[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15770-15772]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                      EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to come to the well tonight to 
talk a little bit about an issue that has gotten a lot of attention 
here on the floor, lots of talk and lots of rhetoric, and that is the 
whole question of embryonic stem cell research. I am a physician and I 
know firsthand about taking care of these people; I know about health 
and the issues of morality, and I have devoted my life to trying to 
improve the health and well-being of individuals, both in the Congress 
and in the legislature, as well as in my office.
  As a physician, I was trained almost 40 years ago, and I am amazed by 
the medical progress which has occurred over the last few decades. It 
is hard to believe that in 1924, the President of the United States' 
son died because he was playing tennis, he developed a blister on his 
heel, got an infection, and died. That certainly was before 
antibiotics; it could not happen today. The last 50 years have seen an 
absolute explosion of medical technology and knowledge in this whole 
arena.
  In the new millennium, the issue that is of the most importance and 
the most promise is the whole area of stem cells. These are the most 
primary, primitive cells in the human body that start out as one cell 
and they become human beings. When we think about the things that can 
be done with stem cells, the possibilities are unlimited, although our 
knowledge is limited at this point.

                              {time}  2350

  We have to be able to imagine a day when somebody like Lou Gehrig 
would have a stem cell treatment that would allow him to live. People 
like that are hopeless at this point, and stem cell research gives them 
some hope. I have taken care of people like this, with Parkinson's 
disease, with Lou Gehrig's disease, Huntington's Chorea, paralysis, 
blindness, diabetes, and spinal cord injuries.
  I put this picture up of Christopher Reeve, Superman, who was riding 
a horse, broke his neck, and is now paralyzed. This young girl next to 
him is also paralyzed. These are the people we are talking about 
finding some help for. Right now, there is no help for either one of 
them, no hope that they will ever be able to walk again.
  Stem cells, as I say, are the most undifferentiated cells. When given 
the proper signals, they become any specialized cell in the body: 
brain, blood, liver, lung. The opportunities are unlimited.
  There are three sources of these stem cells: adult stem cells; that 
is, stem cells we would get out of my body or any other adult's body 
that are operating in the bone marrow to produce blood or something 
like that; fetal stem cells, that is in babies that are in the womb 
and/or developing fetuses that are in the womb and for one reason or 
another are born either naturally or some other way because of an 
elective procedure; or the third way is from embryos.
  Now, how does an embryo come about? People sort of say, where do they 
come from? Our research right now under the National Institutes of 
Health in embryonic research is controlled by very strict guidelines. 
This administration stepped in and stopped what has been going on in 
this country for the last 8 years.
  The question we have to ask ourselves is, why is this? Now, my belief 
is that it has nothing to do with science, it really is a moratorium on 
for political reasons. Let me explain why I say that.
  The embryonic stem cells come from in vitro fertilization clinics. 
There are people out there who try to have children in the normal 
manner and it does not work, so they go to a clinic, and the woman goes 
through a procedure by which she creates a number of eggs. They are 
extracted from her body and put in a test tube. The man puts his semen 
in the test tube, and we start a baby to develop.
  Now, that baby, the doctor harvests, and that is the term they use, 
harvests three eggs, so you have three test tubes. You put these eggs 
in there and you fertilize them and you start out a child.
  When the time comes for the woman to get pregnant, they take one of 
those and put it in the woman's uterus, and hopefully it takes. If the 
first one takes, we now only have two left. The question is, what do we 
do with those? We can throw them away, or we can let them be used for 
this research.
  My belief is that the possibilities are so great that we must 
continue this research. Throughout history, people have resisted 
scientific advancement. History is replete with examples of 
fundamentalist, religious leaders issuing scientific decisions based on 
absolutely no evidence.
  I want to talk today about embryonic stem cell research. There has 
been a lot of rhetoric

