[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 61 (Tuesday, April 17, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H3467-H3471]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STEM CELL RESEARCH
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Castor). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is
recognized for the time remaining until midnight.
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I am very happy to be before my
colleagues on the House floor this evening to talk about a hugely
important issue that we will be dealing with once again this week in
all probability.
As you know, Madam Speaker and my colleagues, I am talking about the
issue of stem cell research. Last week the Senate was in session, and
once again the bill that passed on the House floor in the 109th
Congress, the Castle-DeGette bill, which would require Federal funding,
taxpayer funding for embryonic stem cell research that was obtained by
the destruction of the so-called ``throwaway embryos'' from infertility
assisted reproductive technology clinics that couples say they did not
want, that these were extras. Well, that bill that passed last year on
this House floor passed the Senate last week, and, Madam Speaker, we
will be seeing that bill very soon once again.
So, I want to be present tonight to talk about this very, very
important issue with my colleagues and anyone that has an opportunity
within ear distance of what we are speaking about tonight to help bring
an understanding to this issue and to try to convince my colleagues
that we can do this; that is, we can do stem cell research as we have
been doing over the last several years.
Since President Bush's first term in office way back in 2001, we have
been spending Federal tax dollars on stem cell research. But what the
President said in August of 2001 was that he would not allow Federal
tax dollars, your tax dollars, my tax dollars, those of my family, my
parents, my constituents, to be used to fund stem cell research that
resulted in the destruction of a human life.
What President Bush did say back then was that embryonic stem cell
research that was ongoing, that was a result of cell lines developed
from human embryos that had already been destroyed could continue; and
Federal tax dollars could be used through the NIH to give grants to
these researchers as they applied to use these existing cell lines,
which indeed did come from the destruction of human life, as I believe
life begins at conception, in these embryos that were taken from
fertility clinics.
In fact, Madam Speaker, I want to emphasize that point because it is
so important that our colleagues understand that, especially new
Members on both sides of the aisle that weren't here for the debate
last year, that got the impression maybe they and their constituents
felt that this administration and the former leadership of this
Congress in the 109th was spending nothing, was refusing to fund stem
cell research whether it was adult or embryonic.
But the facts are really brought home by this first slide, Madam
Speaker, that I want to present. And this is basically what it says:
Our government invested in lifesaving research. The Federal Government
has spent $161 million since 2003 on human embryonic stem cell
research. As I pointed out, Madam Speaker, the President was willing to
allow that funding to continue on those embryonic stem cell lines that
had already been created. And there was some 60 of those stem cell
lines where researchers could get a grant from the Federal Government
and begin that important research on these stem cells.
Before that, no administration, no President, at no time in the 40
years that the Democrats controlled the Congress, certainly not during
President Clinton's 8 years, was one dime of Federal tax dollars spent
on embryonic stem cell research. Some was spent on adult stem cell
research. But when it was suggested by scientists that maybe the
embryonic stem cells had more potential to develop into a lot of
different tissues and ultimately organs that could possibly help people
with diseases, and we have all seen those television spots with
celebrities in some cases, Michael J. Fox, who is suffering severely
from Parkinson's disease.
{time} 2315
The life of Christopher Reeves, we all know about the tragic injury
and the quadriplegic state that he suffered in for many years before
his tragic death last year.
When you see those things, you know, you think, well, we are not
doing anything. But the truth is, and it is very important for us to
understand this, that under President Bush, indeed, since 2003, some
$608 million has been spent on stem cell research. And a lot of that,
as I point out, because of those previous embryonic stem cell lines, a
lot of it has been on embryonic stem cell research, and he is the only
President that allowed that.
Now, we have great Members in both bodies and on both sides of the
aisle. And I have a tremendous amount of respect, Madam Speaker, for
the two Members in this body, in this House, that felt that because
maybe these embryonic stem cell lines that were previously created that
were being used for research would exhaust themselves, that we would
use up all those stem cells. We certainly haven't, at this moment. I
think there is still 20 of those stem cell lines in existence. Some
were found to be contaminated. Originally, I think, back in 2001, we
estimated that there were 60 of those lines, and now we are down to 20.
