate that science can and should be
advanced in an ethically minded manner. On Tuesday, the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) reintroduced H.R. 322, the
alternative Pleuripotent Stem Cell Therapeutic Enhancement Act.
{time} 1330
I urge my colleagues to support and invest taxpayer dollars in stem
cell research that is comprehensive, ethical, and effective. The bill
before us today falls short of these goals, and therefore I urge
opposition.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield now 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the gentlewoman from Colorado
and also Congressman Castle for their leadership on this issue.
Today I rise in strong support of H.R. 3.
Stem cell research, as you know, is a promising science that provides
hope for millions of our families whose loved ones suffer from
Parkinson's disease, cancer, Alzheimer's disease and, even more,
diabetes.
And as one who chairs the Hispanic task force on health, I know how
very important it is that research be done on diabetes treatment
because Latinos have a disproportionate large number in our community
that suffer from this illness. Puerto Rican Americans and Mexican
Americans are nearly twice as likely to have diabetes. The promising
potential of stem cell research for those with diabetes provides a real
opportunity to eliminate one of the most blatant health disparities for
Latinos and African Americans.
Nearly three out of every four Americans support stem cell research.
The American public have clearly stated that stem cell research is
important to them and their families and their well-being. Let us make
sure that we do the right thing today and we support this very
important piece of legislation that went out of this House not too long
ago. As a country, we have a moral obligation to support life,
especially those who are ill and who need this treatment and cures.
With stem cell research we would help to provide assistance to over 100
million Americans suffering from these various diseases. We cannot
ignore a valuable research tool that might provide real cures for
millions of Americans.
In my congressional district, the City of Hope, a grand research
facility, is ready, willing and able to conduct promising cancer
research using stem cells. For my constituents and for all Americans, I
hope that we can remove this cumbersome limitation on federally funded
research.
I urge my colleagues to strongly support H.R. 3.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to continue the discussion that the
gentlewoman from Colorado had on the IVF process in the clinics. There
is a methodology that many people, even perhaps here, have taken
advantage of in terms of being able to procreate, and that is going to
an in vitro fertilization clinic, and that is done commonly in this
country.
Right now, by survey, there are about 400,000 embryos frozen in those
clinics around the country. About 2 percent a year are disposed of.
That is about 8,000. Why are they disposed of? For a variety of
reasons. People may divorce. Perhaps they have children. Who knows what
the reasons may be, but they are disposed of. How are they disposed of?
How are those 8,000 disposed of? A decision is made by the original
creators of that particular embryo and by the physician running the in
vitro fertilization clinic that they will be disposed of, and then they
are put in as hospital waste; so they are not going to be life. It is
only those embryos that would be used in this situation to develop the
stem cell lines that we are talking about. It is very important to
understand that they are going to be disposed of anyhow as hospital
waste or are they going to be used for research.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, it is now my great privilege to yield 4
minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.
Mr. Speaker, this has been a very difficult issue for me for quite
some time and I think for many of my colleagues also. It involves
deeply held convictions by conscientious people of good faith, by some
of my closest friends, on both sides of this question.
So I would like to begin with some things we can all agree upon.
Principles about which there is no real debate today.
First of all, this bill is not about the legality or illegality of
embryonic research. Surprisingly, I have had constituents say to me
that they weren't asking for Federal funding for embryonic stem cell
research, only that it be legal. This represents a misunderstanding of
existing law.
So let us be clear at the outset. Embryonic stem cell research is
legal today, has always been legal, and few people are suggesting that
it be otherwise.
Secondly, there is currently a great deal of embryonic research going
on today. Over the past 6 years, under the Bush guidelines, more than
$130 million has been devoted to human embryonic stem cell research.
Such research is also being conducted by State governments to the tune
of $140 million. I happen to believe that this type of research is
ethically troubling, but for my colleagues who feel otherwise, let us
at least acknowledge that a lot of embryonic research is being done
under current law.
Next, I think we can all agree that the Federal Government alone
cannot possibly fund all the medical and scientific research we would
want. The annual appropriation for the NIH is $28 billion. But even if
that figure were to be doubled or even tripled this year, we couldn't
afford all the potential research that is out there.
It is our job as Federal legislators to pick and choose. We have to
allocate scarce resources, and we can't do it all.
Which brings us to the real philosophical difference in the debate
today. For me and many of my fellow Americans, the destruction of a
human embryo involves profound ethical and moral questions. This is a
matter of conscience for millions of taxpayers who are deeply troubled
by the idea of their tax dollars being used to destroy another human
life.
We have been told by proponents of this bill that all they want to do
is use embryos from fertility clinics which would otherwise be thrown
away. I do not believe it will end there. After a period of time with
no progress, we will be asked to approve and fund therapeutic human
cloning, the creation of a human life for the express purpose of
destroying that embryo for research purposes. This is the very real
slippery slope upon which we are perched. Indeed, many proponents of
this bill have voted against legislation to prohibit human cloning.
So, Mr. Speaker, given the admitted ethical problems involved in
destroying human embryos, given the lack of any results so far from
embryonic research and the proven cures and accomplishments from adult
stem cells, given the great potential of germ cells, cord blood cells
and amniotic stem cell research without the ethical drawbacks, and
given the limited Federal resources and the fact that we can't fund
everything, shouldn't we concentrate Federal dollars on research that
does not involve the destruction of human embryos?
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio, Mrs. Tubbs Jones.
[[Page H375]]
(Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment my
colleague Diana DeGette and my colleague Mr. Castle for their
leadership in this area.
I rise today on behalf of my 86-year-old father, who carried bags for
United Airlines for 40 years, who currently is suffering from dementia
and Alzheimer's.
I go visit him, and he knows who I am. But this man used to walk and
play 18 holes of golf. He used to talk to me about golf. He used to
talk to me about being just a great daughter and how proud he was of
me. And now I do get, ``I love you,'' but I would have loved to have
been able to see him be more of the Andrew Tubbs that I grew up with.
So I rise in support of my father, and I rise to say to the American
public and my colleagues, it is time for us to understand the
difference between being able to do research ethically and to get
caught up and lost in some conversation about what we should or should
not be doing.
In my congressional district, the Center for Stem Cell and
Regenerative Medicine, composed of investigators from Case Western
Reserve University, University Hospitals, Case Medical Center, the
Cleveland Clinic, Athersys, and Ohio State University, is doing
fantastic research. The mission of the center is to utilize adult human
stem cells and tissue engineering technology to treat human disease. It
would be wonderful for them to be able to expand the research they are
doing.
I met a young woman who is having a problem walking. Based on the
research that was done, they took her tissue, did some research, and I
don't know all the details, and now she is able to walk. I met a young
man who was having problems with cancer. Based on the research they
have done at that center, this young man is fostering and doing well.
I just say, ladies and gentlemen, vote for this legislation. We need
the research.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), a member of the committee.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I
thank her for her leadership on this very important issue, as well as
Mr. Castle.
I am proud to stand here today as an original cosponsor of H.R. 3,
the Stem Cell Research Enactment Act.
We all remember that dark day last July when President Bush cast the
first veto of his Presidency on legislation approved overwhelmingly by
the House and Senate, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. To veto a
bill that has the support of 72 percent of the American people and will
do such good is simply unconscionable and indefensible as far as my
concerned.
Despite what the critics may say, H.R. 3 doesn't end life. It honors
life. As anyone who suffers from diabetes, Parkinson's disease, ALS, or
a host of other debilitating health conditions knows, scientists
believe that embryonic stem cells provide a real opportunity for
devising unique treatments for these serious diseases.
Now, let me be absolutely clear. This is not about abortion. This is
not about cloning. This is about the use of embryonic stem cells which
would be discarded anyway, as the gentlewoman has pointed out. It has
been estimated that there are currently 400,000 frozen embryos created
during fertility treatments which would be destroyed if they are not
donated for research. I would never condone the donation of embryos to
science without the informed written consent of donors and strict
regulations prohibiting financial compensation for potential donors.
Our Nation's scientific research must adhere to the highest ethical
standards, and H.R. 3 protects this.
The National Institutes of Health have admitted that U.S. science has
fallen behind Europe and Asia in stem cell research because of
President Bush's policy. While the number of States have committed
significant funding towards embryonic stem cell research, NIH Director
Zerhouni has noted that a patchwork collection of different stem cell
policies in States could inhibit critical collaborations. We need a
national commitment and a national directive on stem cell research.
Over 200 patient groups, universities and scientific societies have
urged President Bush to expand the Federal policy on embryonic stem
cell research. We must not allow those standing in the way of health
and science to compromise the future well-being of our families and
loved ones. Simply put, that would not be ethical. We must honor life
by passing H.R. 3 today.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished new Member from Wisconsin, Dr. Kagen.
Mr. KAGEN. Mr. Speaker, as a physician for 30 years, I know something
about human diseases and the personal suffering of my patients and
their families. I support stem cell progress, which is what H.R. 3
represents, because it will fulfill the promise of finding a cure to
the many life-altering and painful disorders such as Alzheimer's,
juvenile diabetes, heart disease and spinal injuries and more.
Saying ``no'' to stem cell progress is extremely unkind to patients,
patients who will benefit from these potential cures yet to come. If
one truly cares about life and believes in improving the quality of
life of all of our people that we represent, then one should say
``yes'' to stem cell progress.
To all my colleagues, be not afraid. Be not afraid to take this
important step forward. This Congress should be proud to be in favor of
progress and should become pro-cure.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am now very pleased to yield 2 minutes to
the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).
{time} 1345
Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from Colorado for
her leadership on this work and bringing this forward again and, of
course, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) as well.
Today, the Democratic majority will advance life-saving medical
research. We will give American families hope, not lost opportunity. We
will give them medical cures, not politics.
Mr. Speaker, we will give grandparents and parents, children and
loved ones the promise of stem cell research. President Bush's policies
have let the ideology of a few dictate and degrade matters important to
safeguarding the public's health.
That will change. No longer will the promise of stem cell research
and sound and ethical medical science be stifled.
Instead, we will expand stem cell research. H.R. 3 will mandate and
maintain the United States' stance as a world leader in medical
research and scientific advancement. It will advance scientific
discovery in an ethical and responsible manner. It will enhance the
ability of our medical professionals to care for their patients.
It will use Americans' ingenuity and intelligence for the greater
good. And most importantly, it will benefit millions of people who are
battling disease and injury.
My own home State, and in particular southeastern Pennsylvania, is in
the forefront of science and medicine. Our hospitals, medical schools,
biotechnology and pharmaceutical institutions are home to the best and
brightest scientists who are working every day to provide new medicines
and diagnostics. These scientists deserve access to the tools they need
to find the cures for 100 million Americans suffering from diseases
like cancer and Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, diabetes, spinal cord
injuries, and other debilitating diseases and disorders.
Support ethical scientific research. Support hope. Vote ``yes'' on
the Expanding Stem Cell Research Act.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, you know, I do believe that everybody
engaged in this debate today does have the best intentions at heart.
And the beauty of this House is that important issues like this that
face our country can be debated, and passionately debated, right here
on the floor of the House for the public to see.
[[Page H376]]
But this is not a debate about passion, and it is not a debate about
style. It is, Mr. Speaker, a debate about substance. And the substance
of this debate today is life. Clear and simple, it is life. That is why
I rise to support ethical stem cell research and to oppose H.R. 3.
We hear from a lot of proponents of stem cell research that they have
suggested that embryonic stem cells would provide potential benefits to
all mankind, and some of them insinuate that those of us or anybody who
opposes their brand of research doesn't care about the suffering of
their fellow man, and that is completely untrue.
There are many of us with family and friends who look for
breakthroughs for debilitating diseases. But the presumption that only
embryonic stem cells have the most potential for success is inaccurate.
The growth of these cells can be erratic and uncontrollable. We have
had people speak to that today. And we all know that embryonic stem
cell research has not given science any successes in treating diseases.
In my opinion, I think we would be giving away a little part of our
humanity and our sense of ethics for mere hope that this form of
research would some day at some point yield results that would surpass
ongoing research.
So let's focus on the efforts that are proven alternatives, adult
stem cell, cord blood research that have made great leaps, significant
success. This past week, the researchers from Wake Forest and Harvard,
using the latest in technology, made reports showing advances in stem
cell research that can be achieved faster and safer with amniotic
fluids.
I encourage everyone to vote ``no'' on H.R. 3 and to support our
motion to recommit.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3.
I was listening to the previous speaker, my colleague on the
Republican side, and I have to say all we are really saying with this
bill is we should have options and that those options should be allowed
to proceed.
I believe strongly, regardless of your ethics or your theology, that
the way this bill has been crafted by the gentlewoman from Colorado
there is no reason why anyone here should not support it, regardless of
how they are thinking of this theologically or from an ethical point of
view.
Each day we wait to lift the ban that President Bush has placed on
advancing embryonic stem cell research is another day that we waste in
discovering new cures for the chronic diseases and medical conditions
that so many of our friends and families suffer from.
Instead of embracing the potential embryonic stem cell research holds
in developing new life-saving and life-enhancing therapies, the
President has chosen to cater to the fringe of his party and has
continually blocked this important legislation from becoming law.
This misguided policy has significantly impeded scientific progress
over the years and needlessly placed American lives at risk. As a
result, States like my own, New Jersey, are moving forward with their
own initiatives to advance embryonic stem cell research. The State
legislature in New Jersey and the Governor recently signed legislation
setting up stem cell research institutes in my town, in my district,
New Brunswick, and in two other parts of the State.
But the State should not have to go it alone. We need to leverage
Federal, State and private dollars in order to unlock the potential of
embryonic stem cells in the quickest fashion possible and bring new
life-saving therapies to the patients who need them.
An overwhelming majority of Americans support embryonic stem cell
research and their representatives in this Congress should do so as
well. The time has come to put an end to these absurd restrictions.
There shouldn't be restrictions. Today, let's vote for hope for
millions of Americans and pass H.R. 3.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to now yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from Colorado for
yielding me time, although today I rise in opposition to H.R. 3.
Mr. Speaker, no one likes to see another human suffer or struggle.
This bill intends to provide hope. I can personally appreciate hope
because I have juvenile diabetes. I take at least four shots a day and
draw blood at least five times a day. But the bigger struggle is
steering myself through the shoals of high and low blood sugar levels,
and the very serious long-term and short-term consequences of both of
those.
I want a cure for diabetes and for other diseases that are far more
devastating, but I don't believe this bill is the way to get there.
I sit on the Science Committee because I believe a key to our better
future is scientific research, especially in medicine. Last year I
helped introduce and get signed into law the Stem Cell Therapeutic and
Research Act that provides for the collecting and researching of human
cord blood stem cells.
This week it was reported that a hospital in my district, Hope
Children's Hospital, cured a girl suffering from leukemia using cord
blood stem cells.
