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. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express frustration, frustration that I share with millions of Americans around this country. Every day, millions of patients suffer from debilitating diseases and conditions. For many, embryonic stem cell research is the most promising source of potential cures and treatments. Unfortunately, because of the stubbornness of one man, President Bush, these people continue to suffer as they wait.
Since the discovery of embryonic stem cells in 1998, the vast majority of biomedical researchers in this country identify embryonic stem cell research as the most promising source of treatments for diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, spinal cord injury and multiple sclerosis. With the unique ability to become any cell in the body, embryonic stem cells truly are the key to taking science to a whole new level.
Unfortunately, President Bush has stubbornly refused to pay attention to these scientists and the patients who might be helped by this research. In August 2001, the President announced that he would prohibit the National Institutes of Health from funding research on embryonic stem cells lines created after August 2001. Assertions to the contrary, there are fewer than 20 stem cell lines in existence, and most of these researchers are finding less and less workable.
Despite the President's opposition to the research, Congress has acted over and over again for this funding. In 2006, we passed the first bill. This year, as H.R. 3, we passed the second bill. And all of the bills, including S. 5, have the same provisions: Embryos used to derive stem cells which were created for fertility treatments and are in excess of clinical need, the individuals for whom those embryos were created, have determined the embryos are not needed and voluntarily donate them and the individuals provide written consent.
Let me remind my colleagues that under current law there are no ethical guidelines like these that govern any stem cell research that happens today. Unfortunately, the President vetoed the bill. But in the 2006 elections, embryonic stem cell research became a critical issue, and it passed this House again in January with an overwhelming majority.
It is time to pass this bill again now with the Senate language and send a clear message to the President and this country: The majority of Americans want stem cell research.
While the NIH remains limited to a few number of stem cell lines, the rest of the world has eagerly filled the void. California has recently authorized several billion dollars to conduct embryonic stem cell research. Japan, the U.K., Singapore and others have allocated billions of dollars. But the NIH lags behind. Not only is it not participating in this research, it has lost its cutting edge.
Since I first began working on this issue, public support for embryonic stem cell research has soared. According to a Gallup poll released just this week, since May 2002, it has gone up to 64 percent, steadily increasing.
Mr. Speaker, the Senate gets it. The public gets it. The House gets it. Why doesn't the President of the United States get it?
Opponents of this research say there are other types of cell research that are being explored. And, in fact, yesterday, shockingly, another new advance, which seems to happen every time we bring this bill up. We welcome these advances as we welcome all advances in ethical life-saving research. However, this new scientific research should not be used as an excuse to say that it is a substitute for embryonic stem cell research.
One of the lead researchers, Kevin Eggan, said: ``All of us agree strongly with human embryonic stem cell research. These experiments are not motivated by a desire to find an end run around these issues.''
This week, in fact, on the other end, embryonic stem cell research has led to huge new advances in curing macular degeneration in England. They believe that embryonic stem cell research will lead to a cure in humans within 5 years.
It is promising research. It is supported by a majority of Americans, by the House, by the Senate. Mr. Speaker, that's why we are here today: the chance for so many to live a life that others take for granted.
Vote for S. 5 to restore hope.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, the only thing shocking about these recent scientific discoveries is they seem to be always revealed right at the same week that we do our embryonic stem cell bill on the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, if you did the math, 64 percent support embryonic stem cell research, so that's well in excess of a majority.
I am now pleased to recognize another leader, both at the State level and Federal level, in this, Mr. Mitchell from Arizona, for 1 1/2 minutes.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the first thing I want to do is I want to thank MIKE CASTLE, my
friend, my compadre, and my fellow journeyman on this journey. We will win this. We will win.
I also want to thank my friend JOE BARTON, who has helped so much not just in this session of Congress but in the past, and all of my leadership on my side who continue to fight for this bill.
Our constituents sent us down here to do the people's work, and they want us to do it in a bipartisan way. This is the best example I can think of in the 10 years that I have been in Congress.
