Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. I want to congratulate the chairman and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis) for their leadership.

What we are doing with this legislation is that we are celebrating life and we are celebrating science. Our debate today and this bill, this bill is so very important because it is not often that politicians get it right when dealing with health care or science. I know. As a physician I have seen government inject itself in places it ought not go and spend countless dollars on fanciful and distorted claims. However, H.R. 2520 will save lives and improve the quality of life for millions. And I know this because it will increase the use of a science that has already been proven.

As a new Member of Congress, I am proud to stand before you and lend my support to a positive and productive piece of legislation that will bring sunlight to those who have experienced too many clouds, and it will do so in an unquestionable and ethical manner.

I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis) for their persistence, their cooperation, and their leadership.

Mr. Speaker, as a physician, I know that respected scientists believe that misrepresentations and exaggerated claims in this debate are not only scientifically irresponsible, they are deceptive and cruel to millions of patients and their families who hope desperately for cures.

It seems to me that there is one unmistakable fact. Many in our society have sincere, heartfelt, passionate, ethical questions, worthy of our respect, regarding the scientific or medical use of embryonic stem cells. If our goal is truly to cure diseases and help patients, science tells us that today the use of adult and cord stem cells has successfully treated or holds real potential for treating nearly 60 diseases. The same cannot be said for embryonic stem cells, and adult stem cells carry none of the ethical questions or dilemma of embryonic stem cells.

I support stem cell research, active, aggressive and scientifically based, with respect for the difficult ethical questions we face today. I urge my colleagues to join me in respecting science, in respecting ethical concerns. If we do, we will recognize that stem cell research and treatment of disease should actively proceed with those adult and cord stem cells that are providing and will increasingly provide excellent and exciting cures for patients in need.

Mr. Speaker, as a physician I'm certain of one thing: Science is not Republican or Democrat, Science is not conservative or liberal. Science is science. Decisions in science should be based on the scientific method--a standardized method of evaluation and implementation of a solution or treatment of a disease.

When followed, it allows for the greatest amount of critical thinking about any issue. If followed, it results in the best outcome. This would be true in public policy as well. If not followed in a legislative body, then decisions tend to be made based upon who has the largest group of supporters or greatest passion and emotion. Now there is nothing wrong with numbers, passion or emotion, it just may not get you to the correct solution--especially in the scientific arena.

There has been significant misrepresentation of science today and in this debate, because ``science is not a policy or a political program. Science is a systematic method for developing and testing hypotheses about the physical world. It does not promise miracle cures based on scanty evidence. . . . statements . . . made regarding the purported medical applications of embryonic stem cells reach far beyond any credible evidence, ignoring the limited state of our knowledge about embryonic stem cells and the advances in other areas of research that may render use of these cells unnecessary for many applications. To make such exaggerated claims, at

this stage of our knowledge, is not only scientifically irresponsible-- it is deceptive and cruel to millions of patients and their families who hope desperately for cures and have come to rely on the scientific community for accurate information. . . . Non-embryonic stem cells'' on the other hand have a history ``very different from that of embryonic stem cells.'' Cord and adult stem cells are ``Producing undoubted clinical benefits and . . . (b) one marrow transplants'' have benefited ``patients with various forms of cancer for many years before it was understood that the active ingredients in these transplants are stem cells. . . . Use of these cells poses no serious ethical problem, and may avoid all problems of tissue rejection if stem cells can be obtained from a patient for use in that same patient. . . . In contrast to embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells are in established or experimental use to treat human patients with several dozen conditions. . . . They have been or are being assessed in human trials for treatment of spinal cord injury, Parkinson's disease, stroke, cardiac damage, multiple sclerosis,'' juvenile diabetes ``and so on. . . .

``Therefore . . . to declare that'' embryonic stem cell research ``will . . . receive any particular amount of federal funding, regardless of future evidence or the usual scientific peer review process--is . . . irresponsible. It is, in fact, a subordination of science to ideology.

``Because politicians, biotechnology interests and even some scientists have publicly exaggerated the ``promise'' of embryonic stem cells, public perceptions of this avenue have become skewed and unrealistic. Politicians may hope to benefit from these false hopes to win elections. . . . The scientific and medical professions have no such luxury. When desperate patients discover that they have been subjected to a salesman's pitch rather than an objective and candid assessment of possibilities, we have reason to fear public backlash against the credibility of our profession. We urge you not to exacerbate this problem now by repeating false promises that exploit patients' hopes for political gain.''