This year we need to pass the Alternative Pleuripotent Stem Cell
Therapies Enhancement Act that recognizes that there are many forms of
stem cells that offer great promise. Very recently, we were shown great
promise that amniotic stem cells are pleuripotent, and this feature
gives them the same advantage as sought in embryonic stem cells. But
amniotic cells avoid not only the ethical pitfalls of embryonic cells;
they also have been shown to be much better because they do not tend to
produce tumors as embryonic stem cells do.
This is all in addition to adult stem cells that are being used today
in clinical trials and clinical practice to treat 72 diseases.
Yes, I desperately want to be cured of diabetes, and I want to see
the suffering end for so many other people; but science continues to
demonstrate we don't have to choose between advancing medical
techniques and contentious life issues.
So, today, I urge my colleagues to reconsider this bill and defeat
it.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, at this point I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\
minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3, which has
been steamrolled to the House floor without any committee
consideration, without even the chance to amend a bill that puts
theoretical research, and I have heard the words ``a promise'' and
``hope'' and ``we hope,'' ``potential,'' over real cures for real
patients.
Supporters of H.R. 3 have offered no solutions to two problems that
have plagued embryonic stem cells. Even with 25 years of research with
embryonic stem cells in mice and almost a decade in humans, researchers
still find that the cells tend to form cancerous tumors and can be
subject to immune rejection, with not one successful treatment or
therapy for human application using embryonic stem cells.
In fact, Ronald McKay, an NIH researcher who is supportive of
embryonic stem cell research, says, ``To start with, people need a
fairy tale. Maybe that is unfair, but they need a story line that is
relatively simple to understand.'' That was in The Washington Post.
In other words, embryonic stem cell research is a false hope in
addition to being destructive and unethical. Patients, many think, will
be the last to benefit from H.R. 3. But biotech firms and research
universities will reap millions of taxpayer dollars for research that
may never help a single patient.
However, Wake Forest University and Harvard Medical Center recently
released a study that shows that stem cells taken from amniotic fluid
are pleuripotent, adding these cells to the growing list of ethical
stem cell treatments that are available to researchers.
Embryonic stem cells have not treated a single human patient and have
not been proven effective in good animal models. Conversely, ethical
and successful adult and cord blood stem cell therapies are lab tested
and are treating dozens of human patients today. In fact, there are
several FDA protocols using adult stem cells for treating patients.
The score is zero, not one successful treatment for embryonic stem
cell research, to 72 and counting, successful
[[Page H377]]
treatments for human patients using adult stem cells. H.R. 3 is an
empty promise that uses old science when there are real cures for real
people with ethical research today.
I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 3 and support the motion to recommit.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
distinguish gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, every American has a very personal stake
in today's discussion because everyone knows people who would benefit
from breakthrough research using stem cells. Indeed, with 100 million
Americans at risk from a variety of diseases, ranging from Lou Gehrig's
disease to Parkinson's, it is almost impossible not to know somebody
impacted. The most profound beneficiaries are our family and friends
who have not yet shown any symptoms, but may fall victim to one of
these devastating diseases.
The stakes in this debate are both high for potential benefit to the
physical condition of all human kind, as well as the establishment of
appropriate boundaries between public policy and personal theology. The
President failed the latter test when he exercised the only veto in his
entire career.
In the last election, the American voter made it clear their families
deserve an opportunity for embryonic stem cell research to be conducted
in a reasonable, controlled manner, to hasten the day of vital life-
saving, life-enriching therapy for all.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute
to the distinguished Member from Texas, Judge Lou Gohmert.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of pages here on great stem
cell research that has been going on: adult stem cells, amniotic fluid
stem cells. But my time is so limited. Let us just clarify. This is not
about no research on embryonic stem cells. That is ongoing. That is not
illegal.
We have funded tremendous amounts of stem cell research. Frankly,
some of us don't need lectures on what it is to watch someone you love
suffer and die and diminish and want to help them. Most all of us know
that.
This is about prying money from taxpayers' hands who believe it is
illegal and immoral and unethical to kill living embryos, and some of
us have seen our little embryo mature into a beautiful person. This is
about taking taxpayer dollars away from them and funding this research.
We are in a free market society. Pharmaceuticals have been demonized.
Gee, they are making a profit. They are out to make a profit. If the
money were there, they would be doing this.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire as to the time remaining on
each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Colorado has 13\1/2\
minutes, the gentleman from Texas has 6\1/2\, and the gentleman from
Delaware has 2.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I now recognize the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) for 1 minute.
{time} 1400
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support all the efforts to encourage
responsible research in this area. Indeed, I think it is a moral
imperative for the Congress to pursue all prudent policies for the
benefit of our people.
I want to commend both the manager and all of the other managers on
both sides of the aisle, because they have not shrunk from addressing
the moral issues here, which are very, very important to the whole
issue.
I am not afraid of those issues, I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, at
all. Even as a Christian, I say this: The principle of double effect is
in play here. More good will come out of this, the saving of many
lives. I think this is critical. If we are afraid to face the moral
issues, then we should not have presented this bill in the first place.
That is why I want to commend the sponsors.
This is not inherently wrong. It is not intended to be wrong. The
good effort and result may not be a direct casual result. Finally, the
good result must be proportionate to the bad result.
Prudence and reflection are critical here, and I want to address
this, and the debate should be on a moral plane. There is nothing wrong
with that, that we debate this issue. But the moral correctness of this
thing isn't all on one side, I want everybody to understand that.
Thomas Aquinas laid out the principles of double effect. It is
absolutely inherent in this particular issue.
I say support H.R. 3, and, again, I commend the moral fortitude of
all the sponsors of this legislation.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Frank of Massachusetts). The Chair would
caution Members to heed the gavel.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me thank Mr. Castle and
Ms. DeGette for their outstanding leadership.
Might I just simply call the roll: Parkinson's disease, diabetes,
Alzheimer's, ALS, cancer, spinal cord injuries, and the many soldiers
that are in the hospitals of America, Walter Reed, Bethesda, who have
suffered from spinal cord injuries in the battle of Iraq and
Afghanistan. We owe them hope. We owe them hope for the hopeless.
As I listened to my friends talk about the existing research, let it
be clear that the NIH approved lines lack the genetic diversity that
researchers need in order to develop effective treatment for millions
of Americans.
We know that there is amniotic fluid, and there is some suggestion
that that is a substitute. But George Daley from Harvard says that
these newly discovered cells are not a replacement for embryonic stem
cells. On the contrary, research for these is entirely complimentary.
As Michael J. Fox has said, I respect and counsel and thank those who
prayerfully disagree with me. I respect their moral standing. But
ethicists and others believe this is the right way to go. Let us give
hope to the hopeless. Support stem cell research.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3, the ``Stem Cell
Research Enhancement Act of 2007.'' Once again we find ourselves in a
position to pass a bill that will provide our nation's scientists with
the valuable opportunity to save lives. It is our duty as
representatives of the people to help Americans who are suffering.
In 1998, the very first stem cells were isolated, leading to the
immediate realization of the enormous possibilities this discovery
presents. Suddenly treatments, even cures, seemed possible for
devastating illnesses like Parkinson's disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's,
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), cancer, and spinal cord injuries.
Despite restrictions on federal funding imposed by President Bush in
2001, the states of California, New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois, and
Maryland have provided funding for this important research. In 2005 and
again last year, we learned that in spite of the President's continued
opposition to stem cell research, support for it in Congress
transcended party lines.
Unfortunately, the embryonic stem cells currently permitted by law
for research are not sufficient for scientists needs. According to the
National Institute of Health (NIH), of more than 60 stem cell lines
that were declared eligible for federal funding in 2001, only about 22
lines are actually available for study by and distribution to
researchers. These NIH-approved lines lack the genetic diversity that
researchers need in order to develop effective treatments for millions
of Americans. Opponents of this bill repeat statistics on the little
progress that has been made with embryonic stem cell research, but I
must remind them that the restrictions placed on it have greatly
hindered its success.
In spite of recent scientific breakthroughs that suggest alternate
means of obtaining stem cells, I must caution my colleagues from
thinking that embryonic stem cell research is no longer necessary. I
applaud Dr. Anthony Atala and his team at Wake Forest University and
Harvard University for their very recent outstanding discoveries.
However, I must repeat the caution of Harvard researcher George Daley
in saying that these newly discovered cells ``are not a replacement for
embryonic stem cells''--on the contrary, research for these is entirely
complementary. In addition, while we know very little about these new
methods, much progress has already been made in the research of
embryonic, or pluripotent, stem cells, the most adaptable and
[[Page H378]]
unique of all the stem cell varieties. They currently provide
scientists with the most possibilities for research and for the
discovery of life-saving treatments; as such, we must allow these
scientist the opportunity to do so.
It is understandable that many Americans may have moral conflicts
with this issue, but this bill is ethical in every respect. First,
embryonic stem cells are only clusters of cells, and do not have the
capability to develop into a fetus or a human being. Also, not a single
embryo will be destroyed in order for this research to be implemented,
because there is no need to do so. It is estimated that more than
400,000 excess frozen embryos exist in the United States today and that
tens of thousands, and perhaps as many as 100,000, are discarded every
year.
Further, H.R. 3 ensures that none of the embryos used in stem cell
research is intended for implantation in a woman. All of these embryos
would otherwise be discarded. Mr. Speaker, denying people in our nation
who suffer from debilitating illnesses the possible medical benefits
that could result from embryonic research is not only cruel but a waste
of these valuable life-sustaining stem cells.
This is indeed a matter of ethics--we cannot morally argue that it is
better to deny suffering people hope for a cure. Let us provide all
people in this world with possibilities for a better future by
supporting stem cell research. Let us create the potential for miracles
in the lives of paralyzed individuals, those with cancer, or those in
need of organ transplants.
This bill provides a limited--yet significant--change in current
policy that would result in making many more lines of stem cells
available for research. If we limit the opportunities and resources our
researchers have today, we only postpone the inevitable breakthrough.
Our vote today may determine whether that breakthrough is made by
Americans, or not.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill, to vote in favor
of scientific innovation, and to vote in favor of a perfect compromise
between the needs of science and the boundary of our principles.
Finally, the Texas Medical Center is located in Houston, it is a major
research site and in desperate need for being giving the hope of Stem
Cell Research--I urge support for H.R. 3--Stem Cell Research.
January 9, 2007.
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee,
Rayburn HOB,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: I am writing today to express my
strong support for the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.
As you may know, I am pro-research, pro-science and support
all forms of stem cell research. Every scientist I've spoken
to (and a lot more I haven't) believes that embryonic stem
cells may hold the key to better treatments and cures--not
only for Parkinson's disease but for cancer, diabetes, spinal
cord injuries, heart disease, Alzheimer's and countless other
illnesses that cut short or diminish millions of lives every
year.
My own Foundation has funded this promising research,
giving hope to millions of people worldwide. But under
current restrictions, our ability to build on early
breakthroughs is deeply compromised.
No matter where you are on the issue of stem cell research,
one thing is fundamentally clear: disease is a non-partisan
issue that requires a bi-partisan solution.
A majority of the House of Representatives, a majority of
the United States Senate, and over two-thirds of Americans
support expanded funding for stem cell research. We
understand that embryonic stem cell research holds the
potential to transform microscopic cells already marked for
destruction into life-saving treatments.
I have great respect for those who have concluded, after
much thought, reflection, and prayer, that they cannot
support embryonic stem cell research.
But the debate today is over the use of embryos discarded
by in vitro fertilization clinics. Indeed, this is the
ultimate rescue operation. These embryos have the potenital
to rescue millions or people from terrible diseases and in
doing so they will not be created then discarded in vain.
Personally, I can't think of a greater affirmation of the
culture of life than to advance the fight against disease by
increasing federal funding for biomedical research. Equally
crucial is to remove undue restrictions on important paths
forward, including embryonic stem cell research.
The Senate and House of Representatives will soon consider
the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, a vital piece of
legislation that could lift current federal funding
prohibitions and improve oversight of embryonic stem cell
research.
You can make a difference by co-sponsoring and voting yes
on the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. I urge you with
all my heart to support this bill and deliver hope to every
person affected by debilitating disease.
America is about optimism, about promise, about always
moving forward. The idea of rejecting one of the most
promising areas of research is shortsighted. We have no way
of knowing where the next breakthrough will emerge.
I very much appreciate your consideration of this matter
and look forward to working with you this year to pass this
important legislation and allow the science to move forward.
Thank you,
Michael J. Fox.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a new Member, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, the Founders had it right. We are created with certain
inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty and the pursuits
of happiness. It is interesting the order the Founders placed the
rights they chose to mention. Can you pursue happiness if you first
don't have liberty? Can you ever go after your goals and dreams if you
first don't have freedom? And do you ever have true freedom if
government doesn't protect your most fundamental right, your right to
live?
H.R. 3 devalues human life. It ends human life, and it does so with
taxpayer dollars. This is the wrong kind of message to send. It is the
wrong thing to do.
On this issue, the science is also clear. The morals are clear, and
the ethics are clear. We do not have to end life to protect it. Today,
as has been pointed out earlier, American doctors are performing all
kinds of positive research without taking human life. Embryonic stem
cell research is not producing results, even after 25 years and
millions of dollars of taxpayer money.
Like other pro-life Members of this body, I support ethical research
that protects life, but embryonic stem cell research does not.
Mr. Speaker, the ethical decision is the smart decision. That is why
I oppose this bill, and hope others do as well.
Mr. Speaker, the Founders of our great Nation got it right. We are
created with certain inalienable rights, and among those rights are
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is in defense of the
first of these rights--the right to life--that I rise today to express
my opposition to H.R. 3, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of
2007. Like its cousin, H.R. 810, which failed to pass the legislative
process during the last Congress, H.R. 3 would provide new Federal
auspices and funding to destroy embryos for use in embryonic stem cell
research.
Like the other pro-life members of this House, Mr. Speaker, I
enthusiastically support the many forms of ethical stem cell research
taking place in our country today--research that has already yielded
invaluable treatments for over 70 health conditions. Among these are
successful treatments for Brain Cancer, Breast Cancer, various forms of
Lymphoma and Leukemia, Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson's Disease, spinal
cord injury, Sickle Cell Anemia and Krabbe Disease.
Research has demonstrated that various forms of adult stem cell
materials, umbilical cord blood and, as described in a Washington Times
article from January 8th, amniotic fluid are an excellent source of
pluripotent stem cells. Such ethical sources have yielded all of these
effective treatments and offer hope for Americans suffering the ravages
of disease. In many cases, these materials are taken from the patients
themselves and so offer a better therapeutic match than materials taken
from the embryos of other humans. Furthermore, expansion of the
resources designed to gather and store these materials will increase
the number and frequency of successful treatments.
