[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 66 (Wednesday, May 18, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H3548-H3549]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           STEM CELL RESEARCH

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak 
to this Chamber and address the Speaker and the House.
  I would like to speak about the embryonic stem cell research that is 
a matter of discussion around this Congress intensively in the last 
weeks and months as we have been here. I would like to join some of my 
colleagues in explaining the progress and promise of adult stem cell 
research, and I would like to also dispel many of the myths promoted by 
those urging more Federal funding for the destruction of human embryos 
required for embryonic stem cell research. I am for stem cell research, 
adult stem cell research. I am not for ending human life in the process 
of trying to find a cure for the lives of others.
  Among the favorite myths of proponents of embryonic stem cell 
research is the legend that there are 400,000 embryos stored at IVF 
clinics that are simply going to be discarded. So we should derive some 
benefit from them, my opponents say. This figure has become so fixed in 
their rhetoric that it now seems to be a fact. Members of both Houses, 
in a letter to President Bush, even cited the number, the 400,000 
number, in an effort to get President Bush to change his current policy 
on the funding of embryonic stem cell research. These proponents then 
use that number to create the assumption that an equally large number 
of therapeutic stem cells can be derived from them.
  Here is why this argument is wrong, Mr. Speaker: IVF embryos will not 
just die anyway. Most IVF embryos are designated for implantation, and 
the rest can be adopted. In 1995 about 500,000 women were seeking to 
adopt a child. That would be 500,000 families, most of them husbands 
and wives. Seventy-five children are alive and well today who started 
life as frozen embryos.
  All of the frozen embryos have the potential to become an 
independent, well-adjusted human being. Only a small fraction, 2.2 
percent, are slated to be discarded. Only another 2.8 percent of 
embryos in IVF clinics, that is, roughly 11,000, have been designated 
by their parents for research. That is a total of 6 percent of all the 
embryos presently in IVF storage that are intended for disposal or 
research. Only 6 percent. Ninety percent are designated for a future.
  More than 90 percent stored in clinics are saved for later use by 
parents or donated to other infertile couples for implantation. That 
means of the original 400,000 frozen embryos, only 11,000 are actually 
available to be destroyed for their stem cells. Of those available 
embryos, less than 275 stem cell lines would be created. That can be 
with private sector dollars. It does not have to be dollars extracted 
from the taxpayer.
  When we are asking the taxpayer to contribute money to the Federal 
Government and diverting those dollars, Mr. Speaker, to go towards 
embryonic stem cell research, which of necessity must end a human life, 
and a human life like those 75 children that have come from frozen 
embryos to childhood and on their way to adulthood, that is an immoral 
choice, a choice that we are imposing upon tens of millions of people 
that understand in this country that life begins at the instance of 
conception; and we cannot declare an embryo, a fertilized egg, that has 
all of the chromosomes and all the components of an individual little 
blessing, we cannot declare them to be something of science to be 
discarded.
  And if we roll ourselves back into history, back to the time of the 
Second World War, the Nazi regime, Dr. Josef Mengele, he did research 
on people, people who saw more than half of their world population 
extinguished by the Nazi regime. He did research on people because they 
were Jewish and put them in chambers and froze them to death and put 
them in heat chambers to see how much heat they could stand and put 
them through a whole series of scientific experiments to find out the 
limitations of the human body, how much suffering could they take, how 
much weather could they take, how much deprivation of food and water, 
how much torture could they take, and documented that. And civil 
societies have refused to use the information and the data that came 
from the Nazi regime because it resulted in the death of human beings.
  This embryonic stem cell research also results in the death of human 
beings, Mr. Speaker. It is the same kind of philosophy done in the name 
of science. We can find and have found better and other ways to produce 
similar and better science. We need to follow that path. There is no 
legal prohibition against embryonic stem cell research in this country. 
The debate in this Congress is about will we impose a tax upon 
Americans and compel them to dig into their pockets and contribute to 
this diabolical science that ends the life of an innocent human being 
for the potential of improving the life of others when we have other 
alternatives.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to join my colleagues in explaining 
the progress and promise of adult stem cell research and to dispel many 
of the myths promoted by those urging more federal funding for the 
destruction of human embryos, required for embryonic stem cell 
research.
  Among the favorite myths of proponents of embryonic stem cell 
research is the legend that there are 400,000 embryos stored at IVF 
clinics that are simply going to be discarded, so we should derive some 
benefit from them. This figure has become so fixed in their rhetoric 
that it now seems to be a fact. Members of both Houses, in a letter to 
President Bush, even cited the number in an effort to get President 
Bush to change his current policy on the funding of embryonic stem cell 
research. These proponents then use that number to create the 
assumption that an equally large number of therapeutic stem cells can 
be derived from them.
  Here is why this argument is wrong: IVF embryos will not just ``die 
anyway.'' Most IVF embryos are designated for implantation, and the 
rest can be adopted. In 1955, about 50,000 women were seeking to adopt 
a child. 75 children are alive and well today who started life as 
``frozen embryos.''
  Only a small fraction--2.2 percent--are slated to be discarded.
  Only another 2.8 percent of embryos in IVF clinics, roughly 11,000, 
have been designated by their parents for research.
  That is a total of 6 percent of all the embryos presently in IVF 
storage that are intended for disposal or research. More than 90 
percent of embryos stored in IVF clinics are saved for later use by 
parents or donated to other infertile couples for implantation.
  That means of the original 400,000 frozen embryos, only 11,000 are 
actually available to be destroyed for their stem cells.
  Of those available embryos, less than 275 stem cell lines would be 
created. So, behind the seemingly impressive number of 400,000 frozen 
embryos, the reality is that the actual number of stem cell lines. 
likely to be produced from them is so small as to be clinically 
useless.