I have quoted from a letter signed by 57 scientists--MD's and PhD's-- written during last year's presidential campaign. It expressed real concern about a cavalier public posture and policy during a debate on such a sensitive ethical matter.

It seems to me that there is one unmistakable fact: Many in our society have sincere, heartfelt, passionate, ethical questions, worthy of our respect, regarding the scientific or medical use of ES cells.

If our goal is truly to cure diseases and help patients, science tells us that today the use of adult and cord stem cells has successfully treated or holds real potential for treating nearly 60 diseases. The same cannot be said for ES cells.

And adult stem cells carry none of the ethical questions or dilemma of ES cells.

I support stem cell research--active, aggressive, scientifically based--with respect for the difficult ethical questions we face today.

I urge my colleagues to join me in respecting current science--in respecting ethical concerns. If we do, we will recognize that stem cell research and treatment of disease should actively proceed with those adult and cord stem cells that are providing and will increasingly provide excellent and exciting cures for patients in need.

October 27, 2004.

Senator John F. Kerry,

John Kerry for President, Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Kerry: Recently you have made the promotion of

embryonic stem cell research, including the cloning of human

embryos for research purposes, into a centerpiece of your

campaign. You have said you will make such research a ``top

priority'' for government, academia and medicine (Los Angeles

Times, 10/17/04). You have even equated support for this

research with respect for ``science,'' and said that science

must be freed from ``ideology'' to produce miracle cures for

numerous diseases.

As professionals trained in the life sciences we are

alarmed at these statements.

First, your statements misrepresent science. In itself,

science is not a policy or a political program. Science is a

systematic method for developing and testing hypotheses about

the physical world. It does not ``promise'' miracle cures

based on scanty evidence. When scientists make such

assertions, they are acting as individuals, out of their own

personal faith and hopes, not as the voice of ``science''. If

such scientists allow their individual faith in the future of

embryonic stem cell research to be interpreted as a reliable

prediction of the outcome of this research, they are acting

irresponsibly.

Second, it is no mere ``ideology'' to be concerned about

the possible misuse of humans in scientific research. Federal

bioethics advisory groups, serving under both Democratic and

Republican presidents, have affirmed that the human embryo is

a developing form of human life that deserves respect. Indeed

you have said that human life begins at conception, that

fertilization produces a ``human being.'' To equate concern

for these beings with mere ``ideology'' is to dismiss the

entire history of efforts to protect human subjects from

research abuse.

Third, the statements you have made regarding the purported

medical applications of embryonic stem cells reach far beyond

any credible evidence, ignoring the limited state of our

knowledge about embryonic stem cells and the advances in

other areas of research that may render use of these cells

unnecessary for many applications. To make such exaggerated

claims, at this stage of our knowledge, is not only

scientifically irresponsible--it is deceptive and cruel to

millions of patients and their families who hope desperately

for cures and have come to rely on the scientific community

for accurate information.

What does science tell us about embryonic stem cells? The

facts can be summed up as follows:

At present these cells can be obtained only by destroying

live human embryos at the blastocyst (4-7 days old) stage.

They proliferate rapidly and are extremely versatile,

ultimately capable (in an embryonic environment) of forming

any kind of cell found in the developed human body. Yet

there is scant scientific evidence that embryonic stem

cells will form normal tissues in a culture dish, and the

very versatility of these cells is now known to be a

disadvantage as well--embryonic stem cells are difficult

to develop into a stable cell line, spontaneously

accumulate genetic abnormalities in culture, and are prone

to uncontrollable growth and tumor formation when placed

in animals.

Almost 25 years of research using mouse embryonic stem

cells have produced limited indications of clinical benefit

in some animals, as well as indications of serious and

potentially lethal side-effects. Based on this evidence,

claims of a safe and reliable treatment for any disease in

humans are premature at best.

Embryonic stem cells obtained by destroying cloned human

embryos pose an additional ethical issue--that of creating

human lives solely to destroy them for research--and may pose

added practical problems as well. The cloning process is now

known to produce many problems of chaotic gene expression,

and this may affect the usefulness and safety of these cells.

Nor is it proven that cloning will prevent all rejection of

embryonic stem cells, as even genetically matched stem cells

from cloning are sometimes rejected by animal hosts. Some

animal trials in research cloning have required placing

cloned embryos in a womb and developing them to the fetal

stage, then destroying them for their more developed tissues,

to provide clinical benefit--surely an approach that poses

horrific ethical issues if applied to humans.