So I can understand the concern that maybe we would exhaust that
supply.
So Congressman Castle, a Republican Member, Congresswoman DeGette, a
Democratic Member, along with the Senate colleagues, Senator
[[Page H3468]]
Reid, Senator Kennedy, Senator Specter, in a bipartisan way, felt the
same thing. So these two bills came before the respective bodies in the
109th Congress. We did pass the Castle-DeGette bill, but the Senate
failed to deal with that, until finally it was decided that they would
go ahead and pass a companion bill, and then my colleagues, of course,
know that the President, as he had said all along that he would veto
that bill, and he did.
But what I want to make sure that the new Members understand is that
people like myself, who are pro-life Members of this body, we support
stem cell research, with only one exception. We don't support research
that requires killing of a human life. And last year, I, along with
Congressman Roscoe Bartlett, the gentleman from Maryland, a Ph.D.
physiologist who knows more about this subject, I guess, than anybody
in this body, and we worked together to develop an alternative bill
that would allow us, we the Federal Government, to fund research
programs that would use embryonic-like cells to get to the same point
without destroying human life. And some of the things that were
suggested in the Bartlett-Gingrey bill that we voted on, in this House,
in the 109th Congress, were to obtain an embryonic cell from a stem
cell from an embryo without destroying that embryo, to be able to,
essentially, biopsy with a fine needle and obtain those embryonic cells
without killing or even harming in any way that little embryo which had
the potential, of course, for human life. We didn't want to destroy
that life.
And this was part of the Roscoe Bartlett-Gingrey bill. And we felt
that this was sort of a win/win situation, Madam Speaker and my
colleagues, because we would be able to get to the same point without
any collateral damage. And of course the collateral damage that I am
talking about is the destruction of a human life.
And I want to go through a few of the posters that we have, and I
want to point out, Madam Speaker, that a lot of our colleagues who are
in support of destroying those human embryos, kind of indiscriminately,
so that we can obtain the embryonic cells that hopefully can lead to
cure of some of these diseases that I mentioned, would say in their
argument, look, 75, 80 percent of the American people are in favor of
this. How could we deny that overwhelming show of support when you ask
the American people do they want us to do this, and therefore, we think
we should, and we are going to pass this bill, over the President's
objection.
Well, Madam Speaker, as we all know, in regard to a response, it
really sort of depends on how you ask the question. If you ask the
question, and maybe a person sitting at home gets a telephone call of a
pollster, and they have been watching television, and they have just
seen a clip of Michael J. Fox and the ravages of Parkinson's disease,
or Christopher Reeves, as he sits there with the breathing machine,
struggling to talk to the American people about his struggles, and then
they get that call, and it is a pollster and they say, would you be in
favor of using embryonic stem cells in research to help cure these
diseases? And of course that individual may also just happen to have a
family member who is in the nursing home suffering from something like
Alzheimer's is an example.
And sure, I mean, Madam Speaker, if I were one of those individuals
that got that call, I would say, absolutely. Absolutely. So I am
surprised the number was only 75 percent. I would think it would be 95
percent, if you phrase the question in that way.
Now, on the other hand, if you said, and you prefaced that with,
would you be in favor of your tax dollars going to fund this research
on embryonic stem cells that might help cure one of these devastating
diseases, then no doubt that number would go down a little bit. I don't
know how much, but no doubt. When you start saying, well, now, it is
your money. It is not somebody else's money, in the abstract. It is
your money. Now, do you want to spend your money, the numbers would not
be as high.