Despite these significant facts, many in this House are pressing for
Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, which necessitates
destroying human embryos and, thus, human lives. The pre-born are
precious human beings from the moment of conception. They deserve our
protection and love and no benefit--perceived or otherwise--should
persuade us to allow their destruction. All of this added to the fact
that embryonic stem cell research has never yielded a successful
treatment for any disease, in spite of millions in annual funding (the
NIH spent $38 million on human embryonic stem cell research in 2005)
and 25 years of animal and human research. In recent years, embryonic
stem cell research has also been marred by fraud through the falsified
cloning reports of Dr. Hwang Woo Suk.
Some people have argued that pre-existing human embryos now in
storage must be used for research because they
[[Page H379]]
are destined for destruction anyway. This is not borne out by the fact
that the vast majority of human embryos were created for family-
building and that families can adopt and have adopted these embryos and
had children.
Mr. Speaker, we must not make a morally repugnant choice in the
interest of expedience and we must not play God with human lives. We
must defend the lives of the pre-born while facilitating ethical forms
of stem cell research that have produced concrete results and hold
great promise for the future. This is most consistent with a
compassionate regard for all life--young and old.
STEM CELL RESEARCH TREATMENTS--ADULT 72 AND EMBRYONIC 0
[Check the Score: Adult Stem Cells vs. Embryonic Stem Cells Benefits in
Human Patients (from Peer-Reviewed Studies).]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Embryonic Stem
Adult Stem Cells Cells
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancers:
1. Brain Cancer 0
2. Retinoblastoma..................................
3. Ovarian Cancer..................................
4. Skin Cancer: Merkell Cell Carcinoma.............
5. Testicular Cancer...............................
6. Tumors Abdominal Organs Lymphoma................
7. Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma..........................
8. Hodgkin's Lymphoma..............................
9. Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia....................
10. Acute Myelogenous Leukemia.....................
11. Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia...................
12. Juvenile Myelomonocytic Leukemia...............
13. Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia................
14. Cancer Of The Lymph Nodes: Angioimmunoblastic
Lymphadenopathy...................................
15. Multiple Myeloma...............................
16. Myelodysplasia.................................
17. Breast Cancer..................................
18. Neuroblastoma..................................
19. Renal Cell Carcinoma...........................
20. Soft Tissue Sarcoma............................
21. Various Solid Tumors...........................
22. Ewing's Sarcoma................................
23. Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia................
24. Hemophagocytic Lymphohistiocytosis.............
25. Poems Syndrome.................................
26. Myelofibrosis..................................
Auto-Immune Diseases:
27. Systemic Lupus.................................
28. Sjogren's Syndrome.............................
29. Myasthenia.....................................
30. Autoimmune Cytopenia...........................
31. Scleromyxedema.................................
32. Scleroderma....................................
33. Crohn's Disease................................
34. Behcet's Disease...............................
35. Rheumatoid Arthritis...........................
36. Juvenile Arthritis.............................
37. Multiple Sclerosis.............................
38. Polychondritis.................................
39. Systemic Vasculitis............................
40. Alopecia Universalis...........................
41. Buerger's Disease..............................
Cardiovascular:
42. Acute Heart Damage.............................
43. Chronic Coronary Artery Disease................
Ocular:
44. Corneal Regeneration...........................
Immunodeficiencies:
45. Severe Combined Immunodeficiency Syndrome......
46. X-Linked Lymphoproliferative Syndrome..........
47. X-Linked Hyper Immunoglobulin M Syndrome.......
Neural Degenerative Diseases And Injuries:
48. Parkinson's Disease............................
49. Spinal Cord Injury.............................
50. Stroke Damage..................................
Anemias And Other Blood Conditions:
51. Sickle Cell Anemia.............................
52. Sideroblastic Anemia...........................
53. Aplastic Anemia................................
54. Red Cell Aplasia...............................
55. Amegakaryocytic Thrombocytopenia...............
56. Thalassemia....................................
57. Primary Amyloidosis............................
58. Diamond Blackfan Anemia........................
59. Fanconi's Anemia...............................
60. Chronic Epstein-Barr Infection.................
Wounds And Injuries:
61. Limb Gangrene..................................
62. Surface Wound Healing..........................
63. Jawbone Replacement............................
64. Skull Bone Repair..............................
Other Metabolic Disorders:
65. Hurler's Syndrome..............................
66. Osteogenesis Imperfecta........................
67. Krabbe Leukodystrophy..........................
68. Osteopetrosis..................................
69. Cerebral X-Linked Adrenoleukodystrophy.........
Liver Disease:
70. Chronic Liver Failure..........................
71. Liver Cirrhosis................................
Bladder Disease:
72. End-Stage Bladder Disease......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend first of all
Representative DeGette and Representative Castle for their strong and
persistent leadership on this issue, and I rise in strong support of
it.
I have five important research institutions in my Congressional
district, and it is their position, it is my position, it is the
position of a majority of my constituents, that we don't know all of
the possibilities or potentialities of stem cell research, but we sure
know that we have a responsibility to try and find out. Therefore, on
their behalf, I express strong support for passage of this important
legislation and look forward to unleashing the potential that it has.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from Colorado
(Ms. DeGette) as well as Mr. Castle, for the bipartisanship that they
have shown in bringing forward this important piece of legislation. I
do rise in support, because my State is home to one the premier
research institutions in the entire world for stem cell research, the
University of Wisconsin at Madison. But the point is this: This
research is going to go forward. The question is where and under what
ethical guidelines it does so.
If we want to remain the most creative and innovative country in the
world, at the forefront of medical and scientific discovery, we need to
allow this research to occur here and not abroad. We are currently
experiencing a serious brain drain in the medical research community of
some of our best and brightest going overseas so they can conduct this
research in this promising field of study.
I would rather see us, through our watchful guidance and oversight,
see this being done here under very strict ethical guidelines, which
are laid out in this legislation, as given to us by the National
Institutes of Health, guidelines that prohibit human cloning, that
prohibit the creation of embryos for the sole purpose of medical
research.
This should be here, and I hope today we receive bipartisan support
in passing this important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3, the Stem Cell
Research Enhancement Act of 2007. This bill would expand the current
Federal policy on embryonic stem cell research by allowing federally
funded research on stem cell lines derived after August 9, 2001, while
implementing strong ethical guidelines to ensure Federal oversight of
the research. I am pleased the 110th Congress has taken immediate steps
to address this important issue, and it is my hope that members will
once again unite in support of this bill.
Most of the scientific community believes for the full potential of
embryonic stem cell research to be reached, the number of cell lines
readily available to scientists must increase. A number of NIH
Directors have testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee
that the current policy is restrictive and hinders scientific progress.
We are already at risk of losing our scientific and technological
edge because of increasing competition around the world. As a nation of
opportunity and innovation, we have a responsibility to embrace
policies that create breakthroughs in both medicine and technology for
the benefit of our citizens.
Important advances in the science of embryonic stem cell research
have been made since the August 2001 policy was set. Recently,
researchers at the University of Wisconsin in Madison developed a
method to grow human embryonic stem cells without using mouse feeder
cells. This is exciting news since mouse feeder cells are thought to be
a source of contamination if the cells are ever to be used
therapeutically in humans.
From its earliest days, Wisconsin has been at the forefront of
embryonic stem cell research. The University of Wisconsin--Madison is
one of the leading facilities for stem cell research, and I believe
with continued study, the possible medical benefits of stem cell
research are limitless; lives affected by diseases, damaged tissue, and
faulty organs would be greatly improved. Additionally, this legislation
would ensure the important work of our scientists is not unnecessarily
sidetracked by politics.
The significance of this legislation extends beyond the potential for
advances in science and technology. More importantly, embryonic stem
cell research could lead to new treatments and cures for the over 100
million Americans afflicted with life-threatening and debilitating
diseases. Scientists believe these cells could be used to treat many
diseases, including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, and spinal cord
injuries. However, the promise of this research may not be reached if
the Federal policy is not expanded.
Mr. Speaker, it has become increasingly clear that the American
public supports expanding the Federal stem cell policy. Thus, I
strongly urge my colleagues to respond to the interests and needs of
our Nation's citizens. Please join me in supporting this important
legislation that will reinvigorate embryonic stem cell research in this
country and allow science to move forward unimpeded, revolutionize the
practice of medicine, and offer hope to the millions of Americans
suffering from debilitating diseases.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished Member
from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).
[[Page H380]]
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, my heart goes out to all
those struggling with crippling diseases and disabilities, but I do not
believe that destroying a human life or the potential for human life is
the answer.
Over the weekend, a study done by Wake Forest and Harvard
Universities was released, and it suggests that researchers may be able
to use amniotic fluid, further proof that embryonic stem cell research
is not the only alternative. In fact, research has shown that stem
cells derived from adults and umbilical cords are already used in over
70 successful therapies today and hold the most promise for the future.
We do not have to choose between the need to encourage the advancement
of science with the need to protect life.
I voted against this bill in the 109th Congress, and as long as I am
a United States Congressman, my constituents can count on me to protect
human life. That is why I urge my colleagues to join me in voting
against H.R. 3.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished Democratic Caucus Chair, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
legislation. The vote we cast today is a vote that can and will have a
direct impact on the life and health of those suffering from the most
debilitating and painful diseases.
This is not a Democratic issue. This is not a Republican issue. This
is an issue that all Americans overwhelmingly support. We owe it to
them to stand up and support this research that is groundbreaking in
the area of health.
As I listen to the debate, I hear the moral objections of those who
oppose, and I acknowledge them. And at the same time, for those who
support this, I hear their moral, which I view, come from this from
both a public health position as well as a moral position about the
responsibility where you can find cures, to lead that way. And I don't
see a way of resolving the divide of two moral positions held firmly in
conviction.
Sometimes I think of this, half in jest, that the only way to get
around this issue is that those who have moral objections to this, that
when we find the cures going forward on stem cells, you waive your
right to the cure to Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, diabetes. I say
that not seriously.
But the only way to get past this is in some way allow the research
to go, and those that don't agree with it, whatever cures emanate from
it, they would waive their right to it. And I don't say that in any
seriousness, but I do not see how you resolve those two morally held
beliefs on conviction.
I would hope those who object and do it in good conscience understand
why those of us who support this, which is why 10 States around the
country have approved it, let alone other countries, all the
possibility that emerges here to be unlocked to deal with major
diseases that not only affect the individual but those families; the
potential on Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, ALS, diabetes, and all the other
type of money that goes to deal with those at one level, here we can
come up finally with a cure. And we know one of the things that is
affecting our research is the fact that we do not deal with cures, but
only with managing the ailments.
I am pleased that we have this opportunity to vote on this today.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my opposition to the
expansion of Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research that is
represented by this bill, H.R. 3.
This bill unnecessarily opens the door to research that sacrifices
one life for the potential health of another. I will never believe that
this is a fair and equitable trade, especially when there are other
avenues of research that are available.
On its own, stem cell research is a worthy pursuit to help solve many
of today's medical mysteries, but a line must be drawn when this
research destroys human life, as in the case of embryonic stem cell
research.
There are ethical stem cell alternatives which no one objects to, and
they are flourishing. In fact, as of today, and it has already been
noted here on the floor, stem cells from noncontroversial sources, like
umbilical cord, have been used to treat humans suffering from more than
70 different afflictions.
In debating this issue, we need to be clear on the facts, and I would
urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and respect the sanctity of
human life.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, it is never, never, justifiable to
deliberately end the life, especially when there are alternative
sources of stem cells that do no harm.
Proponents of embryonic stem cells state the greatest advantage is
the pluripotency of these cells, cells with the amazing ability to grow
into any type of cell in the human body. It is this unique adaptability
that they claim makes embryonic stem cells more promising, more
promising, than adult stem cell treatment of human diseases.
But my colleagues, the truth, however, is that embryonic stem cells
have not, have not, produced a single viable human treatment for any
disease, whereas adult stem cells have produced numerous therapies that
have been successfully administered. Treatments derived from adult stem
cells have been successfully treating patients for years, with
measurable improvement in their conditions, and that is the real story.
Mr. Speaker, whether you believe that life begins at conception or
not, the mere potential for human life needs to be protected--not
destroyed. It is never justifiable to deliberately end a life
especially when there are alternative sources of stem cells that do no
harm.
Proponents of embryonic stem cells state the greatest advantage is
the ``pluripotency'' of these cells, cells with the amazing ability to
grow into any type of cell in the human body. It is this unique
adaptability that they claim makes embryonic stem cells more promising
than adult stem cells for treatment of human diseases. The truth
however, is that embryonic stem cells have not produced a single viable
human treatment for any disease--whereas adult stem cells have produced
numerous therapies that have been successfully administered.
Treatments derived from adult stem cells have been successfully
treating patients for years with measurable improvement in their
conditions. Over 600 Americans were treated last year with umbilical
cord blood transplants. After transplant these cord blood cells move
deeply into the patients' bones and produce new blood and immune cells
for the remainder of their lives. These cord cells literally give
patients a new lease on life.
For example, researchers at the Burnham Institute and the Rebecca and
John Moores Cancer Centers in San Diego found that pancreatic cells
could be altered into insulin producing stem cells, foreshadowing a
possible cure for both type 1 and 2 diabetes.
Recently, researchers at Wake Forest University and Harvard
University reported that stem cells drawn from amniotic fluid donated
by pregnant women hold the same promise as embryonic stem cells without
causing harm to the mother or the fetus.
These stem cells are able to differentiate into fully grown cells
representing the three major kinds of tissue found in the human body.
Researchers also discovered that amniotic stem cells do not form
tumors, a problem that commonly plagues embryonic stem cells.
The findings contained in this study point to a promising avenue of
research that sidesteps the hurdles facing embryonic stem cell
research. Moral objections to the destruction of embryos occurring when
cells are harvested are avoided because no embryos are destroyed.
The Washington Post recently stated, ``The new cells are adding
credence to an emerging consensus among experts that the popular
distinction between embryonic and adult stem cells is artificial.''
With more than 4 million U.S. births a year, it would not take long
to collect the estimated 100,000 amniotic donations necessary to
provide enough cells of sufficient genetic diversity to provide
compatible tissue for virtually everyone in the United States.
I also want to remind my colleagues that the current ban on embryonic
research does not prevent private funding for embryonic stem cell
research. Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates and Newport Beach bond trader
Bill Gross are among several private donors who have provided millions
of dollars toward embryonic stem cell research.
[[Page H381]]
In fact the Federal Government has spent over $161 million dollars on
existing stem cell lines where the embryo had already been destroyed.
The bill before us today advocates the further destruction of new life
to expand human embryonic stem cell research. This research on NIH-
approved embryonic stem cell lines accounts for 85 percent of all
embryonic stem cell publications published.