Non-embryonic stem cells have also received increasing

scientific attention. Here the trajectory has been very

different from that of embryonic stem cells: Instead of

developing these cells and deducing that they may someday

have a clinical use, researchers have discovered them

producing undoubted clinical benefits and then sought to

better understand how and why they work so they can be put to

more uses. Bone marrow transplants were benefiting patients

with various forms of cancer for many years before it was

understood that the active ingredients in these transplants

are stem cells. Non-embryonic stem cells have been discovered

in many unexpected tissues--in blood, nerve, fat, skin,

muscle, umbilical cord blood, placenta, even dental pulp--and

dozens of studies indicate that they are far more versatile

than once thought. Use of these cells poses no serious

ethical problem, and may avoid all problems of tissue

rejection if stem cells can be obtained from a patient for

use in that same patient. Clinical use of non-embryonic stem

cells has grown greatly in recent years. In contrast to

embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells are in established or

experimental use to treat human patients with several dozen

conditions, according to the National Institutes of Health

and the National Marrow Donor Program (Cong. Record,

September 9, 2004, pages H6956-7). They have been or are

being assessed in human trials for treatment of spinal cord

injury, Parkinson's disease, stroke, cardiac damage, multiple

sclerosis, and so on. The results of these experimental

trials will help us better assess the medical prospects for

stem cell therapies.

In the case of many conditions, advances are likely to come

from sources other than any kind of stem cell. For example,

there is a strong scientific consensus that complex diseases

such as Alzheimer's are unlikely to be treated by any stem

cell therapy. When asked recently why so many people

nonetheless believe that embryonic stem cells will provide a

cure for Alzheimer's disease, NIH stem cell expert Ron McKay

commented that ``people need a fairy tale'' (Washington Post,

June 10, 2004, page A3). Similarly, autoimmune diseases like

juvenile diabetes, lupus and MS are unlikely to benefit from

simple addition of new cells unless the underlying

problem--a faulty immune system that attacks the body's

own cells as though they were foreign invaders--is

corrected.

In short, embryonic stem cells pose one especially

controversial avenue toward understanding and (perhaps)

someday treating various degenerative diseases. Based on the

available evidence, no one can predict with certainty whether

they will ever produce clinical benefits--much less whether

they will produce benefits unobtainable by other, less

ethically problematic means.

Therefore, to turn this one approach into a political

campaign--even more, to declare that it will be a ``top

priority'' or receive

any particular amount of federal funding, regardless of

future evidence or the usual scientific peer review process--

is, in our view, irresponsible. It is, in fact, a

subordination of science to ideology.

Because politicians, biotechnology interests and even some

scientists have publicly exaggerated the ``promise'' of

embryonic stem cells, public perceptions of this avenue have

become skewed and unrealistic. Politicians may hope to

benefit from these false hopes to win elections, knowing that

the collision of these hopes with reality will come only

after they win their races. The scientific and medical

professions have no such luxury. When desperate patients

discover that they have been subjected to a salesman's pitch

rather than an objective and candid assessment of

possibilities, we have reason to fear a public backlash

against the credibility of our professions. We urge you not

to exacerbate this problem now by repeating false promises

that exploit patients' hopes for political gain.

Signed,

Rodney D. Adam, M.D., Professor of Medicine and

Microbiology/Immunology, University of Arizona College of

Medicine.

Michael J. Behe, Ph.D., Professor of Biological Sciences,

Lehigh University.

Thomas G. Benoit, Ph.D., Professor and Chairman of Biology,

McMurry University, Abilene, TX.

David L. Bolender, Ph.D., Department of Cell Biology,

Neurobiology and Anatomy, Medical College of Wisconsin.

Daniel L. Burden, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Chemistry,

Wheaton College.

William J. Burke, M.D., Ph.D., Professor in Neurology,

Associate Professor in Medicine, Associate Professor in

Neurobiology, Saint Louis University Medical Center.

Mark W. Burket, M.D., Professor of Medicine, Division of

Cardiology, Medical College of Ohio.

W. Malcolm Byrnes, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department

of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Howard University

College of Medicine.

Steven Calvin, M.D., Assistant Professor of OB/GYN and

Women's Health, Co-Chair, Program in Human Rights in

Medicine, University of Minnesota School of Medicine.

James Carroll, M.D., Professor of Neurology, Pediatrics,

and Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Medical College of

Georgia.

John R. Chaffee, M.D., Assistant Clinical Professor,

Department of Family Medicine, University of Washington.

Robert Chasuk, M.D., Clinical Assistant Professor,

Department of Family Medicine, Tulane University.

William P. Cheshire, Jr., M.D., Associate Professor of

Neurology, Mayo Clinic.