But in this, the point I am getting to, Madam Speaker, in this next
slide, if you ask the question this way, and this is the only fair way
to ask this scientific question, say to the individual, stem cells are
the basic cells from which all of a person's tissues and organs
develop. Congress is considering the question of Federal funding for
experiments using stem cells from human embryos. The live embryos would
be destroyed in their first week of development to obtain these cells.
Do you support or oppose using your Federal tax dollars for such
experiments? That is the question that should be asked. And when it was
asked, in a poll conducted by the International Communications Research
in May of 2006, this is what the survey said. Those who support that,
38 percent. Those who oppose it, 47.8 percent. So, Madam Speaker, that
really is the crux of what we are talking about in regard to, do the
American people support research using embryonic stem cells that result
in the wanton, indiscriminate destruction of a human embryo, the so-
called extra, and I will get into that point later in the discussion,
extra, throwaway, nobody wants them, little babies.
And if you believe as I do that life begins at conception, these
embryos are several days to a week, maybe even 10 days old, long past
the moment of conception.
We are blessed tonight, my colleagues, to have one of our colleagues
join me in this discussion. And she just happens to represent a
wonderful district in North Carolina that includes the Wake Forest
Baptist University and Medical Center. And I want her to share with us
some of the research that is going on there at Wake Forest and the Wake
Forest School of Medicine.
I had an opportunity, Madam Speaker, as I was returning to Washington
yesterday, to stop at Wake Forest and to visit with Dr. Anthony Atala,
who is the president of the Institute for Regenerative Medicine at Wake
Forest University, and to spend about 3 hours with Dr. Atala, to have
an opportunity to meet with Dr. Hatch, the president of Wake Forest
University, and Dr. Richard Dean who is the dean of the medical school.
And with the 150, they weren't all there, but quite a few were, Ph.D.
and M.D. scientists that are working there at that great university,
and some of the things that they are doing to give us an opportunity to
obtain pluripotent, almost embryonic-like stem cells that will help us
do this kind of research that our colleagues want us to continue, and
the President wants to fund, with no collateral damage.
So at this point I want to yield to my colleague, Virginia Foxx from
North Carolina, to tell us a little bit more about that program and
take as much time as she wants. And we will continue our dialogue. And
I yield now to my good friend, Virginia Foxx.
Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Dr. Gingrey, Congressman Gingrey. I appreciate
your starting off this hour this evening on this important issue. I
also appreciate your having gone to Wake Forest to visit the Institute
for Regenerative Medicine. Some of the most important research that is
happening in the area of stem cell research is occurring at the
Institute for Regenerative Medicine at Wake Forest University. And I am
very proud to represent them here in the Congress.
I am going to talk a little bit about what they are doing, but I want
to reiterate some of the things that you have been saying. I got out my
file today on this and looked back at my notes, and it was almost 2
years ago that I stood on this floor one evening, a little earlier than
this, and spoke for about 40 minutes about the issue of stem cell
research. And I have told this story many, many times to people,
because many may wonder why we are here speaking sometimes to very few
of our colleagues who are here in the Chamber. But I tell this story
because it was about 9 o'clock at night, and as I said, I spoke for
about 40 minutes. And when I got back to my office, the staffer said to
me, you just had a call from a gentleman from Maryland who had never
watched C-SPAN before, was channel surfing and saw this woman standing
on the floor of the House and wondered how in the world did she get to
be on the floor of the House when he thought only Members of Congress
could speak on the floor of the House. And I didn't look like I was a
Member of Congress, so he stopped the channel surfing and watched and
listened to me talk about the issue of stem cell research and
[[Page H3469]]
called my office and said that he was so grateful for that because he
had not understood the issue like I had explained it.
{time} 2330
And he wanted to just call and thank me for that. And that has been
one of the things that has kept me going and doing these Special Orders
at night, thinking that even if we only reach a few people who are
watching, it is important to do that, and it is particularly important
on this issue.