  In order to treat diseases--which is, as I will explain, still a very 
distant prospect using human embryonic stem cells--hundreds of 
thousands more embryos beyond those currently frozen and available for 
research would be needed. This could only be achieved by a deliberate 
effort to create new embryos for the sole purpose of destroying them--
an outcome that the use of the frozen embryos is supposed to avoid, but 
would most likely cause. Federal funding of this destructive embryonic 
stem cell research would, therefore, create an incentive to create and 
kill more human embryos for stem cells, which would lead to a US human 
embryo farm industry.
  There is an ethical alternative to killing these embryos: Adult and 
cord blood stem cells are treating patients of over 58 diseases.
  Even if these frozen embryos were going to be discarded anyway (which 
they are not), and even if there was no ethical alternative

[[Page H3549]]

(which there is), it would still be morally wrong to kill these human 
embryos for experimentation.
  From the Nuremberg Code to the Belmont Commission, this utilitarian 
justification for harmful or fatal research has been soundly rejected 
in order to protect patients and the practice of medicine.
  Civilized cultures have protections in place to make sure we do not 
allow research on, or use organs from, death row prisoners who are 
``going to die anyway,'' and we do not do research on terminally ill 
patients unless such research has a chance to help the patient.
  We take a great risk if we dehumanize human embryos and accept ``they 
are going to die anyway'' as how we judge what is acceptable treatment 
for our fellow human beings.
  Examples of atrocities that would be justified by the statement that 
the victims are going to die anyway include: Harvesting organs from and 
experimenting on death row inmates (like China), harvesting organs from 
and experimenting on the terminally ill, and submerging 15 live human 
unborn children into salt solution to learn if they could absorb oxygen 
through their skin. One fetus survived for 22 hours in an actual U.S. 
case.