Richard A. Chole, M.D., Ph.D., Professor and Head of

Otolaryngology, Washington University in St. Louis, School of

Medicine.

Maureen L. Condic, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department

of Neurobiology and Anatomy, University of Utah School of

Medicine.

Keith A. Crist, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of

Surgery, Medical College of Ohio.

Keith A. Crutcher, Ph.D., Professor, Department of

Neurosurgery, University of Cincinnati Medical Center.

Frank Dennehy, M.D., FAAFP, Assistant Clinical Professor of

Family Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University.

Kenneth J. Dormer, M.S., Ph.D., Professor of Physiology,

University of Oklahoma College of Medicine.

Lawrence W. Elmer, M.D., Ph.D., Associate Professor, Dept.

of Neurology Director, Parkinson's Disease and Movement

Disorder Program, Medical Director, Center for Neurological

Disorders, Medical College of Ohio.

Kevin T. FitzGerald, SJ, Ph.D., David P. Lauler Chair in

Catholic Health Care Ethics, Research Associate Professor,

Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center.

Raymond F. Gasser, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Cell

Biology and Anatomy, Louisiana State University School of

Medicine.

Hans Geisler, M.D., Clinical Professor of Obstetrics and

Gynecology, Indiana University Medical Center.

Donald A. Godfrey, Ph.D., Professor of Otolaryngology,

Department of Surgery, Medical College of Ohio.

Samuel Hensley, M.D., Assistant Clinical Professor, School

of Medicine, University of Mississippi.

David C. Hess, M.D., Professor and Chairman, Department of

Neurology, Medical College of Georgia.

Paul J. Hoehner, M.D., MA, Ph.D., FAHA Associate Professor,

Department of Anesthesiology, The University of Virginia

School of Medicine.

C. Christopher Hook, M.D., Consultant in Hematology and

Internal Medicine, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Mayo

Clinic College of Medicine.

Elizabeth A. Johnson, M.D., Consultant, Hematology/

Oncology, Mayo Clinic Jacksonville Assistant Professor of

Oncology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine.

Nancy L. Jones, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Pathology,

Wake Forest University School of Medicine.

C. Ward Kischer, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor, Cell Biology

and Anatomy, Specialty in Human Embryology, University of

Arizona College of Medicine.

Kirsten J Lampi, M.S., Ph.D., Associate Professor of

Integrative Biosciences, School of Dentistry, Oregon Health

Sciences University.

John I. Lane, M.D., Assistant Professor of Radiology, Mayo

Clinic School of Medicine.

David L. Larson, M.D., Professor and Chairman, Department

of Plastic Surgery, Medical College of Wisconsin.

Micheline Mathews-Roth, M.D., Associate Professor of

Medicine, Harvard Medical School.

Roger R. Markwald, Ph.D., Professor and Chair, Department

of Cell Biology and Anatomy, Medical University of South

Carolina.

Victor E. Marquez, Ph.D., Chief, Laboratory of Medicinal

Chemistry, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer

Institute, Frederick, Maryland.

Ralph P. Miech, M.D., Ph.D., Associate Professor Emeritus,

Department of Molecular Pharmacology, Physiology &

Biotechnology, Brown University School of Medicine.

Mary Ann Myers, M.D., Associate Professor, Medical College

of Ohio.

Rimas J. Orentas, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Pediatrics,

Hematology-Oncology Section, Medical College of Wisconsin.

Robert D. Orr, M.D., CM, Clinical Ethicist and Professor,

University of Vermont College of Medicine.

Jean D. Peduzzi-Nelson, Ph.D., Research Associate

Professor, Department of Visual Sciences, University of

Alabama at Birmingham.

Edmund D. Pellegrino, M.D., Emeritus Professor, Medicine

and Medical Ethics, Center for Clinical Bioethics, Georgetown

University Medical Center.

John A. Petros, M.D., Associate Professor, Urology and

Pathology, Emory University.

David A. Prentice, Ph.D., Affiliated Scholar, Center for

Clinical Bioethics, Georgetown University Medical Center.

Paul J. Ranalli, M.D., FRCPC, Lecturer, Division of

Neurology, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto.

John F. Rebhun, Ph.D., Adjunct Scientist, Indiana

University School of Medicine.

Leonard P. Rybak, M.D., Ph.D., Professor of Surgery,

Southern Illinois University School of Medicine.

Dwayne D. Simmons, Ph.D., Director, Inner Ear Research Core

Center, Department of Otolaryngology, Washington University

School of Medicine.

Joseph B. Stanford, M.D., MSPH, Associate Professor, Family

and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah.