And I think how you described, Dr. Gingrey, the way the survey
question should be asked, explaining to people exactly what is going to
happen as a result of the research, is very, very important because we
all know you get about whatever results you want to from a survey
depending on how you ask the question. But I think describing what stem
cell research is, is extremely important, and talking about what is
being done. You have presented some facts and figures there already,
and I want to do it again. I just think that every time we talk about
it, we need to talk about it.
People who are pro-life support stem cell research. I support stem
cell research. You do. Every other person here who considers himself or
herself a pro-lifer supports stem cell research. But what we want is
research that does not require the killing of human life. That is what
is important to us. We also know, as you have pointed out, that a lot
of money is being spent on embryonic stem cell research. A lot of
Federal dollars are being spent on that. And I think, frankly, that we
are paying more than our fair share for research that many people find
to be morally repugnant.
You gave some statistics. Mine are not long-term statistics. I have
the 2006 numbers.
In 2006 NIH spent $38 million on embryonic stem cell research,
compared to $200 million on human nonembryonic stem cell research,
adult and cord blood research. That is very important research. That is
the research that has given us some results in terms of curing disease.
We have gotten no positive results from embryonic stem cell research,
and that is the point I think that needs to be made over and over
again.
And one of the reasons I am very excited about the research that Dr.
Atala and his team are doing is because they are doing research that
doesn't require the destruction of human life. Dr. Atala, who came to
Wake Forest from Harvard and brought a large team, as you said, with
him, is a tissue engineering specialist, and he has found that amniotic
fluid stem cells have those pluripotent properties that you pointed out
earlier and grow as fast as embryonic stem cells. And I know that he
talked to you about the research, particularly in growing bladders,
that has occurred there and the tremendously positive response that he
has gotten.
Mr. GINGREY. Reclaiming my time, on that point for just a second, Dr.
Atala's research in regard to amniotic fluid cells, which that study
was published just this January of 2007 in the journal Nature
Biotechnology, was an amazing accomplishment in what Dr. Atala says.
And I know this, as an OBGYN physician from the great State of Georgia
in my prior life where I practiced for 26 years, delivering 5,200
babies. What Dr. Atala is doing, you can obtain this amniotic fluid
from a pregnant mom, pregnant woman, in the process of trying to make
sure that she is not carrying a baby that has a genetic defect. A lot
of times this is done if a woman is a little older. She is not old at
age 35 but is considered a little older for childbearing and the
increased risk of genetic defects. So a lot of women do have this
amniocentesis done. And if not an amniocentesis, a biopsy actually can
be taken of a part of the placenta through the cervix as early as 9
weeks of the pregnancy or obtain the amniotic fluid with a very fine
needle as early as 10 or 11 weeks of the pregnancy.
So I just wanted to point that out to my colleague that we are just
talking about a few weeks more mature in getting those cells, which are
almost embryonic because they are so early.
Ms. FOXX. Right. Well, thank you again for pointing out more of the
scientific evidence that we have. And I think it is very important that
a person with your background as an OBGYN physician can understand this
issue so well and explain it. I think that all the physicians on our
side of the aisle are very strong pro-lifers and are working very hard
to get the information out about this issue.
As you point out, those stem cells, those coming from the umbilical
cord and those coming from the placenta and the amniotic fluid, have
shown tremendous results.
The other thing that the media does not point out and that people who
are proposing that we go to embryonic stem cell research with
government funding, they don't point out the fact that over 70 diseases
have been treated by adult stem cells and zero treatments have come out
of embryonic stem cell research, even though embryonic stem cell
research just passed the 25-year mark. For over 25 years, scientists
have been looking into using embryonic stem cells, and we have really
gotten nothing but negative results from that, and we have gotten
tremendously positive results from adult stem cell research.
