Mourning the passing of President Gerald Rudolph Ford and celebrating his leadership and service to the people of the United States.

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However, this Nation and, more importantly, our scientists are being held back by a policy that is out of date, short-sighted, arbitrary and, most of all, based on politics and not science.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

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, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It is a great pleasure once again to recognize the many accomplishments that President Ford had during his life, and I am pleased that we can spend more time this evening adding to the record we began early this afternoon.

Before I do that, I want to remind all Members to please take the time to go to the Cloakrooms and record their remembrances in the books that are displayed there. This will be very meaningful to Mrs. Ford and the family if we can do that, and I urge all Members to do that.

Mr. Speaker, before I proceed any further, I would like to yield to Mr. McCotter from Michigan for such time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to give a few vignettes of Jerry Ford that illustrate the type of man that he was.

We heard this afternoon when we discussed this on the floor that he had been active in supporting the Civil Rights Act that passed this House and the Senate some years ago. But this was not an out-of-the- ordinary thing for him. When he was a football player at the University of Michigan, and a very fine one, I might add, undoubtedly the finest athlete to ever occupy the White House, he was the captain of the football team. They were scheduled to play Georgia Tech. There was one African American football player on the Michigan football team, and Georgia Tech said we cannot allow a black player to play on the field at Georgia Tech.

When Gerald Ford heard that, he said I will not play either. I am simply not going to play if they will not let my friend, Ward, play. That was the type of person he was. It was not until his African American friend begged him to play that he finally conceded that he would play.

Another vignette is when he was elevated to the Presidency, we had a big party for him back in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and 5,000 people turned out for our little party. Person after person got up to the microphone and related experiences in their life where Jerry Ford had helped them, whether it was a matter of housing, of veterans benefits, getting medals for veterans. The list went on and on and on.

That accords with another thing that was told me by one of my fellow legislators at the time. He had become a Member of Congress and he said, Sometimes I cursed Jerry Ford. Because of the high standard of constituent service he provided, he said, we worked endlessly in our office to do as well as Jerry Ford and his staff did in his office.

Those are two examples. I have more, but I see that the majority leader has arrived, and I know he is anxious to speak on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to add a few more comments, little vignettes. We have had a lot of discussion today about the wonderful attributes of President Ford as a President, as a Vice President and as a Member of the House of Representatives. Indeed, he was a most gracious person and also a most capable and hardworking person. I appreciate the comments that Majority Leader Hoyer made which reflect very accurately what a wonderful person Mr. Ford was. But I want to add just a few examples from my hometown and my experience with him.

I, at one time, was the Chairman of the County Commission. This was at the time when we were erecting the Ford Museum in Grand Rapids. Of course, he was interested in that and came around regularly. He was retired from the Presidency at that time.

I recall walking down the street with Mr. Ford. I thought I knew quite a few people there, but walking down the street with him, even though he had not served in Congress for some 10 years at that time, people, of course, would greet him and say, ``Hi, Jerry, how are you doing?'' They all knew him. The amazing part to me was that he knew them, and he would say, ``Hi, Bob. Hi, Shirley. Hi, Jerry. How are you doing?''

Then another time we walked into the Amway Grand Plaza Hotel, which had been the Pantlind Hotel, and he had stayed there when he came back to Grand Rapids for visits and for meetings. We walked into the hotel lobby, and, of course, a number of people saw him and sort of mobbed him and kept talking to him.

I noticed a bellman standing off to the side, and it was clear to me that he wanted to speak to Mr. Ford but didn't dare to come up to this group of people. He just thought it wasn't proper. So I mentioned this to President Ford. I said, ``I think the bellman wants to talk to you.'' He said, ``Oh, good.'' So he marches over to him and says, ``Harry, how are you doing? It is good to see you again.'' I didn't know he had a personal relationship with him.

Then he said, ``By the way, I heard that your mother has cancer. Is that true? How is she doing?'' He then had a 10-minute conversation with this young man about his mother and her health and what had gone on. I am curious how many ex-Presidents would take the time to do that for a bellman that they had known in the past?

Similarly, the first time he went to the White House as President and a reporter I know was following him, and as he approached the White House, of course, the Marines stood erect, opened the doors and stood at attention. He came up and held out his hand and said, ``Hi, I am Jerry Ford. I am going to be living here. What is your name?'' The reporter talked to the Marines at the door after that and said, ``Have you ever had that before?'' One said, ``No, I have been here for several years, and the previous President has never even looked at me.'' But, again, that was characteristic of Mr. Ford.

One final little note. I first got acquainted with him, I am a nuclear scientist, as most of you know. I had moved from Berkley, California, where I got my Ph.D., and I was teaching at

Calvin College. I heard a speech at a national convention from a Congressman who said, ``It is terrible. We don't have any scientists in the Congress. We don't have any scientific advice.'' He said, ``I urge you to contact your Member of Congress to see if you can help them by giving scientific advice.''

So I took the gentleman at his word. I sent a letter to Congressman Ford and said, ``I am a scientist. I have heard there is not much scientific advice there. I would be happy to help you in any way I can.''

I dropped the letter in the mailbox, and my first thought was, I would get a nice response that said: Thank you for your comments. We will keep you in mind if we ever need you. But in fact, Mr. Ford was excited about it. The day they got the letter, his chief of staff called me and said, ``Jerry is very excited with this and would like to meet with you.''

So I met with him. I established a science advisory committee, and we met with him quarterly to advise him on scientific matters. What struck me was he was extremely interested in the meetings and in what we were saying, but also very, very quick on catching on to the scientific terms and issues we were discussing, much more so than the average lay person would be able to catch on. So it was a real pleasure for us.

But one day after a meeting, I said, ``Mr. Ford, I don't quite understand, because you come back to Grand Rapids, you spend all day in meetings, you spend an hour or hour and a half in a meeting with us just because we want you to know more about science,'' and I said, ``You really seem to enjoy it. Doesn't it get tiresome sometimes?''

He put his arm around my shoulder and he said, ``Vern, one thing you have to recognize: Everyone else I meet with is asking for something. You are the only group I meet with that is offering me something.''

I have never forgotten that, and it really gave a lot of meaning to me when I got here in Congress and found out that is true. Almost everyone that walks through our office doors comes in asking for something, not trying to help. So I now appreciate more fully why he appreciated our help.

These are just a few instances of what a wonderful human being President Ford was, how he related to the people around him, how he was concerned about the people around him and really sought to do what was best for them and what was best for this country. He was a terrific model for the rest of us and for me myself, and I have always tried to serve the people as well as he has.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I have no further comments, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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.)