  The second major myth is that the stem cells lines that could be 
derived from these frozen embryos have the potential to cure numerous 
diseases, but that such cures remain just around the corner and just 
out of reach because the administration refuses to fund research in 
which these embryos would be destroyed. This, too, is false.
  Adult stem cells have treated over 58 diseases in human patients in 
published clinical studies. Embryonic stem cells have not treated even 
one patient, and have mixed results--at best--in animal trials.
  Moreover, human embryonic stem cell research is completely legal. The 
debate is solely about federally funding research that requires the 
destruction of embryos, human beings in their earliest stages of life.
  President Bush is the first president to federally fund human 
embryonic stem cell research. He determined that such research could be 
funded so long as the cells had been obtained from embryos destroyed on 
or before August 9, 2001.
  Since then NIH determined that there are 78 derivations of embryonic 
stem cells that are eligible for Federal funding, and 22 cell lines are 
currently receiving Federal funds. According to the director of the 
National Institutes of Health, the Bush policy is sufficient for basic 
research.
  There are 16 additional ``eligible'' embryonic stem cell lines in 
existence that have not been ``contaminated'' by mouse feeder cells.
  NIH spent about $25 million on embryonic stem cell research in 2003, 
funding 118 research projects.
  HHS reports that as of February 2004, embryonic stem cell providers 
had shipped more than 400 lines to researchers, and there are 3,500 
vials of embryonic stem cells that are waiting to be shipped to 
researchers.
  The ultimate goal of researchers is free and unfettered access to 
Federal dollars to create and destroy embryos for research purposes, 
and to employ human cloning as the method of choice.
  Embryonic stem cell research will not, no matter what the claims of 
its proponents, become the cure-all it is touted as.
  Of the fewer than 275 potential viable stem cell lines genetical 
diversity will still be lacking, since minorities are poorly 
represented among IVF clients.
  Stem cells from IVF embryos will cause serious immune rejection 
problems if transplanted into patients. Researchers argue that to avoid 
immune rejection, we need to clone people to make stem cells that are 
genetically identical to the patient receiving the stem cell 
transplant.
  Many of my colleagues, I'm sure, have been visited by members of 
disease organizations, desperate for cures for their loved ones. One of 
the myths promoted by some of these organizations--and I believe that 
the families, most of the time, do not know the falsity of their 
statements--is that somatic cell nuclear transfer is not cloning. This 
is absolutely false. Somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT, is the 
process that created Dolly, the cloned Scottish sheep. This makes me 
irate, that some in the scientific community would mislead victims of 
disease and illness and their loved ones into fighting for research 
they would oppose were they told the truth, and making them believe 
that this sort of research will cure all that ails them if they were 
just provided the money.
  Here are the facts: All medical advances (at least 58 therapies) from 
stem cells to date have been from ``adult'' stem cell research, which 
carries no ethical concerns. There have been none from embryonic cells, 
not even in animal studies.
  The benefits of research that kills living human embryos is purely 
speculative and has been hyped by researchers who are after federal 
funding and by a media that doesn't understand or report the 
distinction between adult and embryonic stem cells.
  Proponents continue to make the false claim that embryonic stem cells 
will cure Alzheimer's Disease. It almost certainly will not.
  The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation has irresponsibly refused 
to promote or fund ethical adult stem cell research, despite the fact 
that is it shows far more promise in treating diabetes than does 
research on cells derived from human embryos.
  This debate is purely about federal funding. Embryonic stem cell 
research is completely legal.
  Americans do not support destructive embryonic stem cell research, 
especially when they are provided with the facts.
  When respondents in a poll at the beginning of this month were told 
that scientists disagree on whether embryonic or adult stem cells will 
end up being most successful in treating diseases, 60 percent favored 
funding only the research avenues that raise no moral problem, while 
only 22 percent favored funding all stem cell research including the 
kind that involves destroying embryos.
  Killing human embryos is morally wrong. A human embryo, a person in 
his or her earliest stages, must be destroyed to obtain embryonic stem 
cells. Destroying early human life shows a profound disrespect for 
human life.
  The ends do not justify the means. Some pro-life members of Congress 
support funding of embryonic stem cell research on the basis that this 
research could save the lives of people with debilitating diseases. 
This obfuscation of the term ``pro-life'' is based on a utilitarian 
ethic. It is unethical to destroy some human lives for the betterment 
of the lives of others.
  Even President Clinton's National Bioethics Advisory Commission 
concluded that embryos ``deserve respect as a form of human life.'' The 
Commission recommended funding of embryonic stem cell research, only if 
there were no alternatives. Adult stem cells are currently being used 
to successfully treat humans suffering from many diseases.
  Taxpayers shouldn't spend their hard earned money on embryo 
destruction. Federal funding of the destruction of human embryos for 
research is unethical. The debate is over the use of taxpayers money, 
not whether it is legal. American taxpayers should not be forced to 
fund unethical research.
  The fact is that patients and their loved ones need real hope, not 
hype. That hope resides in non-controversial, tried-and-true adult stem 
cell research. When this issue comes to the floor next week, please 
join me in returning our focus from destructive embryonic stem cell 
research to adult stem cell research, which has been proven to work, is 
not morally controversial, and holds true promise for disease victims.

                          ____________________