John M. Templeton, Jr., M.D., FACS, Adjunct Professor of

Pediatric Surgery, University of Pennsylvania School of

Medicine.

Claire Thuning-Roberson, Ph.D., Vice President, Product

Development and Compliance, Sunol Molecular Corporation,

Miramar, Florida.

Anton-Lewis Usala, M.D., Chief Executive Officer and

Medical Director, Clinical Trial Management Group,

Greenville, North Carolina.

Richard A. Watson, M.D., Professor of Urologic Surgery, The

University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey Medical

School.

Dennis D. Weisenburger, M.D., Director of Hematopathology,

Dept of Pathology and Microbiology, University of Nebraska

School of Medicine.

H. Joseph Yost, PhD., Professor of Oncological Sciences,

University of Utah.

Joseph R. Zanga, M.D., FAAP, FCP, President, American

College of Pediatricians, Professor of Pediatrics, Brody

School of Medicine, East Carolina University.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in honor of Dr. Betty Siegel, president of Kennesaw State University in Georgia. After 25 years of service to the University, Dr. Siegel will be retiring at the end of the year, and what an amazing 25 years it has been for her and for the students of Kennesaw State.

Back in 1981, Betty Siegel made headlines and chose the path less traveled when she became the first woman ever to serve as president in the 34-school university system of Georgia. Today, she makes headlines for all she has accomplished.

Under her leadership, KSU has grown tremendously, from a 4,000- student college offering 15 bachelor's degree programs and no graduate programs to today, with 18,000 students choosing from over 55 undergraduate and graduate programs.

The KSU slogan, ``Dare to Dream,'' is epitomized by Dr. Betty Siegel in every imaginable way. Not only does she lead by example, but she instills every student with that motto.

So today I say thank you to Dr. Siegel. Thank you for daring to dream and thank you for daring to do all you have done to improve the lives of your students.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to congratulate Debbie Peterson from my district, a social worker at Pope High School. Last week, Habitat For Humanity named her the Southwest Regional Volunteer of the Year for Georgia, Florida, and Alabama. She is one of those special educators whose energy is contagious.

For her, Habitat For Humanity is more than building a house on the weekends. Sponsoring the Student Club is her way of giving back to the school, to the community, and to those who want a hand up and not a hand out, as Habitat's slogan states.

Throughout her 31 years in public service, Debbie Peterson has always remembered that it is about the students and their accomplishments. What have they done? Increased club membership from 25 students to 525, over one-quarter of the entire student body. Raised over $160,000 for Habitat projects to build seven homes; become one of the five largest chapters of Habitat at U.S. colleges and high schools.

At the end of this school year, she will retire from Pope High School. The lessons she has taught the thousands of students who helped provide a hand up to countless others will last a lifetime.

Congratulations Debbie Peterson.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to talk before the House tonight, and I want to talk about an issue that has been discussed for a number of weeks and months, something that is of vital importance, I think, to all Americans, and that is the issue of Social Security and what do we do about it.

Now, the problem with Social Security, as everybody knows, is that it is a pay-as-you-go-system, which means that today's workers pay for today's retirees. It worked relatively well for a period of time. In 1950, there were 16 workers for every retiree, now there are 3.3 workers for every retiree, and in just a few short years there will be 2 workers for every retiree. So the demographics, the aging of our society dictate that we do something.

A lot of the talk has been about how does it affect seniors in our Nation. But I suggest to my colleagues that regardless of when you believe the problem or the situation or the crisis begins, or who you believe it affects, we cannot dispute this one fact, and that is that those most affected by it, regardless of when it happens or what happens, are the young people of this Nation. So I believe it is important for us to discuss and debate Social Security reform and how it will affect all sectors of our society, but we must, we must make certain that we talk about how it will affect young folks.

Now, in my district, what I did to try to listen to the young people of our Nation was to get together what is called a Youth Summit, and I set up a meeting with about 95 or 100 high school juniors and seniors in my district from all different schools, including Woodstock High School, Harrison, Kell, Lassiter, Etowah, Marietta High School, North Cobb, Pope, Sprayberry, Walton, Blessed Trinity, Centennial, Milton, North Spring, Riverwood, Roswell, and The Cottage School and Alpharetta High School, about 100 high schools, and sent them a bunch of material beforehand so they knew what we were talking about. The funny thing was a lot of them had great information about it before.