Adult stem cells have provided human treatments, have a lower rate of
immune rejection in patients, and show less likelihood of tumor
formation. We should aggressively pursue this avenue of research. In
seeking new treatments for the ills of humanity, let us also strive to
protect the future of humanity, We too must uphold the first tenet of
the Hippocratic oath--``First do no harm.''
It is unnecesary and morally offensive to force all taxpayers to pay
to expand embryonic stem cell research. I urge my colleagues to vote
against this legislation.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to just mention
it is my sincere regret after hearing the remarks of the Representative
from Illinois who just spoke that we were not allowed the alternative
of fully vetting this in a committee hearing.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
{time} 1415
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, in a former life, I received a
doctorate in human physiology, I taught medical school, and I had a
course in advanced embryology. With this background, my heart just
bleeds when these diabetic kids come through my office every year,
because I know there are options which have not been discussed on this
floor; and I have two charts here which point that out.
The assumption is being made by many people that you need to kill
embryos to get embryonic stem cells. That just isn't true, and these
slides point that out. Let me go quickly to the slide that is really
important here.
These are several different ways of getting embryonic-like stem
cells, and I want to go to the embryonic biopsy. This was a procedure
that I had suggested to the President before he came out with his
executive order. The medical community has now run past us with this,
Mr. Speaker. What I suggested was you ought to be able to take a cell
from an early embryo without harming an embryo, because I knew that God
or nature, whoever you think does it, does that every day. When
identical twins are produced, half the cells are taken away, and each
half produces a perfectly normal baby.
What the medical community is now doing is what is called
preimplantation genetic diagnosis. They take a cell from an early
embryo and they do a genetic diagnosis on it. If there is no genetic
defect, they implant the remaining cells. It may be six or seven cells.
Sometimes they get an extra cell. And more than 2,000 times now we have
had perfectly normal babies born.
There are hundreds of clinics in this country doing that. The
procedure started in England. All that we need is that second cell that
they inadvertently get when they do the biopsy for preimplantation
genetic diagnosis. Two professionals have now developed stem cell
lines, Verlinski and Lanz have developed stem cell lines from single
embryonic cells.
Mr. Speaker, we can have embryonic stem cell research without killing
embryos. I think that is the real message.
Every professional I know believes there ought to be more potential
medical applications from embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells.
Many of my colleagues are opposing embryonic stem cell research
needlessly because they believe you have to kill embryos to get
embryonic stem cells. You don't have to kill embryos. The medical
community is doing this every day by the thousands in preimplantation
genetic diagnosis with in vitro fertilization.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time, 2 minutes,
to the very distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if now would be the time to
yield 2 of my last minutes also to Mr. Barton.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Yes, that would be appropriate. The
gentleman is now recognized for a total of 4 minutes.
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank Mr. Castle and Ms. DeGette. I also want
to compliment the Speaker on his management of time. He has done an
excellent job. I will say it is better to have him up there so he can't
debate us down here. So I appreciate that.
Mr. Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives, I have been
in the Congress for 22 years. Until the last Congress, my pro-life
voting record, over 21 years, was 100 percent. One hundred percent. In
the last Congress, I did vote for what was then the Castle-DeGette
bill. I also voted to override the President's veto. So coming into
this Congress, my pro-life voting record is 100 percent, minus two
votes. Now, in anybody's book, that has got to be an A-plus.
I am going to support what is now DeGette-Castle because I am pro-
life, and I strongly support the pro-life effort in every way. But
having said that, when it comes to research and when it comes to stem
cell research, I think Members on both sides and of all various
persuasions in which your view is the pro-life or pro-choice issues,
unless you think we shouldn't do research at all, and there are
certainly Americans who do not believe it is proper to do medical
research, or unless you don't think we should do medical research at
all in embryos or in stem cells, then it is appropriate to have a
debate about this bill.
Now, I hope the amniotic research works. I had a baby son, Jack, 16
months ago. My wife, Terry, and I saved his cord blood. It is stored
right now in California, and if he ever needs it, it is there.
I hope that the adult stem cell work that is being done is
successful. I am disappointed that so far the embryonic stem cell
research has not yielded the results that we hope, but it is that one
time that works that we are hoping for.
The Chicago Cubs have not been in the World Series, since when, 1916?
But every spring they start out that they are going to get to the World
Series this year. We don't know which researcher will find the cure to
Parkinson's or the cure to Alzheimer's, and it may be through adult
stem cell or amniotic stem cell, or it might be through embryonic.
Now, the bill before us would take the approximately 7,000 to 8,000
embryos a year that are disposed of as medical waste and make it
possible for the custodian, the parent, the custodian of those embryos
to donate them for medical research purposes that is federally funded.
Seven to eight thousand.
To me, as a pro-life Congressman for over 22 years, the choice is:
Medical research, medical waste; which is the most pro-life? Medical
research that might, might find a cure for my mother's Alzheimer's or
my brother's liver cancer that he died of, or medical waste that
literally goes in the trash bin? That is what is happening now. Why
cannot we make it possible to pursue cord blood, amniotic, adult stem
cell, and embryonic stem cell?
So I respectfully, for those Members yet to cast their vote on this
issue, please vote ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, stem cell legislation has been debated on this floor
before, and I welcome the opportunity to again speak in support of
legislation to expand embryonic stem cell research.
In August of 2001, the President issued his policy on federally
funded stem cell research. President Bush announced that for the first
time Federal research dollars would be available for research using
existing stem cell lines. Originally it was believed that there were
nearly 60 viable stem cell lines, however, for a variety of reasons,
that number was reduced to 22. Furthermore, many of those 22 lines
cannot practically be used for research. This legislation will help
create enough lines of embryonic stem cells to allow for science and
medicine to progress.
In order to ensure that these embryonic stem cell lines are ethically
derived, the legislation provides strict ethical constructs. The lines
must come from embryos that have been donated, that were specifically
created for fertilization treatments and would otherwise be discarded.
Those donating the embryos must provide written consent and they may
not receive financial incentives.
Understandably, this is not a simple vote for anyone on this floor.
This is a vote of conscience for all members. In the 109th Congress,
identical legislation was agreed to by a vote of 238 to 194 in the
House and later passed the Senate by a vote of 63 to 37.
[[Page H382]]
However, the House was unable to capture enough votes to override the
Presidential veto this past summer, and the legislation never became
law.
Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have consistently defended human
life and opposed all forms of abortion. I also respect the need for
progress in medicine that will help protect and improve existing human
lives. My decision to support this legislation puts me one vote short
of a perfect, 100 percent pro-life voting record, and it was not
reached carelessly. It is the product of much personal contemplation
and plenty of prayer. I have lost members of my family to illnesses
that stem cell research might have cured. I have concluded that I am
just not ready to require that sacrifice from other families, to watch
lives slip away that could be saved.
Recently, a study was issued by Wake Forest University in which the
ability to reclaim embryonic stem cells from amniotic fluid was
demonstrated. This is an important step forward in stem cell research,
and I applaud it. However, this important step should not preclude the
use of other forms of stem cell research that could one day become a
cure for many diseases that too many Americans suffer. The researcher
of this very study has restated his support for passage of H.R. 3.
This will be one of the most difficult votes that many of us cast in
this Congress. It is literally about life and death. It is about the
lives and the deaths of real people, people we know and love.
Regardless of our differing positions, this is an issue on which it is
impossible to be insincere. I ask that we respect one another during
this debate, and that we honor each other's views, especially the ones
with which we differ.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Ranking Member Barton for his
thoughtful, thoughtful approach and his support of this issue. I also
want to thank my friend and compadre, Mr. Castle, who has fought hand
in hand for this legislation with me for years now. And I also want to
thank the many Members who have helped us through this long process and
will be helping us long after today.
This is the first time I can remember a bipartisan whip effort in the
10 years I have been in Congress. Ms. Baldwin, Mrs. Bono, Mr. Bradley,
Mrs. Capps, Mr. Carnahan, Mr. Dent, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Langevin, Mr.
Perlmutter, and Mr. Upton. Thank you, thank you, and our work is not
completed.
I want to talk for a minute about what H.R. 3 does, because there are
a lot of misstatements that have been made today on this floor. H.R. 3
simply expands the number of stem cell lines that can be used for
research that is done in an ethical manner.
In 2001, President Bush restricted stem cell research to lines that
existed as of that date. In the ensuing years, we have learned there
were not 73 lines, as has been asserted today, but somewhere between 19
and 22 lines. We learned that all of those lines are contaminated with
mouse feeder cells and are not appropriate for clinical use. We learned
that the research is going offshore and into private hands. Perhaps
most disturbingly, we learned that the U.S. Government has no ethical
control over current private research or State research into embryonic
stem cell lines.
For that reason, we drafted a bill that both expands the research and
sets forward a rigid code of ethics. Only cells that are created to
give life for in vitro fertilization but then are slated to be thrown
away as medical waste, thrown away, can be donated for this research,
by informed consent. It is very narrow and it is very ethical. That is
why 522 patient advocacy groups, health organizations, research
universities, scientific societies, religious groups, and other
associations have endorsed this bill. It expands research, and it does
it in an ethical way.
Embryonic stem cells were first identified from mouse embryos in 1981
and primate embryos in 1995; but until November 1998, animal embryos
were the only source for research. In 1998, for the first time,
researchers learned that embryonic stem cells could be used in humans,
and that is when we found so much potential, potential for diseases
that affect 110 million Americans and their families, Americans
suffering from diabetes, Parkinson's, nerve damage, and on and on.
The great promise of this research is why people like Nancy Reagan,
Michael J. Fox, Orrin Hatch, Mary Tyler Moore, pro-life and pro-choice,
have come together to say, we cannot deny this research. We must not
say let's just throw these cells away and discard them. Let's allow
people to donate them in order to give life and to give hope.
Now, the opposition tries to obfuscate this issue time and time
again, and we simply cannot let that happen. We are not researchers; we
are Congress. It is our job to promote all ethical scientific research,
not to pick and choose among methods. I can't think of a time when
Congress says, oh, scientists, use that method to research cancer cures
but not this method. That is not our job. Our job is to say let's
support all ethical research, adult stem cells, cord blood, alternative
methods, amniotic stem cells, and embryonic stem cell research.
In conclusion, I will say that this is the next step on a long road;
and I implore all of you to think not about yourself, not even about
your parents, but your grandchildren and your great grandchildren. When
we find these cures, we will say we did the right thing today. Vote
``yes'' on H.R. 3.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3, the Stem
Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. This bill is a result of the
tireless efforts of my esteemed colleagues Diana DeGette and Mike
Castle. I am proud to count myself among the more than 200 Members of
Congress on both sides of the aisle who have cosponsored this
legislation. It is a bipartisan, bicameral bill that passed both Houses
of Congress last year.
It was one of the very few truly bipartisan bills to leave this
building during the previous Congress. Unfortunately, despite all the
public support, despite all the bipartisan support, despite all the
hope millions of Americans invested in this legislation, the President
decided to invoke his first, and only, veto.
This important piece of legislation authorizes the Department of
Health and Human Services, HHS, to support research involving embryonic
stem cells, regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived
from an embryo. There are stringent ethical guidelines included in this
bill. First among them requires that researchers work only with stem
cells from embryos that would have otherwise been discarded by
fertility clinics. Furthermore, the legislation stipulates that embryos
can be used only if the donors give their written consent and receive
no money or other inducement in exchange for the embryos.
These strict ethical standards are critical to the advancement of
this ground breaking science. The scientific community has the
opportunity to ease the suffering of thousands of Americans and their
families. A new round of federally funded stem cell research is
desperately needed in order to find cures and treatments for diseases
such as diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, ALS, multiple
sclerosis, and cancer.
The State of California recognized early on the extraordinary
significance of stem cell research. The people of California voted for
Proposition 71 to provide $3 billion to unleash the dynamic force of
medical research and unlock the promise of life saving scientific
research. Researchers in my district are already hard at work and with
the enactment of this legislation the scientific community in the bay
area will be unshackled. They will lead the way to help those who have
been stricken with debilitating diseases.
Mr. Speaker, it is my great hope that this legislation will soon be
on the President's desk awaiting his signature. I urge the President to
listen to the will of Congress and the pleas of the American people and
sign this bill into law.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3
Since President Bush announced his stem cell funding restrictions,
we've learned a number of things that, in my opinion, make the policy
even less ethical than it was in 2001.
We learned that the President was wrong about how many stem cell
lines would be available to researchers under his ban. The President
said there were more than 60 available lines, and soon after it was
claimed that there were 78. We learned later that year that only 24 or
25 of those lines were ready for research. In 2003, the administration
was conceded that only 11 lines were available to researchers. Today
only about 20 lines are available, and all of them were grown on
substances that might make them unfit for future use in therapies.
We've also learned that since the President's announcement, the
proportion of stem cell research conducted in the United States has
shrunk. There's a recent analysis that looked at all scientific papers
on human embryonic stem cell research published over the last several
years. The White House has cited this study to point out that almost
half of the labs producing papers on the topic from 1998 through 2004
were in the U.S. But in pulling out this overall statistic, the White
House seems to have ignored the study's title: ``An international gap
in human embryonic stem
[[Page H383]]
cell research.'' The authors found that after the restrictions, the
U.S. contribution to embryonic stem cell research dropped. In 2001,
about one-third of all stem cell research papers were produced here.
But by 2004--just three years later--that proportion had dropped to
about one-quarter.
The study's authors wrote that the U.S. is ``falling behind'' in
embryonic stem cell research. They wrote that this growing gap could
put U.S. patients at a disadvantage if therapies are discovered. In
fact, they concluded that ``U.S. congressional delays and the Bush
administration's resistance to an expansion of Federal funding suggest
a real danger for U.S. biomedicine.''
Scientists are saying that the administration's ban stymies their
research. Many U.S. scientists are getting offers to work overseas
because funding is available there and policies are clear. The most
discouraging news is that young scientists are reportedly hesitating to
even enter this field because it's not being funded in proportion to
its potential.
The White House is pushing other distorted interpretations of the
issue. In a report released yesterday, the White House pointed out that
there are many clinical trials related to adult stem cells, but none
related to embryonic stem cells. This is truly an Alice-in-Wonderland
style argument. The administration sharply restricts researchers'
ability to work with embryonic stem cells and pushes researchers to
work with adult stem cells. Then, it turns around several years later
and notes, to no one's surprise, that most of the clinical trials are
being done with adult stem cells. One can only wonder where we'd be if
America's top researchers were free to work with the most powerful
tools.
Some of you may have noticed last week's news reports on amniotic
stem cells. These cells appear to hold some potential for research
because they can develop into multiple cell types. We all want to
understand what this research means for this debate. And I think we can
probably agree that the lead researcher, Dr. Anthony Atala, is a good
interpreter.
What he has said, consistently, is that amniotic stem cells do not
substitute for embryonic stem cells. He has said that the cells have
different qualities, may have different potentials for growing into
different cell types, and may have different applications down the
road.
