Diana DeGette

Ms. DeGETTE

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

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) for 2 minutes.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Space).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), a true hero on this issue. (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

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. Mr. Speaker, with that, I will be pleased to yield 2 minutes to our distinguished caucus Chair, Mr. Emanuel, from Illinois.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut, another leader on this issue, both in the State House and Congress, Mr. Murphy.

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

Ms. DeGETTE. And on the other side, Mr. Speaker?

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

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

Ms. DeGETTE. I'll continue to reserve, Mr. Speaker.

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.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield to the very distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare) 1\1/2\ minutes.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am now delighted to yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer. (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am now very pleased to yield to 1 minute to my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), a real leader on this issue.

Ms. DeGETTE. Could I inquire of the Speaker how much time is left on both sides.

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.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am now honored to recognize the Speaker of the House for our remaining time.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to commit.

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.

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

Ms. DeGETTE

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Well, I've been in Congress now 10 years; and some days I feel like I'm in Alice in Wonderland. Today happens to be one of them. Because when you listen to the arguments from the other side you'd never dream that the bill under consideration right now is a ban on human reproductive cloning. Maybe I will start by talking about the status of the law in the United States today. Right now, in the United States, SCNT, somatic cell nuclear transfer, is legal. It is legal today, and there is nothing about H.R. 2560, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act, that changes that or alters it in any way. We hear the other side talking about egg farms and forcing women to donate eggs and all of that. If that was going to happen, it would be happening today because this bill does nothing to stop the status of current law on SCNT or therapeutic cloning. What we do have happening today, however, is there are some unethical scientists who are trying to do reproductive cloning. They are trying to take the results of SCNT, implant them in women's uteruses and create cloned human beings. I just heard my colleague from Pennsylvania talking about Dolly the sheep and all of the failed attempts with animal cloning before Dolly the sheep. He is absolutely right. It is a terrible problem, and that is why it is reprehensible and immoral to try to clone human beings. That is also why we need to make it illegal in this country. He also talked about the example of South Korea, and he's also absolutely right about South Korea. There was an unethical researcher in South Korea who, with no ethical standards or controls, tried to make experiments and lied about the results. By the way, that's why we need to pass S. 5 tomorrow, because currently in this country there are no ethical controls either over embryonic stem cell research or SCNT research, controls which we could really use in this country, and they certainly could have used in South Korea, but that's all sort of aside from the point. The point is, right now, in this country it is not illegal to clone a human being for reproductive purposes, and there's a national consensus that it should be. I do want to apologize to my ranking member, Mr. Barton, about the process. Perhaps there should have been notice. But the truth is, there is a consensus on reproductive cloning. This is a simple bill, and we have tried, over the years in Congress, to ban reproductive cloning. The reason we haven't been able to do it is because the other side gets up and makes all of these false arguments, which then complicate the situation, and we have not been able to ban reproductive cloning. We felt that under a suspension calendar, with a clean vote and a simple bill, it would work. For people who try to say, well, somehow this is going to cause more problems, I can't believe that they would support reproductive cloning. I can't believe that the opponents of this bill would actually vote against a bill that bans reproductive cloning. I can't believe that they would say they think that we would encourage reproductive cloning in this country. I would tell my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this vote will be a clear vote today. The vote will be, do you oppose human reproductive cloning and think that it should be a Federal crime in this country, or are you in the pocket of the special interests who will make any argument because they don't think this bill goes far enough to ban other types of research, which are legal right now in this country and for which the results which they fear have not happened to date. I will say, let's make the clear statement in Congress. Let's stand up for our constituents. Let's ban reproductive cloning today. There is no Member of Congress who supports human reproductive cloning, which is exactly what this bill prohibits. Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2560, and then we can have the rest of this debate tomorrow on S. 5.

Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, just briefly, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania knows, our committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, did have robust hearings on cloning several years ago where we brought in several scientists as well as a cult called the Raelians who are actually trying to clone human beings, and that is why we need this kind of limitation. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy), the cosponsor of the bill.