[[Page 15771]]

out there denying its therapeutic potential, questioning its morality, 
focusing on adult stem cells, and so on.
  I am a physician. I know first-hand about health and morality. I have 
devoted my life to improving the health and well-being of people--on an 
individual level as a practicing physician, and through health policy--
both in the Washington State legislature and here in Congress.
  As a physician who trained roughly 40 years ago, I am amazed by the 
medical progress just over the past few decades. In the first half of 
this century, an infected blister could kill, as it did to President 
Coolidge's 16-year-old son in 1924, following a tennis match at the 
White House. The last 50 years have borne witness to such an explosion 
of scientific and medical advances that have saved countless lives and 
alleviated human suffering.
  As we enter the new millennium, stem cell research is the wave of the 
future in biomedical research.
  So much of what I learned in medical school has changed. The 
untreatable afflictions can be treated, if we just allow science to 
progress. Imagine the day when Lou Gehrig's Disease is not associated 
with a miserable and certain death. Think about diabetic children no 
longer requiring multiple pin-pricks throughout each and every day for 
the rest of his/her life in order to survive. Picture paralyzed 
individuals standing up and walking away from their wheelchairs.
  I have taken care of patients with many of these afflictions. I have 
friends who have suffered and some that have died.
  Embryonic stem cell research offers unprecedented promise for these 
and so many devastating diseases and disabilities--Parkinson's disease, 
ALS, Huntington's Chorea, paralysis, blindness, diabetes--the list is 
endless. Stem cells are undifferentiated cells, which, given the proper 
signal, are potentially capable of becoming any specialized cell, such 
as a brain or blood cell. As such, their potential for saving lives is 
unlimited.
  There are three sources of stem cells--adult, fetal and embryo. Under 
the Clinton Administration, the National Institutes of Health issued 
explicit guidelines for research involving stem cells derived from 
embryos. The guidelines provide stringent requirements that enable 
scientists to conduct stem cell research within the constraints of 
careful federal oversight and standards.
  Currently, the administration has placed a moratorium on these NIH 
guidelines and is deciding whether or not to shut the doors on the most 
promising biomedical research of our time.
  Throughout history, people have resisted scientific advancement. 
History is replete with examples of fundamentalist, religious leaders 
issuing scientific decisions based on absolutely no evidence. It is 
deja vu all over again today with this current Administration as they 
inject politics into the single most promising biomedical research of 
the century.
  The Administration unfortunately is not committed to research that 
would hasten medical discoveries, but rather holds science hostage to 
the Catholic vote. As several New York Times articles report, Karl 
Rove, the president's chief political adviser is concerned about the 
views of the Catholic Church because Catholic voters are seen as such a 
swing vote in the elections. The Administration has degraded medical 
research and the tremendous potential of embryonic stem cell research 
into an anti-abortion debate.
  We cannot allow the current Administration to withdraw federal 
support for embryonic stem cell research. It is unconscionable that 
purely political considerations are obstructing medical discoveries 
that could help the 120,000 children and one million adults with Type I 
diabetes; the 500,000 individuals suffering from Parkinson's disease; 
the 200,000 living day-to-day with the disabling effects of spinal 
chord injuries; and millions more.
  Without a microscope, one cannot even see what this debate is all 
about. The center of the controversy is a microscopic, days old cluster 
of cells--this is the embryo.
  It is stored in this test tube. It is an egg fertilized by a sperm 
and stored frozen in one of these--is this life?
  I have a question for those who oppose embryonic stem cell research 
on supposedly ``moral grounds''--if you were to pass a home that was on 
fire and there was a seven year old child in this home, would you risk 
your life to save that child? I imagine the answer would be yes. If, on 
the other hand, you passed a fertility clinic that was on fire, would 
you risk your life to save an embryo? Save one of these test tube?
  Embryonic stem cells are developmentally the earliest of all stem 
cells, and, therefore, they have the greatest potential to become 
different body cells--greater than adult stem cells. The embryonic stem 