I think we should listen to the scientist behind this study, and not
those who want to distort this promising news to suppress other
potentially life-saving research.
Dr. Atala's explanation makes one thing very clear. The most
important reason amniotic stem cells can't replace embryonic stem cells
is that we do not know enough about either type. A growing body of
research has made clear that stem cells of all kinds have much to teach
us about the human body and disease. Hopefully this knowledge will lead
to treatments and cures. But if we're going to get there, we need a
serious Federal commitment to funding all promising and ethical stem
cell research.
That is what this bill will do. I respect the beliefs of those who
are concerned about protecting human life. But it is my opinion--widely
shared by most Americans--that the use of cells from embryos that will
otherwise be discarded is well within ethical boundaries.
Like many of my colleagues here, what I consider unethical is telling
people suffering from diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's that
their suffering doesn't justify the strongest possible federal
commitment to finding a cure.
What I consider unethical is turning to the generations following us
and telling them that we didn't make as much progress, and we won't be
passing on as much scientific understanding, as we could have.
We have already squandered valuable time, but it is not too late.
It's time to recover lost ground--and reclaim the leadership role our
country has earned in biomedical science--by supporting this ethical
and important research.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Stem Cell
Research Enhancement Act.
Embryonic stem cell research holds potential for some of the most
far-reaching breakthroughs seen in modem medicine. This is a field
filled with promise, with the potential to cure the incurable and to
heal that which was once thought impossible to mend.
We're bringing this bill up again with the hope that the President
will hear the scientists and researchers and hear the voices of the
American people that he do the right thing and sign this vital measure
into law. We need to take action now so that this crucial research can
go forward for the sake of the millions of people dealing with
incurable or debilitating diseases--diseases such as juvenile diabetes,
Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, and cancer. We can never
guarantee the results of scientific research, but without it we
guarantee there can be no results.
The President's current stem cell policy is not working. Research is
practically at a standstill in this country. Of the 78 existing stem
cell lines permitted for use in Federally funded research, only 21 of
these lines are currently used for research, and many of the available
stem cell lines are contaminated, making their therapeutic use for
humans questionable.
The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act is a well-crafted, bipartisan
approach. Let me be clear that the bill only allows the use of stem
cell lines generated from embryos that would otherwise be discarded by
fertility clinics. The legislation contains strict ethical guidelines,
including the requirement that embryos can be used only if the donors
give their written consent and receive no money or other inducement in
exchange.
There has been recent news regarding ongoing research using non-
embryonic stem cells. While I believe it is necessary to support study
on all stem cell types, this research alone is in no way a substitute
for embryonic stem cell research, whose potential is different from
that of other stem cell types.
We need to pass this bill today on a strong, bipartisan vote. I truly
hope the President will reconsider and do the right thing and sign this
bill into law. This legislation is so important to millions of
Americans, and we stand with them as we vote for the Stem Cell Research
Enhancement Act today.
I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this vital
legislation.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong
support of H.R. 3, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007,
which holds tremendous hope for the 100 million Americans affected by
devastating diseases and medical conditions.
In 2001, President George W. Bush announced his final decision on the
use of Federal funds for embryonic stem cell research. According to the
National Institutes of Health, of the 78 stem cell lines that were
declared eligible for Federal funding in the President's executive
order of August 2001, only 21 lines are now still available for
researchers. The 21 stem cell lines that remain available today are
contaminated with ``mouse feeder'' cells, making their therapeutic use
for humans uncertain.
I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Stem Cell Research
Enhancement Act, which increases the number of embryonic stem cell
lines eligible to be used for Federally-funded research. The bill also
authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services to support
research involving embryonic stem cells meeting certain criteria,
regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from an
embryo. This legislation authorizes the use of stem cell lines
generated from embryos that would otherwise be discarded by fertility
clinics and it has strict ethical guidelines. These guidelines include
stipulating that embryos can be used only if the donors give their
written consent and receive no money or other inducement in exchange
for the embryos.
In the 109th Congress, this bill passed the House by a vote of 238-
194 and in the Senate by a vote of 63-37. Unfortunately, the President
used his first veto to stop lifesaving stem cell research and set back
the hopes of so many who are suffering. Today, we owe it to the
millions of Americans with chronic diseases like Parkinson's, Multiple
Sclerosis, Alzheimer's, diabetes, and ALS to invest in this promising
research and renew the hopes of millions.
Expanding stem cell research has the support of more than 70 percent
of Americans. This vote today has the potential to unlock the doors to
treatments and cures to numerous debilitating and life-threatening
diseases and will send a clear signal that this Congress is committed
to improving the lives of millions of patients affected by these
diseases. Passage of H.R. 3 is critical and I hope the President
listens to the American people by signing this bill that will allow
this groundbreaking research to move forward.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3, the
DeGette-Castle stem cell research bill. Our Nation's top scientists
agree that embryonic stem cell research has the potential to unlock the
doors to treatments and cures to numerous diseases, including diabetes,
Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, ALS, multiple sclerosis and cancer.
Tens of millions of Americans and their families stand to benefit from
this life-saving research.
Current policy allows Federal funds to be used for research only on
those stem cell lines that existed when President Bush issued an
executive order on August 9, 2001. However, few of the stem cell lines
authorized by President Bush are now useful for research. According to
the National Institutes of Health, of the 78 stem cell lines that were
declared eligible for Federal funding in the President's executive
order of August 2001, only about 22 lines are now still available for
researchers; and, many of these 22 ``available'' stem cell lines are
contaminated with ``mouse feeder'' cells, making their therapeutic use
for humans uncertain.
H.R. 3 authorizes government support of research involving embryonic
stem cells that
[[Page H384]]
meet certain criteria, regardless of the date on which the stem cells
were derived from an embryo. The bill creates an ethical framework for
this research. It prohibits funding for research unless the cell lines
were derived from excess embryos that were created for reproductive
purposes and would otherwise be discarded. It also requires voluntary
informed consent from the couples donating the excess embryos and
prohibits any financial inducements.
H.R. 3 represents real hope to the tens of millions Americans
suffering from devastating illnesses, and I encourage my colleagues to
support it.
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from
Colorado for yielding me the time. I would also like to thank Mrs.
DeGette for her leadership on this very important issue. And I rise in
support of H.R. 3, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.
Today, I want to talk about a young girl who I have the honor of
knowing, Karle Borcherding from Ankeny Iowa. In 2005, at the age of 10,
Karle was diagnosed with juvenile or Type I diabetes. Over the course
of the past year she has had to give herself 4 to 5 shots a day. A
burden no 10 year old should have to deal with. Karle and her mother,
Darcy, have been leaders on the finding a cure for Type I diabetes
across Iowa, the Midwest, and all the way to Washington, DC, with the
Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation.
Karle is a vibrant young girl who does not let her disease control
her life. When asked why Karle wants to find a cure she responds ``Not
just so I will be cured and can be a normal kid, but because other kids
will be cured too.'' I am hopeful that, for Karle's sake and every
child affected by debilitating diseases, we will pass this vital
legislation today.
Opponents of this legislation will argue that we should focus our
attention to adult stem cell research. And while adult stem cell
research can be useful, embryonic stem cell research offers hope to
cure diseases. Some of the leading scientists in the country have
stated that adult stem cells would not be able to find a cure for
disease such as ALS, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, or Type I diabetes.
I ask my colleagues to join me today and vote on the side of hope and
science, and support H.R. 3.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3
and of the promise that it offers to the literally millions of
Americans battling terrible illnesses and the effects of devastating
injuries for which we currently have no cures and few effective
treatments.
I approach stem cell research with deep respect for the significant
ethical concerns that it raises, and I strongly believe we must never
lose our diligent focus on ensuring that these research techniques are
not abused for immoral ends.
H.R. 3 will guarantee the highest ethical standards will be applied
to stem cell research and will allow only embryos that would otherwise
be destroyed to be used for research purposes.
Critically, H.R. 3 will also fulfill our duty to recognize the
sanctity of human life by supporting the research that may one day
yield the cures and treatments that could help so many in our nation
who are being robbed of their sacred lives by disease.
I urge the passage of H.R. 3 and strongly urge the President to
reconsider his past veto and let this bill of compassion become law.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3,
Expanding Stem Cell Research.
I believe stem cell research holds enormous promise for easing human
suffering for people like my constituents Judy Reich and Jake Page,
both of whom suffer from diabetes. Embryonic stem cell research could
lead to a cure that could dramatically improve their lives. Federal
support is critical to its success which is why I was pleased when
President Bush announced his stem cell policy in August 2001.
Scientists have learned a great deal about stem cells in the five and
a half years since that announcement. Medical researchers believe that
embryonic stem cell research has the potential to change the face of
human disease. A number of current treatments already exist, although
the majority of them are not commonly used because they tend to be
experimental and not very cost-effective. Medical researchers
anticipate being able to use technologies derived from stem cell
research to treat cancer, Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries,
and muscle damage, amongst a number of other diseases, impairments and
conditions.
Current federal policy on human embryonic stem cell research allows
federally funded research be conducted on those stem cells derived
before August 9, 2001. Today, only 22 stem cell lines are available to
federally funded scientists. The United States Congress has passed
legislation which would lift the date restriction and allow federally
funded scientists to research a greater number of stem cell lines;
however, the President has vetoed this legislation. The legislation
would also provide stronger ethical requirements on those stem cell
lines eligible for funding including donor consent, certification that
embryos donated are in excess of clinical need, and that the embryos
would be otherwise discarded.
While I disagree with the creation of human embryos for scientific
purposes, I agree that embryos created as a by-product of in vitro
fertilization, which would otherwise be destroyed, should be allowed to
provide greater insight into the myriad afflictions that can
potentially be alleviated through stem cell research.
As with all scientific endeavors, we must ensure that the limitless
bounds of science do not infringe on the beliefs that we hold as
ethical human beings. For this reason, I categorically oppose the
harvesting of embryos for scientific research as well as any attempt to
use our scientific knowledge to clone human beings.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3, Expanding Stem Cell Research.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, a founder and co-chair of the
Congressional Working Group on Parkinson's Disease, I rise in strong
support of H.R. 3, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
January 11, 2007--On Page H384 the following appeared: Mrs.
MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, a founder and co-chair
The online version should be corrected to read: Mrs. MALONEY of
New York. Mr. Speaker, a founder and co-chair
========================= END NOTE =========================
This bill expands current policy by providing for federal funding of
embryonic stem cell research on lines derived after August 9, 2001
while still requiring strong ethical guidelines for research.
I am grateful to the new Democratic Leadership for bringing up this
legislation during the first 100 hours after both the House and Senate
passed the bill last summer, only to see the President veto it, without
regard for the millions of suffering Americans and their families.
An overwhelming 72% of the American people support federal funding
for stem cell research because they know that by lifting the arbitrary
ban that the President put in place in 2001, research will move forward
and mil1ions of Americans will benefit.
Let's be clear: this bill is very simple--it's about saving lives.
It's about preventing devastating diseases from ravaging and ending
people's lives.
I urge my colleagues to think about their loved Ones when deciding
how to cast their vote. It's literally a matter of life and death.
According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), of the 78 stem
cell lines that were declared eligible for federal funding in the
President's executive order of August 2001, only about 22 lines are now
still available for researchers.
And many of these 22 ``available'' stem cell lines are contaminated
with ``mouse feeder'' cells, making their therapeutic use for humans
uncertain.
Just this week, a new study was released noting that scientists see
potential in Amniotic Stem Cells.
This is extraordinary new finding highlights the importance of
continued research in all types of stem cell research and regenerative
medicine.
It does not lessen the need to increase the number of embryonic stem
cell lines which will ultimately lead to therapy and treatment.
Instead, it demonstrates the relative infancy of this area of
research and the need for a significant federal commitment.
Today, we have the opportunity to make a difference in the lives of
millions of afflicted people and their families.
Let's each do the right thing. I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 3.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3, the
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, a bill that is both morally and
ethically compromising. H.R. 3, sponsored by Rep. Diana DeGette, would
expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Supporters of
this legislation are encouraging the destruction of human embryos in
the hope of one day treating diseases.
The timing of this bill is especially ironic as we learned on January
7, 2007 that amniotic fluid stem cells were found to have pluripotent
properties and grow as fast as embryonic stem cells. This is yet
another example of a successful ethical alternative to embryonic stem
cell research.
To date, there are 72 diseases and injuries that have been
successfully treated with adult stem cells unlike embryonic stem cells
which have yet to yield a single successful human treatment. Proponents
of embryonic stem cell research would like you to believe there is no
ongoing federal research using embryonic stem cell lines approved by
the NIH, however, the United States leads the world in embryonic stem
cell research.
[[Page H385]]
Embryonic stem cell research received no federal funding through the
NIH prior to 2001 when President Bush established a policy to allow for
embryonic stem cell research on a line of existing cells. This was the
first time the federal government had ever made funding available for
embryonic stem cell research. Since then, more than $130 million of
federal money has been spent on human embryonic stem cell research and
over $3 billion has been spent on all stem cell research. This does not
include the billions of dollars raised in the private sector for stem
cell research.
While bioethics and science have brought about medical advancements
and breakthroughs, our society should promote the protection of human
life and dignity in all its forms. We can promote science and
technology while applying ethical and moral guidelines that err on the
side of life. Science can and should be used to improve the quality of
lives, to save lives, cure fatal diseases and bring hope to those who
are suffering, yet I cannot support legislation that would require the
destruction of human embryos. Adult stem cell research has provided
treatments of diseases while applying ethical standards.
I will continue to support legislation that promotes ethical science
and produces an uncompromised standard that values all human life. H.R.
3 would only further expand the destruction of human life.
I will vote against this unethical and morally compromising bill, and
I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the issue of government funding of embryonic
stem cell research is one of the most divisive issues facing the
country. While I sympathize with those who see embryonic stem cell
research as providing a path to a cure for the dreadful diseases that
have stricken so many Americans, I strongly object to forcing those
Americans who believe embryonic stem cell research is immoral to
subsidize such research with their tax dollars.
The main question that should concern Congress today is does the
United States Government have the constitutional authority to fund any
form of stem cell research. The clear answer to that question is no. A
proper constitutional position would reject federal funding for stem
cell research, while allowing the individual states and private
citizens to decide whether to permit, ban, or fund this research.
Federal funding of medical research guarantees the politicization of
decisions about what types of research for what diseases will be
funded. Thus, scarce resources will be allocated according to who has
the most effective lobby rather than allocated on the basis of need or
even likely success. Federal funding will also cause researchers to
neglect potential treatments and cures that do not qualify for federal
funds.