I just want to talk about a few of the misconceptions that have been raised today. The first one is the allegation that the American people do not support stem cell research. This is patently untrue. A new Gallup poll this week shows an increase of 12 percent of Americans that support this research in the last 5 years to 64 percent. Another recent poll showed that when it was explained to them that these embryos are slated to be destroyed but they could be donated for hope that 51 percent of self-described pro-life Republicans support this research.
There is a national consensus. There is a strong majority in the House and the Senate, and there is one thing stopping that, and that is a stubborn President. President Bush needs to understand it is ethical and it is the right thing to do.
Our opponents try to muddle this issue by saying that adult stem cells will be a substitute. This is also patently false. It is amazing that there is new research every time that we come up with this bill, but we welcome that research. We welcome all research. But it is not a substitute for embryonic stem cell research.
In fact, this recent study this week with the mouse cells, the scientists said success with mouse cells does not guarantee quick success with human cells. They called on Congress to pass the bill which would give federally funded researchers access to embryos slated for destruction at fertility clinics. These types of research are years away. Embryonic stem cell research has only been in existence for 7 or 8 years. But 1,300 scientists are sending a letter to President Bush today telling him that this is the research that shows promise, and 80 Nobel Laureates have endorsed the bill. The scientists say that embryonic stem cell research has promise in and of itself and that adult stem cell research, including amniotic research, cord blood, mouse cells, all of these cells are not a substitute.
Mr. Castle and I and all of our allies support all of these types of research, but it is not a substitute. But that is also why S. 5 has a provision that supports these.
Vote for hope. Vote for research. Vote for this bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear. This motion to commit guts S. 5, pure and simple. What it does, it strips out the embryonic stem cell research portion of the bill, which of course is the bill. Instead, it simply leaves the section that also encourages alternative forms of research. So any Member of this House who supports embryonic stem cell research and who has voted for it in the past must oppose this motion to commit. Let me say it again: What this motion to commit does, it strips the embryonic stem cell research out of the bill.
Now, when I was a high school and college debater, one of the things that used to drive me crazy was inconsistency in my opponent's position. We have seen that in spades today. Mr. Gingrey just said, for example, that he supports adult stem cell research because it doesn't have the same kinds of problems that some embryonic stem cell research in mice have shown. In fact, though, the new study, which coincidentally just came out this week, just as a new study comes out every time we vote on embryonic stem cell research, the study on mice specifically says that these mouse cells, that the approach would have to be changed somewhat for use with human cells because it could cause cancer, just the criticism our opponents make of embryonic stem cell research. It's true that embryonic stem cell research is relatively new. However, these other sources that our opponents tout are even newer and have provided no evidence and no hope for cures. That is why 80 Nobel Laureates and 1,300 scientists have endorsed embryonic stem cell research as well as research into adult stem cells and other types of research.
What our bill does is, it says, let's do everything in an ethical way. Let's have ethically conducted embryonic stem cells, but only on embryos that are scheduled to be discarded as medical waste. Let's not throw them out. Let's use them to give hope to the millions of Americans who suffer from diseases for which adult stem cell research has shown no promise at all. That is why all of these researchers say we have to support both embryonic stem cell and adult stem cell and other types of alternatives.
They say there have been no cures found, but, again, just last week, researchers in Great Britain, because this research is going overseas, have found evidence that embryonic stem cell research may cure macular degeneration, which causes blindness in humans. Our friends, many of them formerly from U.S. universities who are in Great Britain, think that we will have a clinical application of this embryonic stem cell research within 5 years.
I want to conclude by saying, it is not either/or. It is both, so long as they are done ethically. Alan Leshner, Ph.D., with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said, ``It is only through Federal support of research on both adult and embryonic stem cells that we may better understand the potential value and limitations of each type. We owe all those who may be helped by such research in the future to pursue all avenues of potential treatments and cures for serious diseases.''
Mr. Speaker, this motion to commit will kill the bill. Anyone who supports hope for the 110 million Americans who suffer from these terrible diseases must vote ``no'' on the motion to commit and ``yes'' on final passage.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source