So that is why it is so important that we always distinguish between
adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research. We must do
that when we talk about it. Again, it is like what you have said,
pointing out the questionnaires and the surveys, making sure that
people get asked the right question and that we describe the issue
very, very well. We need very much to educate the American public on
this issue so that they won't think that the President is being very
arbitrary when he vetoes the bill and that we are not being arbitrary
when we uphold that veto, which I hope that we will do. And we need to
explain to people the ethical questions that we are dealing with.
As I pointed out in my comments a couple of years ago, and I want to
say it again, never in this country have we sanctioned research that
would harm other human beings. There was the research done in the 1930s
that was wrong. We have condemned it. Since that time we have had very,
very strong and ethical programs to protect adults from diseases that
would cause them harm and from diseases that would cause them death.
And yet people don't see the same problem when they are dealing with
embryos, and we have to do that. We must do that. We are crossing an
ethical Rubicon when we sanction using embryos for research or creating
embryos for this research. I think that it is really going over the
line, and we must tell people that, and we must have them understand
the long-term implications of that for our society and for the human
race. We don't believe in doing that in this country.
{time} 2340
I think that we have to be very careful again that we explain we can
get better results from doing things ethically than we are going to get
from doing things unethically, and we don't start down a slippery slope
of treating human beings in the wrong way.
I want to thank you again for coming tonight and starting this
discussion on this very, very important issue. I hope there is at least
one gentleman out there or one person out there, whether they are in
Maryland or some other State, who is watching this for the first time
and understanding the issue and the distinction that we are making
between doing ethical research on adult stem cells and what most of us
consider is unethical research on embryos, which will destroy them; and
that we can continue to use funds to support programs like Dr. Tony
Atala's research at Wake Forest University and other places where they
are seeing excellent results. And if we take that money away, we may be
denying the kinds of cures that many people say they want to get; but
by ignoring the adult stem cell research victories, we may be slowing
up the great results that we could get. And I yield back to you.
Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina who I said
represents Wake Forest University and Dr. Atala and his team there.
And her closing comments, Madam Speaker, segue really into my next
slide in this poster that I've got. What Ms. Foxx said is we have to
not go down that slippery slope. We have to consider the collateral
damage of what we do. We have to be very, very careful that we are not
playing God. And I say
[[Page H3470]]
that with all honest, sincerity, that we have an opportunity to do
ethical stem cell research; and by that I simply mean balancing life
and science.
Ms. Foxx talked about a number of the techniques. She talked about
obtaining stem cells from umbilical cord blood. She talked about
obtaining adult stem cells from bone marrow or from blood. And she
talked about the many successes utilizing research with adult stem cell
research. And the cures, I think she mentioned 70 different diseases,
including Type I diabetes. There was just a study from Brazil where 13
of 15 Type I juvenile, we call it, it is not always in children, but a
lot of children get juvenile diabetes, the severe kind of diabetes that
almost always requires insulin therapy, and even with good control,
leads to devastating complications, such as blindness, kidney failure,
the need for a kidney transplant. Thirteen out of 15 of these Type I
diabetics in Brazil who were treated with adult stem cells were found
to be months later developing insulin on their own. These stem cells
went to the pancreas and became the so-called islet cells, and now 13
out of 15 of those patients are not having to use insulin at all to
control their diabetes.
So some of the ethical ways. And then of course we talked about Dr.
Atala, who happens also to be chairman of the Department of Urology and
operates every day on what you might call routine things, but at the
same time is spending a lot of his effort running the Institute for
Regenerative Medicine, where they are studying ways to obtain, through
amniotic fluid, cells that are neither completely embryonic nor
completely adult, but they have qualities that are very similar to
both, in being similar to embryonic cells, those that my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle mostly, although some Republicans supported
the Castle-DeGette as well, the need to use these cells. Well, if you
can get the amniotic cells, they can double every 36 hours just like
the embryonic cells that we are talking about in destroying a human
embryo. But also, similar to an adult cell, they do not form tumors.
And that is one of the huge problems that the research on embryonic
cells has resulted in.