In order to promote private medical research, I will introduce the
Cures Can Be Found Act. The Cures Can Be Found Act promotes medical
research by providing a tax credit for investments and donations to
promote adult and umbilical cord blood stem cell research and providing
a $2,000 tax credit to new parents for the donation of umbilical cord
blood from which to extract stem cells. The Cures Can Be Found Act will
ensure greater resources are devoted to this valuable research. The tax
credit for donations of umbilical cord blood will ensure that medical
science has a continuous supply of stem cells. Thus, this bill will
help scientists discover new cures using stem cells and, hopefully,
make routine the use of stem cells to treat formerly incurable
diseases.
The Cures Can Be Found Act will benefit companies like Prime Cell,
which is making great progress in transforming non-embryonic stem cells
into any cell type in the body. Prime Cell is already talking to health
care practitioners about putting its findings to use to help cure
diseases.
Companies like Prime Cell are continuing the great American tradition
of private medical research that is responsible for many medical
breakthroughs. For example, Jonas Salk, discoverer of the polio
vaccine, did not receive one dollar from the federal government for his
efforts.
Mr. Speaker, there is no question that forcing taxpayers to subsidize
embryonic stem cell research violates basic constitutional principles.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against HR 3, and support the
Cures Can Be Found Act.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Stem
Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 (H.R. 3).
This bipartisan legislation will provide countless number of
Americans hope of finding cures for many life-threatening diseases. I
strongly believe stem cell research holds the promise of scientific
breakthroughs that could improve the lives of millions of Americans
afflicted with a debilitating disease--such as Parkinson's, diabetes,
spinal cord injuries, autoimmune diseases, cardiovascular disease, and
cancer--for which there is currently no cure. For these patients and
their families, stem cell research is the last hope for a cure.
I wholeheartedly believe we should allow the expansion of federally
supported research of human embryonic stem cell lines. The Stem Cell
Research Enhancement Act of 2007 would provide federal for a wider
range of stem cell research while establishing ethical guidelines. In
addition, the legislation would provide that embryos that are otherwise
likely to be discarded can be used to develop treatments for
debilitating diseases and life-saving cures.
I was extremely disappointed that the President exercised his first
veto on a piece of legislation that has bipartisan support. A majority
ofthe American people support stem cell research. In the last election,
Missouri voters approved a ballot measure to allow stem cell research
in that state.
It is expected that the Senate will pass H.R. 3. If that is the case,
I hope the President will listen to Congress and the American people
rather than to the extreme right of his own political party and not
wield his veto pen on this promising legislation. We must put the
health of the American people over politics.
Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that affects every family in America. I
strongly urge my House colleagues to support this bipartisan
legislation.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, this bill to allow federal funding for stem
cell research involves a simple question: should we use frozen cells to
help millions of Americans with Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and diabetes,
or throw them away and claim moral superiority?
A supermajority of the American people wants to advance medical
science. Congress has already passed this same legislation only to be
met with President Bush's veto. Because we know that the President
never lets the facts get in the way of his decisions, we know he won't
change his mind. It is up to a handful of Republicans to say yes to the
voters and no to the Christian Right so we can pass this bill by a
veto-proof majority.
I urge my colleagues to prove that they heeded the message of the
recent election to stop posturing and start passing common-sense
legislation.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I'm so pleased to have another opportunity
to support this stem cell research bill today. But let me say that we
cannot allow this crucial legislation to once again come so close, only
to--in the end--be kept so far from those who would benefit from its
outcome on a daily basis.
Change does not come easily. This is a big step in providing
America's world-class researchers with the resources they need to make
a difference in the lives of those with serious illnesses. But let us
take a moment to weigh the kind of change in federal policy it would
take to provide researchers with access to new embryonic stem cell
lines, with the kind of change a person faces when he or she hears the
words Parkinson's, or diabetes, or spinal cord injury.
The debilitating symptoms of these diseases can alter the course of a
person's life--not to mention their family's--and change their day-to-
day lives in ways it is impossible for most of us to even imagine. I
ask you to take a moment to think of the changes you would have to make
to accommodate a chronic illness in your life.
Our scientists and researchers need new cell lines so they can move
beyond the contaminated, and often unusable, lines that were in
existence before 2001. Let's transform the way we experience disease in
this country and take the first step today by supporting H.R. 3.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, time and time again, the American people
have spoken on this issue--they overwhelmingly support the expansion of
embryonic stem cell research. And today, Congress has the opportunity
to take heed and do the bidding of the people by passing H.R. 3.
Recent developments have proven that we are not far off from
recognizing the true potential of embryonic stem cell research. In
meetings with researchers at ViaCell and New World Laboratories, two
small biotech companies in my home state of Massachusetts, I have seen
first-hand the notable progress made in their research on spinal cord
injuries and tissue regeneration. All around the world, researchers are
gaining similar ground. However, our nation's current policy stands to
limit such critical advancements.
And that is why I am proud to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 3. It
marks the way for an increased number of embryonic stem cell lines
while also developing strong ethical guidelines to protect the
integrity of this research.
We have the rare opportunity to help spur scientific innovation that
could, with the proper research and development, produce better
treatments--or even cures--for diseases like diabetes, Parkinson's
disease, and cancer. But absent a federal investment in embryonic stem
cell research, we will never witness its true potential. I urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R.
3, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. I do so not because
[[Page H386]]
I oppose embryonic stem cell research but because as an OB/GYN
physician I oppose federally funded embryonic stem cell research that
destroys life. And the truth of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, I am not
alone in this belief; in fact I am joined by nearly half of the
American public.
Let me say that again, nearly half of the American public opposes
using taxpayer dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research when a
human embryo is destroyed in the process.
I know that the supporters of this bill claim that an overwhelming
majority of Americans whole-heartedly endorse their bill. However, when
individuals in our society are asked specifically whether or not they
would like the Federal Government to fund research that destroys a
human embryo, the survey results are absolutely divided.
And that Mr. Speaker is what we are actually debating on the floor of
the House today. We are debating the question of whether or not the
American taxpayer should pay for research that encourages the
destruction of human embryos.
We are not debating whether or not embryonic stem cell research is
legal in this country, because, of course, it is not only completely
legal but also well funded in both the private and public sector. In
fact, between state governments and the private sector there is nearly
$4 billion committed to embryonic stem cell research over the next 10
years.
I also want to dispel the myth that the Federal Government currently
does not fund human embryonic stem cell research. In actuality, by the
end of 2007, the Federal Government will have spent over $160 million.
When President Bush signed the Executive Order in 2001, he made
possible the federal funding of embryonic stem research. His executive
order merely limited federal funds to support research which utilized
already established stem cell lines. This decision removed any backdoor
federal incentive and separated the United States government from the
business of encouraging the destruction of human embryos.
Mr. Speaker, another policy issue we are unfortunately not debating
today, is the use of federal funds to research alternative and ethical
ways to extract embryonic-like or pluripotent stem cells. The fact of
the matter is the hope held dearly by many individuals of this country
with respect to embryonic stem cell research is not grounded solely in
the fact that these cells are embryonic. Rather, researchers are
interested in embryonic stem cells because they are flexible, that is
they can specialize into any type of human tissue. This characteristic
is also true of pluripotent stem cells, and the good news is that
pluripotent stem cells can be obtained in a variety of ethical and
scientifically promising ways.
Mr. Speaker, this point cannot be illustrated anymore clearly than in
the study made public this weekend by researchers at Wake Forest and
Harvard. This study shows not only the capability of researchers to
obtain pluripotent stem cells from amniotic fluid but that these stem
cells grow fast and show great flexibility.
This new, cutting edge research has great relevance in the debate we
are engaged in today. The fact of the matter is that this study is yet
another reminder that science moves faster than the Federal Government.
We no longer need to engage in a passionate debate that divides our
country in half. We no longer need to contemplate a unilateral decision
to spend taxpayer dollars on research methods that nearly 50 percent of
the public oppose.
No, Mr. Speaker, let us instead bring to the floor legislation that
unites this country and does not divide. Let us examine and debate the
multitude of alternative and ethical methods of obtaining pluripotent
stem cells, methods similar to the research recently published
regarding amniotic stem cells.
Representative Bartlett and I have introduced such a piece of
legislation, it is bill H.R. 322. Today, on the hallowed floor of the
House of Representatives, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to join with us and half of the American public, in supporting a
bill that promotes lifesaving medical research that does not sacrifice
life in the process.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 3,
a bill authorizing taxpayer funding for human embryo-destroying stem
cell research. This bill would reverse the reasonable embryonic stem
cell policy, set in place by the President in 2001, which allows
federal funds to be used for research on existing stem cell lines where
the life and death decision has already been made.
There have been exciting and dramatic developments in adult stem-cell
research that hold great promise for medical advancements. I strongly
support the need to pursue new treatments and cures to the diseases
affecting millions of people world wide. However, in this pursuit we
must be careful not to compromise our values of respecting human life.
Embryonic stem cell research destroys human life at its earliest stage
for experimental research purposes.
There are many types of stem cell research that are worthwhile and
that do not raise such ethical and moral concerns. Alternative sources
such as umbilical cord and adult tissue cells are currently being used
to treat people, and successfully. Earlier this week, scientists
reported that amniotic non-embryonic stem cells may offer the same
research possibilities as stem cells obtained through the destruction
of living human embryos. Not only are these cells highly versatile,
they are readily available. Such alternatives make clear that we are
capable of achieving successful stem cell research without the
intentional destruction of human embryos.
The debate today is not about blocking embryonic stem cell research.
There are vast financial resources available to fund this controversial
research and any company or organization that wants to conduct or fund
embryonic stem cell research may do so. And yet, despite extensive
private research, there have been no successful therapeutic treatments
with embryonic stem-cell research--none. With adult stem cells,
physicians have successfully treated patients with diabetes, multiple
sclerosis, sickle cell anemia, heart disease, Crohn's disease and
rheumatoid arthritis, among many others. These examples are a strong
testament to the amazing power of adult stem cells.
By voting against this bill, we can avoid not only the ethical and
moral questions that are raised, but we can make sure that taxpayer
dollars are invested wisely.
Congress can provide and must help scientists realize the promise of
embryonic stem cell research without authorizing the destruction of
human life in the process. Once again, I urge my colleagues to support
ethical stem cell research and to vote against this bill.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3, the
bipartisan DeGette-Castle bill on stem cell research that is identical
to legislation passed by the Republican 109th Congress and vetoed last
year by President Bush.
This bill allows federal funding for stem cell research that gives
hope to 100 million Americans and their families afflicted by
debilitating or life-threatening diseases. This research is critical to
find new treatments and possible cures to terrible diseases like
diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, ALS, multiple sclerosis,
and cancer.
It is important to note this bill's ethical safeguards, including
requirements that forbid financial inducements for donations, mandate
informed and written consent for donation, and requires HHS and the
National Institutes of Health to produce ethical guidelines. DeGette-
Castle promotes the most ethical use of discarded fertility clinic
products because rather than flushing them down the drain, ethically-
monitored scientists can utilize them to promote life-saving research.
Mr. Speaker, this is important policy matter, but for me, it's
personal. My college basketball coach, a friend and mentor for several
decades is a victim of Alzheimer's disease. Others I am close to suffer
from Lou Gehrig's disease. After prayerful consideration, I have
arrived at the strong conclusion that we must allow the ethical advance
of research to relieve human suffering.
I urge my colleagues to join me in passing H.R. 3, and I urge the
President to sign it into law.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3,
legislation to expand Federal research on devastating diseases like
Alzheimer's, diabetes, spinal cord injuries, and various cancers.
When President Bush announced in 2001 that Federal funds would be
available for research performed using currently existing embryonic
stem cell lines, I truly believed we had begun to open the door for
life-saving research. Unfortunately for all Americans, less than a
quarter of those lines proved suitable for research. As a result,
research conducted in the United States has slowed considerably.
Federal restrictions on new lines have dashed the hopes of millions
of Americans who are impacted by life-threatening illnesses stem cell
research may cure. In addition, America is losing top medical
researchers and scientists to other nations without such restrictions.
A handful of States have stepped in where the Federal Government has
failed. My home state of California was the first to act, passing a
ballot initiative in 2005 that authorized $3 billion in funding for
embryonic stem cell research. I strongly supported that ballot
initiative, and I would like to acknowledge the other States that have
stepped up to the plate in a similar fashion.
Last year, I voted with 237 of my colleagues in the House and 63
Senators to pass Federal legislation to fund stem cell research.
Tragically, the President ignored the will of the Congress and the
American people by casting the only veto of his administration against
this bill.
I am very proud that the Democratic majority has made facilitating
this life-saving research a cornerstone of our agenda. Today's
[[Page H387]]
vote signifies a Federal commitment to exploring every possible option
available for curing these terrible illnesses.
Today, we cast a vote for hope. I urge my colleagues to vote in
support of H.R. 3, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3,
legislation to expand taxpayer funding of human embryonic stem cell
research and give a ``stamp of approval'' from the Federal government
for scientists to destroy human embryos to harvest stem cells for
medical experiments.
The pain and suffering of citizens afflicted with debilitating
diseases concerns me greatly. I served for 7 years on the board of
directors for the Great Plains Region of the American Diabetes
Association because I am committed to finding a cure for people
afflicted with this disease.
I strongly support scientific research to find cures and effective
treatments to relieve human suffering. I voted to double the Federal
investment in biomedical research from $13.6 billion in fiscal year
1998 to $27.1 billion in fiscal year 2003. The National Institutes of
Health received $28.5 billion from Congress last year to do research on
new cures for diseases.
Embryonic stem cell research is not the ``silver bullet'' for every
disease. The potential benefits of this research have been blown out of
proportion by eager scientists and some in the news media. The fact is
that 25 years of human embryonic stem cell research have not produced
even one treatment for suffering Americans.
Adult stem cell research, on the other hand, is producing real and
tangible results with no ethical concerns. In fact, adult stem cells
have produced treatments for 72 serious diseases and conditions in
humans, and shown strong potential for permanent reversal of severe
diseases such as diabetes and Parkinson's.
Research has consistently shown that human embryonic stem cells grow
tumors once implanted in an animal, became uncontrollable, or form
various and wrong types of tissues. Some studies have shown moderate
improvement in rats with spinal cord injuries, but some of those rats
were not kept alive long enough to see if tumors formed. Many
scientists argue this is a new medical field and limitations such as
cancerous tendencies can be overcome through additional Federal funding
and more time in the lab.
These arguments callously gloss over the fact that embryonic stem
cell research requires the destruction of human embryos--and 48 percent
of Americans surveyed last year opposed this type of research after
being informed of that fact. We have a responsibility as public
officials to direct limited Federal dollars toward the most promising
and ethical research possible.
The strongest potential for cures at this time is not in embryonic
stem cells, but in ethical research using adult stem cells, umbilical
cord blood stem cells, and most recently, amniotic fluid stem cells,
all of which uphold and support human life. These ethical approaches
show promise that rivals the potential of embryonic stem cells without
forcing many American taxpayers to fund research that threatens the
dignity of human life.