cell is a unique type of cell that holds the key to cures for so many 
devastating diseases and afflictions. This is perhaps the first time 
ever that a solitary source offers so much promise for a multitude of 
different illnesses.
  Limiting crucial research to adult stem cells, a position suggested 
by the White House and many of my colleagues, is foolishly 
shortsighted. In fact, the general consensus shared among numerous 
scientists at a recent National Academy of Science workshop on stem 
cells was that the evidence for the broad potential of adult stem cells 
is at best scant.
  Despite some reports of success, it is certainly unclear whether 
adult stem cells have the same promise as embryonic stem cells. First 
of all, cells for all tissue types have not yet been found in the adult 
human. Second, genetic disorders would be present in the patient's 
adult stem cells. Third, all evidence suggests that adult stem cells 
lack the same capacity to multiply as do embryonic stem cells.
  Another compromise suggested by the White House would permit such 
research but limit it to the very few cell lines already in existence. 
Not only is this utterly foolish because there is not nearly enough 
cell lines to make a significant contribution, but it is also 
hypocritical. These cell lines were most likely not derived in 
compliance with the NIH guidelines. As the administration is seemingly 
preoccupied with the morality and ethics of this subject, they may end 
up advocating research on cell lines that were most likely not derived 
with any ethical oversight.
  Another one of my colleagues has been circulating a Dear Colleague 
that suggests there is another alternative--that it is possible to 
remove the embryonic stem cell without destroying the embryo. He refers 
to a conference attended to by Members and staff at NIH. I was at that 
conference. The scientists made it abundantly clear that we lack this 
technology today, and rather, it is years away. We do not have years to 
waste while we wait.
  Some of my colleagues have tried to convince us that there is no 
clinical evidence to support human embryonic stem cell research. Well 
of course not, there is a federal moratorium on the research! These 
cells were only recently isolated, the first grant applications were 
due at NIH last March, and then the administration placed everything on 
hold. If they ever allow the research to proceed with full urgency, 
there will be clinical success.
  Furthermore, my colleagues are regrettably misleading and not up-to-
date with the scientific literature. There are in fact numerous studies 
using animal models that demonstrate the tremendous therapeutic promise 
of embryonic stem cells. These findings challenge much of what I 
learned in medical school. For instance, medical dogma for decades 
accepted no hope for so many neurological disorders.
  For example, scientists have been able to transform embryonic stem 
cells derived from mice into the type of neuron that is defective with 
Parkinson's disease. We know that these neurons work when placed in 
animals. That is, when these neurons, which were originally derived 
from embryonic stem cells, are injected into an animal model of 
Parkinson's, the animal improves.
  Have any doubts? Here is the scientific paper that describes these 
promising results.
  Similarly, researchers have transformed embryonic stem cells into the 
cell which, when defective causes MS. When this cell was implanted into 
an animal model with MS, the abnormality was repaired.
  And here is a scientific paper that demonstrates those findings.
  Both of these examples demonstrate the therapeutic potential of 
embryonic stem cells. Researchers have taken embryonic stem cells and 
turned them into a desired cell that works. These cells are implanted 
into animal models with different illnesses, and the animals get 
better.
  Lets turn to diabetes. This paper describes a study whereby embryonic 
stem cells are transformed into pancreatic islet stem cells. These 
islet cells responded to sugar in the right way by producing insulin.
  For those who say the evidence is lacking, I say, get your head out 
of the sand. The evidence most definitely is out there.
  The prevailing expert scientific opinion supports a thorough 
investigation of stem cells from all sources. Even the recently 
released NIH report recognized the unique potential of embryonic stem 
cells. But for the White house, it is not about advancing scientific 
discovery. Instead, their concern for the ``swing vote'' is their modus 
operandi. For them, this debate is unfortunately about the next 
election.
  Embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that are produced 
during in vitro fertilization, a process that creates many more 
fertilized eggs than are implanted into women trying to become 
pregnant. Unused embryos

