Michael Burgess: “Mr. Speaker, here we are back again, not quite two years from when we had this debate the last time, and a good deal has…”

“Mr. Speaker, here we are back again, not quite two years from when we had this debate the last time, and a good deal has changed in the world of science over that 2-year time interval. Unfortunately, the bill that we have before us has not significantly changed. We have already heard mention of the amniotic fluid stem cells that are now available to open a broad new area of research. Have we had one hearing in our committee, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, of which the distinguished chairman spoke to us this morning? I think the American people would welcome us having a hearing to understand more about this promising new area of science. As it stands today, we will simply have to debate the bill on the merits of information that is well over 2 years old, and I think that is unfortunate. Mr. Speaker, regenerative medicine, the words themselves, speaks to great hope among the healer and patient alike that some of the most tragic of human afflictions may one day find relief. This concept is powerful. It is a powerful lure to participants on both sides of this debate. And I would stress, Mr. Speaker, that on both sides of this debate are people of good character and good will. We simply disagree about a single point. As we proceed with today's debate on H.R. 3, I would like to ask my colleagues whether there is any common ground by which the two sides may seek resolution of this conflict.”