Amid all the scientific jargon in today's debate, let us not forget
the fact that each one of us started life as a human embryo. There is
no way around that basic fact, no matter how many scientific terms are
used to conceal or confuse it. Embryos are the tiniest of human lives,
but they are nevertheless human lives, and we must defend the
defenseless.
If embryos are not fundamentally human lives, how can you explain the
fact that frozen embryos from in vitro fertility clinics grow into
children once they are implanted in a woman's womb? Does an embryo
somehow become less of a human being if we choose to donate it to a
scientist to be experimented upon and ultimately destroyed? Those same
human embryonic stem cells lying in a cold Petri dish will undeniably
grow into a human child if given a chance at life. We must not allow
scientific terminology to desensitize us to the miracle and sanctity of
human life.
Here are some published examples of the differences between embryonic
stem cell research and adult stem cell research:
Numerous attempts over the last 5 years to use human embryonic stem
cells to cure diabetes repeatedly produced tumors or failed to generate
insulin to reverse the disease. In the most successful experiment,
human embryonic stem cells produced only one-fiftieth the amount of
insulin needed to sustain life, and the mice died.
For Parkinson's disease, researchers found that human embryonic stem
cells grew uncontrollably in 100 percent of rats with the condition.
All the animals showed indications of early tumor formation. These
findings were duplicated by scientists in Sweden and Japan.
Adult stem cells, on the other hand, have treated multiple types of
cancers, including breast cancer and Leukemia, as well as autoimmune
diseases, heart defects, heart disease, osteoporosis and spinal cord
injuries, and demonstrated excellent potential to treat diabetes and to
reverse Parkinson's.
In 2003, researchers used adult stem cells to help regenerate
pancreatic islet cells that produce insulin, permanently reversing
diabetes in mice. The lead researcher stated that: ``Patients with
fully established diabetes possibly could have their diabetes
reversed.'' The FDA has approved a human clinical trial for diabetes
based on this successful research. In 2005, a mother donated live stem
cells for her diabetic daughter, alleviating the diabetic symptoms.
Human umbilical cord blood stem cells can also generate insulin to
reverse diabetes.
Just last year, scientists used adult umbilical cord stem cells to
treat rats with Parkinson's, and found significant recovery in motion
and behavior. In 2002, a Parkinson's patient testified that his
symptoms were 80 percent reversed after being treated with his own
adult neural stem cells. British researchers in 2003 injected a natural
protein into the brains of five Parkinson's patients and found that it
stimulated existing adult neural stem cell growth, yielding a 61
percent improvement in motor function. University of Kentucky
researchers treated 10 Parkinson's patients with similar results.
And just this week, researchers at Harvard University and Wake Forest
University reported a breakthrough discovery that stem cells found in
amniotic fluid show incredible promise for cures without concerns for
tumor growth or immune system rejection.
Amniotic stem cells can be safely and easily extracted from pregnant
women, and are ``pluripotent'' like human embryonic stem cells, meaning
they have the ability to transform into each of the three major types
of tissue found in the body. The researchers stated: ``We conclude that
amniotic fluid stem cells are pluripotent stem cells capable of giving
rise to multiple lineages including representatives of all three
embryonic germ layers.''
Using amniotic stem cells, the research team created nerve cells,
liver cells, endothelial cells that line blood vessels, and cells
involved in the creation of bone, muscle and fat. In fact, the nerve
cells successfully generated a neurotransmitter crucial to forming
dopamine, which is lacking in Parkinson's patients. In testing on mice,
amniotic stem cells were shown to re-grow and repair damaged areas of
the brain.
The incredible promise of such ethical stem cell research is worthy
of taxpayer funding. It holds real promise and real hope for citizens
needing cures and tangible relief from pain and disease.
This debate today is not about whether we should fund stem cell
research with tax dollars. The National Institutes of Health spends
about $600 million every year on stem cell research, and almost $40
million of those funds are unfortunately being spent on research
involving human embryonic stem cells.
The real debate today is about whether scientists will be able to
create more embryonic stem cell lines by destroying more embryos. The
next thing these scientists will be asking for is the ability to clone
embryos because they cannot get enough stem cells from frozen human
embryos at in vitro fertility clinics. This is no ``slippery slope,''
it is the ethical equivalent of jumping off a cliff.
As public officeholders sworn to uphold the United States
Constitution, we will have failed in our duty if we fail today to
protect the right to life of the youngest homo sapiens--human embryos.
We cannot fail in defending the defenseless, and we must keep faith
with American taxpayers by funding the most ethical research to relief
the suffering of ailing Americans.
I urge my colleagues to join me today in voting against this
unethical bill that would exploit human life while preying on the
emotions of suffering American citizens.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in
support of H.R. 3, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007.
I am proud to have been an original co-sponsor of this legislation in
both the 109th and 110th Congresses.
H.R. 3 will increase the number of embryonic stem cell lines that are
eligible for use in federally funded research while maintaining strict
ethical standards ensuring that only stem cells from embryos that would
otherwise be discarded by fertility clinics can be used for research.
My home State of California has taken the lead in stem cell research.
In Orange County, California, the University of California-Irvine's
Reeves Center is the home to spectacular research that is utilizing
stem cells to work towards finding new treatments for spinal cord
injury.
I hope that any Member who has questions about stem cell research
will seek out a research center like the Reeves Center to learn about
the amazing progress that researchers are making towards finding
treatments and cures for spinal injury, diabetes, Parkinson's
[[Page H388]]
disease, Alzheimer's, ALS, multiple sclerosis, and cancer among others.
Federal support for this groundbreaking research will help
researchers find answers even faster.
I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3 because
revising the current Federal policy on stem cell research is completely
unnecessary. Sadly, the ethical debate over human embryonic stem cell
research has completely overshadowed the fact that the Federal
Government is devoting $600 million each year for all types of stem
cell research. The current policy does not ban stem cell research in
the United States, nor does it ban Federal funding for embryonic-type
stem cell research. It only limits federally funded embryonic stem cell
research to stem cell lines existing before August 9, 2001. The
National Institutes of Health, through its peer-review selection
process, currently directs only about $39 million of the total to human
embryonic stem cell research. While some conclude that the stem cell
lines approved under the administration's policy are not adequate, 85
percent of all the published research on embryonic stem cells, whether
U.S. or foreign, was conducted using these stem cell lines. The fact
is, despite these investments, embryonic stem cell research has yielded
few and modest results in animals, and no clinical treatments in
humans.
In stark contrast, non-embryonic stem cells are showing far more
potential to develop treatments. Just this week, it was reported around
the country that researchers from Wake Forest University found that
stem cells extracted from amniotic fluid have the same growth and
differentiation capabilities as embryonic stem cells. These cells are
shed by the developing fetus and are easily obtained during prenatal
testing without destroying human embryos. Other research using stem
cells from non-embryonic sources, such as existing adult cells,
umbilical chord blood and human placentas, has resulted in 72
experimental treatments for a number of diseases.
According to a study by the RAND corporation, there are approximately
400,000 frozen embryos at fertility clinics in the U.S., most of which
have been set aside for future use. Only approximately 11,000 have been
donated for research so far. If there is a breakthrough that provides a
treatment using embryonic stem cells, the fact is that fertility
clinics could never provide the number of stem cells needed for
treatment: 50 to 100 eggs are needed to produce just one petri dish of
cells. Donors would have to be solicited, which would put women all
over the world at risk for coercion as well as the health complications
associated with egg donation.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the United
States is not alone in the world in addressing this issue; Italy,
Austria, Ireland, Norway, and Poland have an outright prohibition on
human embryo research. In other countries, such as France and Germany,
human embryonic stem cell research is only permitted for stem cell
lines created before a certain date, which is similar to the current
U.S. policy. Federal resources should continue to be directed toward
the most promising medical research. I urge my colleagues to uphold the
current policy on stem cell research and vote ``no'' on H.R. 3.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3. Like
my colleagues, I believe in the transforming and life-saving power of
scientific progress. I've seen first-hand how cutting-edge research can
impact the lives of Americans who suffer from all sorts of disease, and
I understand the inherent value of federally supported research.
As many of my colleagues have stated today, scientists at Wake Forest
University and Harvard University reported 4 days ago that they've
drawn incredibly promising stem cells from amniotic fluid.
To quote Anthony Atala, the director of Wake Forest's Institute for
Regenerative Medicine, ``They grow fast, as fast as embryonic stem
cells. But they remain stable for years without forming tumors''.
This means that if 100,000 women were to donate amniotic cells,
scientists could have enough diverse cells to provide compatible tissue
for most Americans.
All of this without destroying embryos for research that hasn't
proven it can cure a single ailment.
Perhaps we're having the wrong debate today. If we can derive disease
treatments from cells without destroying embryos, isn't this the best
option for Federal funding?
Embryonic stem cell research is legal in this country. Our debate is
about the expansion of Federal funding to cover the destruction, and
the eventual creation of embryos for the sole purpose of research.
I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, particularly in
light of new research that could provide an alternative.
Mr. SIRES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3 and Federal stem
cell research funding.
The Federal Government is behind the times. Many States, including my
home State of New Jersey, have already authorized State funding for
stem cell research. In fact, just last month I stood next to Governor
Corzine as he signed a bill authorizing $270 million for new
laboratories and stem cell research facilities throughout New Jersey.
The time has come for this Congress and the President to do the same.
On the merits, embryonic stem cell research offers great promise to
everyone suffering from a disease or illness. We all know someone or
have ourselves been affected by diabetes, Parkinson's disease,
Alzheimer's, cancer, or another disease that could be cured or treated
with therapies formed from stem cells. Cures and treatments will not be
found overnight, but we will never know what could be accomplished if
we don't make a real commitment to this research. That is why it is so
important that we pass H.R. 3 today.
There are an estimated 100 million Americans waiting for us to take
action. They don't believe this is a partisan or political issue. They
just want hope for a cure. Let's give them that hope. I urge my
colleagues to support H.R. 3.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlelady from
Colorado and the gentleman from Delaware for their leadership in
bringing this bill to the floor for a vote today. I must also extend my
thanks to our distinguished Speaker for her commitment to returning the
House to the hands of the American people during the first 100 hours of
the 110th Congress.
I rise today to join my colleagues in support of the Stem Cell
Research Enhancement Act. Each year, dozens of health advocacy groups
flood my Washington, D.C., office to discuss the importance of medical
research. While all experiences are memorable, the difficulties faced
by the children with Type I, or juvenile diabetes, really stay with me.
Last year, a brother and sister, ages four and five, visited my
office and shared with me their hatred of needles, and how much they
would like to enjoy birthday cake and other foods with their friends.
They didn't understand why they were chosen to be sick. They didn't
understand why there are people in D.C. blocking bills that would help
them get better. These children had one simple request, to pass a law
to increase the most promising research tool available that may lead to
a cure for their disease.
Advancements in science and technology have put our Nation in the
position to make breakthroughs for these children. How did the
President respond to their request? He made this bill the first veto of
his Presidency. Everyone in this Nation knows someone, or has a friend
or family member, who could benefit from stem cell research.
It is time for a new direction for America and it is time for the
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act to become law.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3.
We are all aware of the potential embryonic stem cells hold for
mankind. It could very well be that these cells prove to be the Rosetta
stone of medical research--allowing us to break the code on some of the
worst afflictions: Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, juvenile diabetes.
We must acknowledge, however, that there is much we don't know about
embryonic stem cells, and we are mistaken if we believe great cures are
right around the corner. But we will never know either the true
potential--or the dangers of stem cell related treatments if our
scientists are overly constrained.
I understand the concerns of those who question the ethics of
embryonic stem cell research, and agree that we must not throw caution
to the wind at the hint of miraculous cures. Indeed, left
unconstrained, this type of research could lead to dangerous outcomes.
That is a key reason why I support the Stem Cell Research Enhancement
Act. It provides essential ethical guidelines to which federally funded
researchers must adhere. It would be far preferable to have the Federal
Government setting standards in this field rather than a hodge-podge of
states and private entities. In fact, I believe that the National
Institute of Health's rigorous ethical guidelines would prove to be
more protective of human life than individual states or private
entities. Remember, embryonic stem cell research is not illegal, and
individual states have already moved forward on their own. It is
crucial that the Federal Government lead the way.
I supported President Bush when he announced his plan to allow
federally funded research on 60 pre-existing stem cell lines. But we
now know that only 21 stem cell lines are available for research. These
21 have significant shortcomings that make them of dubious value.
Federally funded U.S. researchers are at a technological disadvantage
as they lack access to newer stem cell lines. This is causing concern
that some of the top stem cell biologists will move into non-federally
funded research, or even move overseas. We should not allow this to
happen.
[[Page H389]]
There are a great many difficult questions that attend this debate.
However, I can not look in the eyes of a couple whose child is
suffering from a debilitating disease and tell them that I am doing
everything possible to stop their child's suffering without supporting
this legislation.
I believe expanded Federal funding of embryonic research is the right
course to take--a view shared by increasing numbers in both parties.
I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Stem Cell Research
Enhancement Act of 2007.
I believe this bill is an important step in making the United States
a leader in all facets of the stem cell issue--both scientifically and
ethically.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in general support of H.R. 3,
the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. This bill would
authorize the Department of Health and Human Services to support the
expansion of research involving stem cells regardless of the date on
which the stem cells are derived and under the principal condition that
such research conforms to certain ethical standards that would be set
forth by the bill.
I have joined over 200 of my colleagues in cosponsoring this
legislation to demonstrate my general support for ethically
responsible, expanded, federally funded scientific research that stands
to yield advances toward discovering treatments and cures for many
terminal, debilitating diseases and physical impairments.
It is true that research on the lifesaving qualities of stem cells
predominantly remains in preliminary stages. But the potential for
easing the suffering of individuals, curtailing illnesses, and
protecting the general health and welfare of future generations that is
offered by continuing and expanding this research is too great to
ignore. Authorizing Federal support for the continuation and expansion
of this research under strict ethical guidelines is an investment worth
making today. We should pass legislation to enhance the abilities of
and authorize funding for the scientific community to attain the most
advanced scientific achievements possible that modern technology can
bring and that we, as a society, can morally afford.
I believe that this legislation provides for the ethical safeguards
needed to ensure that government funding is not used to compromise the
integrity and morality of the American people in exchange for
supporting research that could lead to cures for many illnesses. I
support H.R. 3 because it provides appropriate safeguards while
promoting the lifesaving research that will make a profound difference
in many lives in the future.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
3, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. Seventy-two percent of
Americans and a bi-partisan majority of Congress strongly support
embryonic stem cell research. The research could prove to improve the
lives and ease the suffering of the over 100 million Americans who have
juvenile diabetes, ALS, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, cancer, heart
disease, spinal cord injury, muscular dystrophy, and other diseases.
