Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act of 2007

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However, this Nation and, more importantly, our scientists are being held back by a policy that is out of date, short-sighted, arbitrary and, most of all, based on politics and not science.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.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

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. 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.)

At this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

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. 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

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

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. Speaker, I am delighted to yield now 2 minutes to the distinguished new Member from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished new Member from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire) for his maiden floor speech.

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. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished new Member from Ohio (Mr. Space).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

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. Speaker, I am now delighted to yield 2 minutes to another new Member, the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Patrick J. Murphy).

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. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished new Member from Florida (Mr. Klein).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished new Member from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to now yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Mitchell).

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. 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. 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. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from the Energy and Commerce Committee, my colleague, Ms. Eshoo, 2 minutes.

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. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Member from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the chairwoman of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California, a member of the committee, Mrs. Capps.

No. The gentleman can use his own time.

No. He can use his own time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield now 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio, Mrs. Tubbs Jones.

(Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished new Member from Wisconsin, Dr. Kagen.

Mr. Speaker, I am now very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguish gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire as to the time remaining on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I now recognize the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) for 1 minute.

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

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.)

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I don't disagree with a word that was just said.

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?

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that we withdraw the unanimous consent request of the gentleman from Ohio.

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.

Mr. Speaker, if it is appropriate, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

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. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

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. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.

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.)

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Linder.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Tim Murphy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

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. Speaker, I reserve my time.

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. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to the time that is left.

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. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

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. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. Speaker, it is now my great privilege to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, at this point I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished Member from Texas, Judge Lou Gohmert.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a new Member, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).