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

Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding and for all his work on the this issue. I also obviously thank my coauthor and good friend on this, Diana DeGette, for her tremendous work on it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise, obviously, in strong support of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which ethically expands the current Federal embryonic stem cell research policy.

I think we should make a note, this is a Senate bill we are dealing with now. It's changed from our House bill. While we considered similar legislation before, and we have referred to it, this bill has since been expanded to develop methods of deriving stem cells without destroying a human embryo. That's an addition to what we have considered before.

With this bill we have a real opportunity to make history, to jump-start research, which may lead to treatments and cures for countless diseases, including diabetes, HIV/AIDS, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, ALS, multiple sclerosis and cancer.

There are a number of things being stated here that I consider to be myths, and I would like to try to correct some of these in the brief time that I have.

First, this bill does not expand Federal funding and, in fact, does not contain any funds whatsoever. The expansion in the bill refers to the source of the embryos and the quality of stem cell lines. These stem cells would be developed from embryos that come from IVF clinics, which receive no Federal funding. There would be no Federal funding involved in that whatsoever.

Second, it is important to understand that we are only talking about research on embryos that would otherwise be thrown away as medical waste.

That is a decision which is made by those who created the embryo and whoever was running the IVF clinic before the subject of using them for research was ever brought up. So you are dealing solely with embryos on which the decision has been made to have them eliminated as medical waste, because, simply, they don't want to continue to pay for the storage of the embryo or whatever it may be. So anyone who refers to it as killing needs to understand that's going to happen anyhow. That's a decision that's been made. No stem cell would ever be taken from an embryo that was not destined to be destroyed in any event.

Third, the bill specifically states the embryos must be created for purposes of fertility treatment, and no money may have exchanged hands. We think there should be a greater ethical process in all of this, and all of that is spelled out very carefully in this particular legislation.

Fourth, as to the recent announcement of returning mature cells, perhaps, in the skin to an embryonic state which we have been reading about in the last day or two with respect to mice, we need to point out a couple of things: One, that's mice, not human beings; and there is a vast difference. Another interesting point is that these would not be eligible for Federal research dollars because they were derived after August 9, 2001.

Fifth is this whole issue of pluripotency and what could be done here. There is the constant argument here that adult stem cells have actually been able to resolve some problems. I am all for that. I am 100 percent for all the medical research which goes on. That's what this is all about.

I believe the embryonic stem cells can extend beyond that. I believe the pluripotency of embryonic stem cells, which is supported by so many scientists in this country, is what can make a difference. You don't see that in the others. I would encourage everybody to follow the medical and scientific institutions who are in support of this.

Just finishing the point with respect to the pluripotency, nothing has been stated with respect to the embryonic and umbilical stem cells, that they do have the same pluripotency, as do to embryonic stem cells, which can develop into any cell as far as your body is concerned.

There are approximately 500 medical and scientific universities throughout the country, and various other individuals and groups, Michael J. Fox and others, who support the stem cell research and ask us to vote in favor of lifting restrictions on potentially lifesaving medical research.

I would encourage a ``no'' vote on any motion to recommit to restructure the legislation and a ``yes'' vote on the underlying legislation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source