We gathered together for about 4 hours one morning and we talked about Social Security, and I challenged them to come up with some solutions and answer some questions. But when I started, I brought out this Social Security statement. This is a real Social Security statement, it came from the Social Security Administration, and this is what all of us get when we open up our mail from the Social Security Administration. It says, ``Unless action is taken soon to strengthen Social Security, in just 14 years we will begin paying more in benefits than we collect in taxes.'' That was how we started as the premise.

I was extremely impressed by the knowledge and the intelligence of these young folks. We broke into different groups and assigned them questions. Now, they could take any question that they wanted, but we kind of prompted a few. We talked about discussing the benefits or the distractions or problems with personal accounts, and we asked them to answer the question: what is the best way to fix Social Security and, even the more fundamental question, do you believe that Social Security needs to be fixed, and asked them to talk about how personal retirement accounts, voluntary accounts have worked in other countries.

Then we got back together after they had worked for a period of time on those questions, and asked each of those groups to present their findings. It really was fascinating, but there was one common theme. There was a common theme to all of their conclusions, and that was that there is a major problem, every one of them believed

that. There was not a single soul who said that we ought not to anything, and that that problem ought to be addressed, and that it is the responsibility, obviously, of Congress to get it done. There were a couple of tongue in cheek suggestions about what we ought to do with folks over 65, but those were purely for humorous effect at the meeting.

There was the common theme that we needed to fix it, and all of their suggestions had merit, but some of them I would like to point out. They talked extensively about personal retirement accounts, talking about putting more money in personal retirement accounts when they are younger because they would have a greater opportunity to increase; some of them thought we ought to increase the age of retirement but, when they get closer to that, I suspect they will not believe that. They spoke about not increasing the 12.4 percent tax. There was an interesting conclusion or recommendation that education on retirement plans ought to be mandatory in high school. Education on retirement plans ought to be mandatory in order to graduate from high school, they said. I thought that was an interesting item; probably something that we ought to take up. Then one final point that they made, and that was that people ought not rely on just Social Security for their main source of income in their retirement years.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we tend to get distracted here. We talk about different ages, we talk about those over 55, and I think it is important for everybody to appreciate that those over 55 will not be affected at all. Those youngest individuals in our society will be those most affected.

I challenge our colleagues to follow the lead of the high school students in my district who said, get down to business, put politics aside, and do not wait. That is good advice from those individuals who are most affected by whatever changes we bring about.

Madam Speaker, multiple news reports claim that the U.S. Border Patrol has been ordered to stop arresting illegal aliens in Arizona where American citizens have been patrolling. And why have the agents been asked to stop these arrests? Because an increase in the arrest rate was proving the effectiveness of the Minuteman volunteers.

I hope our government has not told agents to stop making arrests. I hope that the efforts of concerned citizens were not in vain.

Our government has spent close to $240 million to monitor the Mexican and Canadian borders with the latest technology. The problem? The equipment does not work. What is clear is that the Minutemen are working. Border agents credited the Minutemen with cutting the flow of illegal aliens with the number caught dropping from 500 a day to less than 15 per day. Madam Speaker, new solutions are needed; we cannot just throw money at our problems. It is clear that a group of concerned citizens are doing what $240 million could not do, but we need a permanent fix.

Madam Speaker, illegal immigration is not simply going to go away. We know there is a problem, and we must take the initiative and address this problem now.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor and enthusiasm that I congratulate Bascomb United Methodist Church as they join together for their 175th Homecoming Celebration on June 5, 2005, a church with a rich heritage which continues to serve the Cherokee County community and beyond.

The church began in a mill in 1830 when W.K. McCanless organized a group of Christians which came to be known as Bascomb Church, named for antebellum orator and bishop Henry Bascomb. The church predates the founding of Cherokee County; and as the congregation grew, they moved to a log cabin which also served as a school.

In 1883, after negotiation for land, the framed and painted church was completed with cornerstones bearing the names of the trustees. Modern renovations include additions for classrooms and fellowship and stained glass windows. The chancel cross in the chapel is made from timbers from the 1883 frame building.

With pride I recognize Bascomb United Methodist Church for its 175 years of offering a place of loving care and joyous worship to the people of Woodstock, Georgia, and beyond. I ask all Members to join me in honoring and congratulating the congregation for their remarkable achievements.

Mr. Speaker, in 1981 as the Social Security system was on the verge of collapse, many cities and counties decided to opt out of the Social Security system. My own

district, the city of Marietta, Georgia, took the opportunity; and the results serve as a model for the tremendous potential of personal retirement accounts.

Rather than collecting 1.5 percent from Social Security like the rest of us, Marietta city employees have personal accounts with yearly rates of return ranging from 3 to 20 percent.