[[Page 15772]]

are stored frozen in test tubes and eventually thrown away. Embryonic 
stem cell research would use only these excess embryos, obtained from 
fertility clinics and with consent from the donors.
  In other words, if the research were not performed, these embryos 
would be discarded. And how many embryos would be ``saved'' if the 
research did not take place? The answer is none. Opponents argue for 
embryonic adoption. But for the most part, the vast majority of couples 
do not want to donate their genes to strangers. No policy made in the 
White House or in Congress will result in these couples changing their 
minds.
  Thus, we are having a debate over whether to perform life-saving 
research or to dispose of the embryos and abandon the greatest hope for 
a cure for so many devastating illnesses.
  Those opposed to embryonic stem cell research assert that their 
position is based on ethical and moral grounds. But what is so ethical 
or moral about prohibiting research to alleviate human suffering? It is 
utterly hypocritical and outrageous that the opposition remains silent 
over the fact that these embryos are thrown away in fertility clinics, 
but conveys such fury over saving them to perform vital life-saving 
research.
  How can we compare the importance of a group of cells smaller than 
the dot at the end of this sentence with the poor quality of life and 
decreased life expectancy for young children with insulin-dependent 
diabetes? In fact, it is completely amoral to deny access to the single 
most promising research of today.
  The Administration lacks support from many members of its own party, 
with several conservative pro-life Republicans openly supportive of 
embryonic stem cell research. When Orin Hatch insists that a frozen 
embryo stored in a refrigerator in a clinic is not equivalent to an 
embryo or a fetus in the womb, the Administration's facade of having a 
commitment to promote innovative medical research is completely 
undermined.
  Banning federal funding for such embryonic stem cell research would 
not eliminate it. Ironically, such research would then take place in 
the private market without the benefit of ethical regulation. Under the 
Clinton Administration, the National Institute of Health issued 
explicit guidelines for embryonic stem cell research. The guidelines 
provide stringent requirements that enable scientists to conduct 
research within the constraints of careful federal oversight.
  Prohibiting federal support for embryonic stem cell research will 
severely impede medical progress. Federal support is critical because 
it would greatly expand resources. Not only would the government 
provide crucial funding, but public support also enables multiple 
parties to simultaneously pursue critical research, thereby increasing 
the chances for significant discoveries over a shorter period of time. 
Without federal support, scientific advances would be held hostage to 
exclusivity rights held by a single entity in the private market.
  Furthermore, very few NIH grants were received this past March 
because investigators fear that the guidelines will be overturned. 
Without federal support, scientists who work with embryonic stem cells 
must create a separate lab for such work if they hope to ever receive 
NIH grants for other areas of research. This is to avoid the 
possibility of ``contaminating'' equipment for sanctioned research with 
that of embryonic stem cell research. The ramifications of banning this 
research will therefore be felt in scientific discoveries far beyond 
the stem cell debate.
  Actually, we are already witnessing the consequences, as the exodus 
of our best and brightest minds has begun. A few weeks ago, UCSF 
(University of California at San Francisco) lost a leading stem cell 
researcher who moved to Cambridge, England. He left so that he can 
proceed with his work. As the university's chancellor for medical 
affairs said: ``If federal support for stem cell research is not 
forthcoming, the risk exists that talented scientists will leave 
academic centers to seek opportunities in the private sector or even 
overseas.''
  America has been on the forefront of scientific discovery. The 
administration is jeopardizing our position and taking us several steps 
backward to assuage the fundamentalist attitudes of the minority.
  The White House is currently ``reviewing'' the matter; in other 
words, they are assessing the polls and the impact of any decision on 
the 2004 elections. It is not secret that Mr. Rove has consulted the 
National Conference of Catholic Bishops on this issue. Enough time has 
been wasted. The Administration must act now to separate political 
aspirations from scientific discovery.
  ``A responsible leader is someone who makes decisions based upon 
principle, not based upon polls or focus groups.'' The New York Times 
reminds us that President Bush spoke these words a few days before 
Election Day. Perhaps someone should remind the President.
  I implore my colleagues and this administration to support embryonic 
stem cell research. Furthermore, I urge you to support my bill--``The 
Stem Cell Research Act of 2001'' (H.R. 2059). This bill not only 
supports this crucial research, but it also advocates for federal 
support of the derivation process itself. That is, instead of relying 
on private companies to derive the stem cells, we must support and fund 
this process as well.
  I want to close in the issue of morality. Here is a real-life picture 
of what we are talking about. This is a picture of an embryo, magnified 
several thousand times. This area here, between the 8 and 10 o`clock 
position is the area from which stem cells are obtained. It actually 
contains about 100 cells. There are more cells in a drop of blood from 
a pin-prick than there are in this one section of the photo.
  And here is Mr. Christopher Reeve with a young child--both of whom 
who were tragically paralyzed.
  Are we going to ignore Mr. Reeve and this child? I fervently believe 
that the moral obligation is to help these individuals and the millions 
of Americans who are suffering from debilitating illnesses and 
disabilities. We must focus on those already born who urgently await 
medical progress.
  For the first time ever, cures for so many afflictions that 
historically have been considered hopeless are now on the horizon. The 
fact is that embryonic stem cells come from cells that were destined to 
be discarded in any case. It is high time to separate politics from 
science.

                          ____________________