Parkinson's affects over 1 million people, including my close friend
and our colleague, former-Rep. Lane Evans. During his time in Congress,
Lane was dedicated to advancing stem cell research because he
understands what it is like to struggle with an incapacitating disease,
and he understands the hope that embryonic stem cell research held. Why
would we want to destroy that hope?
I would like to thank the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation and their
young advocates for all the work they have done to raise awareness
about the need to pursue embryonic stem cell research. The Juvenile
Diabetes Foundation recognizes the need to allow embryonic stem cell
research to transcend political lines and partisan fighting so that
critical gains can be made in medicine in America and millions of human
lives could be saved. I would also like to send a special thanks to my
friend, Bonnie Wilson, whose daughter has juvenile diabetes.
Since I have been in Congress, I have received an overwhelming number
of calls and letters from my constituents detailing their daily pain
and suffering from debilitating diseases. In March 2006, I received a
letter from my constituent Liz O'Malley. In her letter, she described
the daily struggles of her son, Seamus. Seamus has muscular dystrophy.
He is only 11-years old. Stem cell treatment may be his only hope. Why
would we want to destroy that hope?
The opponents of this measure wrongly portray the decision on funding
for additional stem cell research as a choice between one life or
another. In fact, we are choosing between disposing of embryonic stem
cells or using those cells to save countless lives and advance life-
saving science in previously unrealized ways. Embryonic stem cell
research offers the hope of a better life. It is incomprehensible that
anyone would allow politics and personal preference to trump hard facts
and science. They wrongly portray amniotic fluid stem cells as the only
legitimate form of stem cell research. While this method is promising,
it should not be the only type of stem cell research conducted. Every
type of stem cell is different, every type has a unique ability, and
none are a replacement for another. Any strides made in one form of
stem cell research may be essential to gains in another area. We must
not act to prevent embryonic stem cell research and dash the hopes of
so many families who are battling critical illnesses and disorders.
America has always been on the cutting edge of innovation and now we
stand on the brink of groundbreaking medical advancements that would
dramatically alter the lives of people such as Seamus. We must not
prohibit this promising research. States are already moving forward
with this research by committing public funds. Illinois has already
awarded $10 million in grant funding to research institutes and
hospitals because Governor Blagojavich recognizes the advances
embryonic stem cell research could make in science and medicine and the
great potential it holds. I urge my colleagues vote to ``yes'' on H.R.
3 and to follow the lead of Illinois and many other states and allow
for Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in
strong support of H.R. 3, providing for embryonic stem cell research.
The majority of Americans are in favor of stem cell research, as am
I.
Scientists in this country have been handcuffed by politicians who do
not trust them to conduct research in an ethical manner.
My colleagues, you have heard an argument that ``adult'' stem cells
have yielded greater benefits than ``embryonic'' stem cells in clinical
research.
The fact is that adult stem cells receive much more Federal funding,
while embryonic stem cells have received little.
It's not right for legislators or the President to be telling
scientists how to do their work. Researchers need freedom to pursue
science that yields benefits.
A vote for H.R. 3 is a vote for millions suffering from diabetes,
Parkinson's, and other diseases.
It is time to say ``no'' to the ultraconservative lobby that has
blockaded stem cell research for so long, and it is time for a change.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to section 509 of House Resolution 6, the bill is considered
read and the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Burgess
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. BURGESS. In its current form I am.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Burgess moves to recommit the bill (H.R. 3) to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
Page 4, line 11, strike the close quotation marks and the
period at the end and insert the following:
``(e) Preventing Federal Support for Human Cloning.--
``(1) Prohibition.--In conducting or supporting research
described in subsection (a), the Secretary may not award a
grant to, enter into a contract with, or provide any other
support to any entity (including any public or private entity
and any Federal, State, or local agency) for such research,
unless the entity provides assurances satisfactory to the
Secretary that--
``(A) the entity has not conducted or supported, and will
not conduct or support, any activity described in paragraph
(2) during any fiscal year for which the grant, contract, or
support is provided; and
``(B) any entity that controls, is controlled by, or is
under common control with such entity has not conducted or
supported, and will not conduct or support, any activity
described in paragraph (2) during any fiscal year for which
the grant, contract, or support is provided.
``(2) Activities.--The activities described in this
paragraph are any research utilizing all or part of human
embryonic stem cells from any cloned human.
``(f) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `asexual reproduction' means reproduction
not initiated by the union of oocyte and sperm.
``(2) The term `cloned human' means an organism produced by
human cloning.
``(3) The term `human cloning' means human asexual
reproduction, accomplished by introducing nuclear material
from one or more human somatic cells into a fertilized or
[[Page H390]]
unfertilized oocyte whose nuclear material has been removed
or inactivated so as to produce a living organism (at any
stage of development) that is genetically virtually identical
to an existing or previously existing human organism.
``(4) The term `human embryo or embryos' has the meaning
given to that term in section 509(b) of the Departments of
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 (Pub. L. 109-149; 119 Stat.
2833).
``(5) The term `human embryonic stem cell' means a cell
derived from a human embryo or embryos.
``(6) The term `somatic cell' means a diploid cell (having
a complete set of chromosomes) obtained or derived from a
living or deceased human body at any stage of development.''.
Mr. BURGESS (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes in support of his motion to recommit.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of discussion today,
and a lot of it good on both sides. I again remain disappointed we were
not allowed in our committee to fully investigate and understand some
of the new issues that surround this science.
I think it is extremely important to know that nothing that we have
done so far would preclude the cloning of human tissue, and that is
something that needs to be addressed.
{time} 1430
So for that, I have asked Dr. Dave Weldon to share some of his
thoughts with us on this subject.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this motion to recommit, and
I would encourage all of my colleagues to vote for it. Why are we
offering this motion to recommit? It is really very, very simple. This
institution, the House of Representatives, is previously on multiple
occasions on record being in opposition to human cloning, both human
cloning for the purpose of creating a baby and human cloning for the
purpose of creating embryos for research purposes.
Why do we bring this up? Why do we offer this motion to recommit in
its current form? Well, it is very, very simple. Some of the labs that
are going to get the money under this bill are currently pursuing an
agenda of human cloning. I would encourage you all to go to the Harvard
medical school Web site. You can pull this down. I have it right here.
I would be very interested to share it with any of my colleagues how
they are pursuing, through the process that they refer to as Somatic
Cell Nuclear Transfer, which is human cloning, an agenda to create
disease-specific cell lines for embryonic stem cells. That is their
agenda through the process of cloning.
Now, we are on record wanting to make it illegal, make it criminal,
to do human cloning. This motion to recommit doesn't do that. This says
something much milder than that, and this is why I think most people in
this body should be very, very comfortable with this motion to
recommit. It simply says, we don't want to be using Federal dollars in
a lab that is engaging in human cloning. If we can't get through the
Senate a ban, a total ban on human cloning, at least let's make sure
that, as we move forward in this brave new world of using human embryos
in research and discarding them, that at least we are not incentivizing
cloning.
I commend my colleague from Texas and the staff for developing this
motion to recommit, and I would just again remind all of my colleagues,
we are out of step with the civilized world. Canada, France, Germany
and Italy have all completely banned embryo cloning. All the other G-8
countries have serious restrictions on it. This is a restriction on
human cloning, a simple, mild restriction that we won't allow Federal
dollars to be going to a lab that is doing cloning.
Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman from Florida. I will yield any
time remaining to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman for yielding and appreciate
the privilege to address this subject matter.
This motion to recommit is a motion about cloning. Many of the other
civilized nations in the world have taken a position against cloning.
This Congress has taken a position against cloning, but there isn't a
way in the laboratory to move forward with these experiments on embryos
without cloning.
We are asking for a moral standard here. The people say, on the one
side of this argument, No, we're opposed to human cloning; we think
that's abhorrent to us; that that is ethically something that we're
opposed to. This motion to recommit allows a Member to take that stand
and put that vote up and say, I'm opposed to cloning, whatever you
believe about the research that is involved here.
Mr. FEENEY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KING of Iowa. I would yield.
Mr. FEENEY. I would say to my friend, Mr. King, yesterday in the bill
there was a discriminatory provision that favored or discriminated for
or against some territories or States as opposed to others in the
minimum wage bill. Is there anything that the gentleman is aware of in
this bill that would discriminate in terms of Federal funding for human
cloning, helping some territories and treating some States and
territories different from one another as, unbeknownst to the Members,
occurred yesterday in the minimum wage bill?
Mr. KING of Iowa. Yesterday what happened in the minimum wage bill
seemed to be discriminatory for some reasons that I think we all know.
I am not aware that there is a political subdivision, a geographical
area or even a subdivision of some university that might have
assisted----
Mr. FEENEY. Is it theoretically possible that people in American
Samoa who do not make minimum wage----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida will suspend.
The gentleman from Iowa has the time. If he wants him again to yield,
he should ask him to yield, not simply speak.
Mr. FEENEY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KING of Iowa. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from
Florida.
Mr. FEENEY. Is it theoretically conceivable if yesterday's minimum
wage exemption for American Samoa becomes law and today's bill passes
that people that make less than the minimum wage in American Samoa will
be doing with Federal funds embryonic stem cell research?
Mr. KING of Iowa. I would say that I am not aware of a circumstance
like that, of whether there happens to be a geographical area or a
political subdivision or an interest that might be from a university
that could be part of this bill.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, this motion does not ban human cloning. It
does not ban reproductive cloning. What it is, is a desperate attempt
to derail ethical scientific research on embryonic stem cell research,
which is unrelated.
Not a single person in this House supports reproductive cloning. But
again, the motion doesn't ban reproductive cloning. What it does is it
says, if you are an entity conducting research on Somatic Cell Nuclear
Transfer, which is a way to look at these cells, with private dollars,
not even with public dollars, you will be prevented from receiving
Federal funding for conducting embryonic stem cell research. This will,
frankly, tie the hands of some of the preeminent research entities in
the world from conducting this life-saving research.
The motion is a thinly veiled attempt to define human life in a
manner that can have profound implications beyond the issues raised in
H.R. 3. It contains vague terms like ``assurances'' and undefined terms
such as ``satisfaction of the Secretary.''
What the frank intent of this motion is, is to gut H.R. 3 by
strapping it with undefined standards and terms that are extraneous to
the bill. The motion is a procedural vote without meaning. It is a
ruse, a red herring designed to frighten, to obfuscate and to distract.
We all think that banning reproductive cloning is important, and that
is
[[Page H391]]
why the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee has assured me
that he will examine this issue further to see what legislation we can
do to protect ourselves.
And I will finally say, I do not know of one research institution
which would be eligible for Federal funds through the NIH under H.R. 3
that is conducting any experiments or attempts for human reproductive
cloning; it is unethical, and our research institutions are not engaged
in these efforts.
Rather than a sincere attempt to legislate on matters of great
importance, this motion is partisan, and it should be defeated.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I plan to vote ``no'' on this motion, I
strongly encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.''
And I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman
from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado.
This motion is a poison pill in the greatest way, and it goes a
little beyond the normal poison pill. It has basically been designed by
those who would oppose the legislation in a way of trying to knock it
out because they know very well we have the votes for it on the floor
here today. But it goes beyond that; it actually eliminates part of the
research which may be essential in the implanting of the embryonic stem
cells eventually in a human being called Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer,
which really doesn't relate ultimately to the human reproductive
cloning.
I have discussed introducing legislation, I have co-sponsored
legislation in the past on banning reproductive cloning. I happen to
believe in that, with the gentlewoman from Colorado, we both believe in
that very strongly; but the bottom line is that we need to be able to
develop the research on embryonic stem cells in every way we possibly
can.
Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer is currently legal. It is just not
funded by the Federal Government. This bill does not fund SCNT in any
way whatsoever.
The motion to recommit is shortsighted. It is very damaging to any
possible future research. It should be opposed by anybody who plans to
vote for this legislation. And I would hope that 100 percent of the
individuals who are going to vote for our bill are going to oppose the
motion to recommit which is being presented here today.
I think in the names of those who are supportive of it, be it Senator
Hatch or Nancy Reagan or Michael J. Fox or a lot of other people, but
particularly all those people out there who are ill, who have some
hope, and that is what it is, it is hope, will make absolutely sure
that we do not vote for the motion to recommit, that we defeat it and
then, right after that, we go on to pass the legislation which is so
important and vital for the future of health of people in America.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to hear the remarks of
the gentlelady from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) when she inferred that the
vote on the motion to recommit was not a substantive or amendatory
vote. This is simply not the case. The motion to recommit has been held
as the opposition's, traditionally the Minority's, last opportunity to
perfect the bill prior to its adoption. The motion to recommit was
often denied the Republicans when they were in the Minority prior to
1995. When the Republicans took the majority in the 104th Congress we
had promised to protect the Minority's right to offer the motion to
recommit and we kept our promise by instituting a rules change which
prohibited the Rules Committee from denying that motion.
And to simply make the point more clear that a motion to recommit is
a substantive amendatory vote, I would like to refer the gentlelady to
page H210 of the Congressional Record dated January 9, 2007. There she
will find a series of parliamentary inquiries directed to the Chair by
the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hensarling. In one of the inquiries the
gentleman from Texas specifically asks the Chair, Does the special
order provide for the consideration of any amendments? To which the
Speaker replied, ``By way of the motion to recommit.'' So, unless the
gentlelady would like to overturn the ruling of the Chair, clearly the
motion to recommit is amendatory and therefore highly substantive.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on
the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-minute votes on passage,
if ordered; and on the motion to suspend the rules on H. Res. 15.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 189,
nays 238, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 19]
YEAS--189
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costello
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--238
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Ellison
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
[[Page H392]]
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--8
Bishop (GA)
Buyer
Davis, Lincoln
Hastert
Miller, Gary
Norwood
Radanovich
Westmoreland
{time} 1502
Mr. BISHOP of New York changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. YOUNG of Alaska, REGULA, and ROHRABACHER changed their vote
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 19, on Motion to Recommit
with Instructions (H.R. 3), had I been present, I would have voted
``yea.''
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. BURGESS. Parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Frank of Massachusetts). The gentleman
from Texas may state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, would it be in order to inquire where we
are in the 100 hours time? I see it is 3 o'clock in the afternoon; in
Texas, that is 2 o'clock.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is the
Speaker pro tempore, not the timekeeper.
The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 253,
noes 174, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 20]
AYES--253
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Calvert
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ellison
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heller
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKeon
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reichert
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rohrabacher
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--174
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costello
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Lincoln
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellsworth
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Kaptur
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Rahall
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Walberg
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
NOT VOTING--8
Bishop (GA)
Buyer
Gilchrest
Hastert
Miller, Gary
Norwood
Radanovich
Westmoreland
{time} 1511
Mr. MELANCON changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 20, on passage of H.R. 3,
had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
____________________