The results go far beyond the rates of return. Employees' paychecks are higher than the surrounding cities because only 6.1 percent is taken out of their paychecks, as opposed to 12.4 percent.

Think it does not get any better? Well, it does.

Employees are continually educated about the program, the choices that they have, and how the company administering their pensions makes decisions. Because of this education program, employees are allowed to direct where their money goes depending on the rates of return and their personal goals.

Mr. Speaker, the tremendous potential of personal retirement accounts has been realized by some in my district. Let us hope the rest of the country is able to realize the true benefits of personal retirement accounts some time soon.

Mr. Speaker, did you hear the news this morning? The U.S. Bankruptcy Court allowed United Airlines to default, to end four pension plans. They will be transferred to the Federal Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation and ultimately the American taxpayer. Unless Congress acts, other major airlines will follow the same path and end their pension plans, the cost of which will ultimately be borne by the taxpayers. We need to act now. Hard-working taxpayers are already on the line for nearly $10 billion in unfunded pension liabilities from just two airlines that are in bankruptcy.

There is a solution: H.R. 2106. This bill limits taxpayer liability and allows responsible companies to manage their pension liabilities. It makes certain that airline carriers meet their current obligations with no subsidy from the Federal Government, the taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, when major airlines file for bankruptcy, taxpayers lose, employees are out of jobs, retirements are jeopardized, and the economy suffers.

We should act now on behalf of the American taxpayer. More bankruptcy headlines are coming unless we move responsibly, and I ask my colleagues to join me in this important and vital matter to save jobs, retirements, and taxpayer money. Support H.R. 2106.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House this evening and talk about an issue that is not Republican; it is not Democrat. It is an issue that may potentially affect every single citizen in our Nation.

When I ran for office as a physician, many folks in my district and in my family and in my practice asked me why? What on Earth do you want do that for? Why would a physician run for office?

Well, in addition to the feelings that most of us had, I suspect, about making a real difference, one of the things that attracted me to being a public servant, running for office, was the opportunity to bring the scientific model to decision-making in the world of public policy. As a physician, I was trained in the scientific model.

And what is that? That means that when you have a problem before you, like a patient who has a disease that you do not know about, that you work as hard as you can to identify that problem, and then you gain as much information about that problem as possible. And then you define specific solutions for the problem, and then you enact one of those solutions. You enact one of those treatment plans, if you will, and you measure the result, see where you are; and if you are not where you need to be, then you change what you are doing and move on so that you make modifications that are necessary so that you work toward that end goal.

Now, this is a classic model for doing all that is necessary and not more. It also allows for the greatest amount of critical thinking about any issue, not just scientific issues, but any issue; and if it is followed, it will result in the best outcome.

Now, the opportunity to bring this type of decision-making, what I call solution-making, to Congress is truly a great privilege. For if we do not address problems in this manner, then we are left with political battles where the argument that carries the day goes to the group with the most and greatest number of troops on their side, or with the side that has the most passion or the most emotion in their argument.

Now, there is nothing wrong with numbers, and there is nothing wrong with passion, and there is nothing wrong with emotion. It is just that they may not get you to the right solution.

And such is the case, I believe, with the issue of stem cell research. What is the problem? What is the problem that we are trying to address with stem cell research? Well, it is diseases. Patients have diseases and stem cells may be able to cure some of those diseases.

Stem cells are cells that when they are stimulated or encouraged, they may become other kinds of cells, many of which may be beneficial in the treatment of diseases.

And there are basically three types of stem cells. There are embryonic stem cells, those cells that come from an embryo, a human before it is born. There are cord or placental cells, those cells that are left over after the birth of a baby. And then there adult stem cells; and those cells, in spite of the fact that they are called adult, come from anybody that has been born.

Now, regardless of where you come down on this matter, which cells ought to be used, I think it can be said that no one can state that this issue is not full of ethical dilemmas. The beauty of this issue is that science, if you follow the science, we can avoid those ethical challenges. And the bonus is that they work.

If you take a peek at this poster here, what we have are adult stem cells. And there are all sorts of different adult stem cells. There are bone marrow and peripheral blood and hair and cells from your stomach or your GI tract or the placenta or the brain. All of those can result in a different kind of cell. You can get tendon from bone marrow. You can get nerves from peripheral blood cells. You can get heart cells from skeletal muscle cells. All of these kind of cells are available.

