Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act Of 2007

Floor Speech

STEM CELL RESEARCH ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2007 -- (House of Representatives - June 07, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this is a very personal debate, and it is a serious one. But I would only ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to entertain the thought that we are, today, addressing the lives of Americans, and we can't fool around with life and death issues that impact on the lives of Americans. Millions of Americans today, a collective number of 110 million, are dealing with the diseases of diabetes, Alzheimer's, some with spinal cord injuries, and many others impacted by the inertia of this body. And so let me applaud my colleague, Congresswoman DeGette, because this legislation, as my colleagues realize, is imperative for it to move as S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. We know that if this bill does not pass, it does not get to the President's desk, and lives of millions of Americans will be impacted. It is a simple bill. It says that ``the stem cells were derived from human embryos that are donated from in vitro fertilization clinics for the purpose of fertility treatment and were in excess of the needs of individuals seeking such treatment. The embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded. Such individuals donate the embryos with written informed consent, and receive no financial aid or other inducements.'' These embryos otherwise would be discarded.

What is our challenge in America? To rise to our higher angels?

This rule is constructed to save lives. Our friends will have the privilege of a motion to recommit, but we have the responsibility of saving the lives of 110 million Americans, children, family members of yours, loved ones, husbands and wives and others. Some are our soldiers on the front lines of Iraq and Afghanistan. We can do no less today. Pass S. 5. Vote for the rule, and vote against the motion to recommit.

* [Begin Insert]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 5, the ``Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007,'' which the House passed in substantially similar form by a vote of 253-174 on January 11, 2007. The legislation passed the Senate by a nearly veto-proof majority of 63-34. The only difference between the version passed by the House and the Senate is that the Senate version contains a provision directing the Secretary of HHS to conduct and support research on alternative human pluripotent stem cells.

Mr. Speaker, once again we find ourselves in a position to pass legislation that will provide our nation's scientists with the valuable opportunity to save lives. It is our duty as representatives of the people to help Americans who are suffering. The President should put away his veto pen and listen to the American people. They want him to sign this bill. Signing this bill will help bring about the new direction in leadership and responsiveness that American people voted for last November.

In 1998, the very first stem cells were isolated, leading to the immediate realization of the enormous possibilities this discovery presents. Suddenly treatments, even cures, seemed possible for devastating illnesses like Parkinson's disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), cancer, and spinal cord injuries.

Despite restrictions on federal funding imposed by President Bush in 2001, the states of California, New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois, and Maryland have provided funding for this important research. In 2005 and again last year, we learned that in spite of the President's continued opposition to stem cell research, support for it in Congress transcended party lines.

Unfortunately, the embryonic stem cells currently permitted by law for research are not sufficient for scientists' needs. According to the National Institute of Health (NIH), of more than 60 stem cell lines that were declared eligible for federal funding in 2001, only about 22 lines are actually available for study by and distribution to researchers. These NIH-approved lines lack the genetic diversity that researchers need in order to develop effective treatments for millions of Americans.

In spite of recent scientific breakthroughs that suggest alternate means of obtaining stem cells, I must caution my colleagues from thinking that embryonic stem cell research is no longer necessary. I applaud Dr. Anthony Atala and his team at Wake Forest University and Harvard University for their very recent outstanding discoveries. However, I must repeat the caution of Harvard researcher George Daley in saying that these newly discovered cells ``are not a replacement for embryonic stem cells''--on the contrary, research for these is entirely complementary. In addition, while we know very little about these new methods, much progress has already been made in the research of embryonic, or pluripotent, stem cells, the most adaptable and unique of all the stem cell varieties. They currently provide scientists with the most possibilities for research and for the discovery of life-saving treatments; as such, we must allow these scientists the opportunity to do so.

It is understandable that many Americans may have moral conflicts with this issue if they believe that embryos need to be destroyed in order for this research to be implemented, but this is not the case. It is estimated that more than 400,000 excess frozen embryos exist in the United States today and that tens of thousands, and perhaps as many as 100,000, are discarded every year.

Further, S. 5 ensures that none of the embryos used in stem cell research is intended for implantation in a woman. All of these embryos would otherwise be discarded. Mr. Speaker, denying people in our nation who suffer from debilitating illnesses the possible medical benefits that could result from embryonic research is not only cruel but a waste of these valuable life-sustaining stem cells.

This is indeed a matter of ethics--we cannot morally argue that it is better to deny suffering people hope for a cure. Let us provide all people in this world with possibilities for a better future by supporting stem cell research. Let us create the potential for miracles in the lives of paralyzed individuals, those with cancer, or those in need of organ transplants.

This bill provides a limited--yet significant--change in current policy that would result in making many more lines of stem cells available for research. If we limit the opportunities and resources our researchers have today, we only postpone the inevitable breakthrough. Our vote today may determine whether that breakthrough is made by Americans, or not.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill, to vote in favor of scientific innovation, and to vote in favor of a perfect compromise between the needs of science and the boundary of our principles.

* [End Insert]

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source