In addition to that, the adult stem cells that have been used and studied have actually shown great benefit in many different diseases, unlike embryonic cells to date. Adult stem cells have treated 43 different types of diseases from brain cancer to myasthenia gravis to stroke. So they work. A couple of examples, Parkinson's patient treated with his own adult stem cell continues to exhibit relief from 80 percent of his symptoms more than 6 years after his surgery. A phase 1 human clinical trial using this therapy is currently under way.

Umbilical cord cells were used to treat a South Korean woman who had been paralyzed, a spinal cord injury. She now is able to walk.

Dr. Denise Faustman, a leading diabetes researcher from Harvard has completely reversed end-stage juvenile diabetes in mice and has FDA approval to begin human clinical trials.

As we go through this discussion over the next number of weeks and months and years, frankly, I urge my colleagues to look anew, to look objectively at the issue of stem cell research. If we do, I believe that we can then all determine that we will work in a reasoned manner together to allow scientists and researchers to help the patients of our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H. Res. 142, celebrating and honoring Rotary International with a day of recognition.

As a Rotary member and past president of my hometown club, I can attest to the remarkable accomplishments of Rotary International, which was founded over 100 years ago, the world's first service club, and is now one of the largest nonprofit service organizations in the world. ``Service above Self,'' the club's motto, has inspired members to provide humanitarian assistance and promote international good will. Rotary International funds club projects and sponsors volunteers around the

community and worldwide. In 1985, Rotary International launched Polio Plus and spearheaded efforts to immunize the children of the world against polio. Since then, polio cases have dropped 99 percent, and the world now stands on the threshold of eradicating this dreaded disease.

Mr. Speaker, Rotarians live by the 4-way test: Is it the truth? Is it fair to all concerned? Will it build good will and better friendships? And will it be beneficial to all concerned?

Would not we all be better off if we adopted this creed? Congratulations Rotary International.

Mr. Speaker, our servicemen and -women are winning the war on terror. Yesterday, U.S. and coalition forces arrested al Qaeda's third highest ranking member.

Two years ago, the world saw the statues of Saddam Hussein come tumbling down as Iraqis celebrated their first taste of freedom in over a generation. Look at the progress Members may not have read about in the newspapers: 8.5 million Iraqis defied terrorists and voted in a historic election

that was fair, transparent, and democratic. Iraq's National Assembly recently named the country's first democratically elected President in more than 50 years, and Iraqi security forces now number over 150,000 protecting their nation.

Mr. Speaker, I believe our President said it best. Before coalition forces arrived, Iraq was ruled by a dictatorship that murdered its own citizens, threatened its neighbors, and defied the world. And now because we acted, Iraq's government is no longer a threat to the world or its own people. Today, the Iraqi people are taking charge of their own destiny.

I rise to recognize the Iraqi people who have made such great strides and to thank our servicemen and -women who risk their lives every day to protect our freedom.

Mr. Speaker, the American taxpayer through the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, has already assumed nearly $10 billion in unfunded pension liabilities from

two airlines in bankruptcy. I repeat, $10 billion. Something has to be done, and that is why I am introducing the Employee Pension Preservation and Taxpayer Protection Act today.

If a major airline files for bankruptcy, taxpayers lose, employees are out of jobs, retirements are jeopardized, and the economy suffers. My legislation would allow airline carriers to adopt new funding rules for their pension systems so the American taxpayer is not footing the bill.

Under this plan, the airline carriers must meet all of their current obligations, and the part that should make every taxpayer happy, this bill provides absolutely no subsidy from the Federal Government and thereby the taxpayer.

Mr. Speaker, pensions are not something workers hope to receive, or something we think might be there when we retire. Americans work hard and save for retirement, understanding that nothing can steal away a hard-earned pension. That is the way it should be, and that is what my bill will do. I urge my colleagues to support this much-needed legislation.

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday our President told the Nation that he was willing to listen to any ideas from anyone and was willing to share the credit for a solution to Social Security problems.

Finding a solution requires more than just complaining and my colleagues on the other side would like you to believe that they have a plan, but plans require more than just complaints.

A recent national poll by Harvard University found that 7 out of 10 college students do not believe that Social Security will be there for them. Younger workers know that the government has used their Social Security money for other programs. They also understand voluntary personal accounts offer a better way to provide security for them.

And it is only fair. In past years, retirees received a return of 10 percent and more from Social Security. Today that return is barely 1.5 percent and that is not fair to younger Americans. Younger workers today are much more familiar with investments through 401(k) plans offered which employers, workers know the power of compound interest and how their contributions to these accounts grow steady.

Mr. Speaker, I challenge Members of the House and Senate to have a vision for Social Security one of fairness for all Americans.