How do you solve that problem? Well, with Dr. Atala's research, we
wouldn't have that problem. These cells would double every 36 hours,
and they don't form tumors. The best of both worlds.
I see my colleague from Texas has joined us. He is a fellow
insomniac, although it is a little earlier out in Texas and maybe his
constituents are still up, certainly some are in California; but it is
great to have him with me tonight.
At this point I would like to yield to the gentleman from east Texas
and let him join in on this very, very important topic.
Mr. GOHMERT. Well, I appreciate my good friend from Georgia, the good
doctor, yielding.
And I, like our friend Ms. Foxx, appreciate so much the time you
spent in explaining this, Dr. Gingrey.
You know, when you and I discussed this, and if we could exchange in
a colloquy here for a moment, but you and I discussed this back at the
time when we were having a vote on this matter.
I came to the floor very excited because this amniotic fluid stem
cell information was just exciting because it didn't grow tumors. It
wouldn't require throwing away embryos. That was exciting news. And I
just felt in my heart, you know, we just get this information to the
floor and let those folks, most of them on the other side of the aisle,
but all the people who are saying we have got to dispose of embryos, we
have got to kill these unborn children in order to get the stem cells
that are embryonic stem cells. Here is this great research, the great
information that shows these are better than embryonic, these amniotic
stem cells. And that is exciting. Nobody has to die to provide stem
cells for anybody else to live. We got to the floor, and my heart was
broken. They didn't care. They didn't care.
Mr. GINGREY. If the gentleman would yield, and I really so much
appreciate him pointing that out.
I think what the gentleman is saying is, no tumor formation, no
collateral damage, no destruction of life, lives that could be adopted
and become a ``snowflake'' baby, we have a slide later on to show. But
I wanted to mention to my colleague, and I like his comments on this.
In addition to the work that Dr. Atala is doing at Wake Forest, and I
didn't know this, this is the last year, I say to the gentleman from
Texas, but in my great State of Georgia, at the University of Georgia,
a Ph.D. researcher, Dr. Steve Stice, has a project whereby embryonic
stem cells from embryos can be obtained if it is an embryo that once it
is rethawed and there is maybe an attempt to place that in a mother's
womb, but if you look at it under the microscope, he can tell if that
embryo has the potential for further generation. It is not dead, but
you might equate it to, say, a person who has no brainwave activity,
the other extreme of life, and has no chance of recovery. Well, Dr.
Stice, his research would be to obtain those embryonic stem cells from
those embryos so you wouldn't be destroying human life.
And I yield back to my colleague because I wanted to make him aware
of that. Our Senator, our junior Senator, who is so prescient and has a
way of solving problems when you've got a divide like this, Senator
Johnny Isakson, along with Senator Norm Coleman from Minnesota,
introduced a bill in the Senate last week and it passed overwhelmingly.
I think it got 75 votes. And I hope that we will have an opportunity to
vote on that bill in this House if, Madam Speaker, Ms. Pelosi, will
allow that to come to voice for a vote; because I can't see why any
Member, Republican or Democrat, pro-life, pro-choice, would not want to
support that, where it is a win-win situation. I yield back.
Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia
yielding.
And I know we both share that hope that springs eternal in the human
breast, that this is beginning to soak in. In fact, you know, you
wonder who is listening, who is paying attention. Are other people
getting it? I was talking to seven friends that are here from Smith
County with Sky Ranch, a Christian camp, and every one of them get it.
They understand.
{time} 2350
They know the value of human life, and they are passing that on. And
those with whom they deal, they are getting it. So the message is
getting out here. And I really believe with the optimism that my dear
friend from Georgia has and that we have, that there are so many good
people in this body, and I was so pleased to learn that when I got
here, that I believe in the end they will get it. They will understand
we don't have to make that terribly difficult, unethical decision to
end some life in order to take something from that one because we have
made the philosophical decision that we think that this person means
more to us than this other person, so we take this organ, we take those
stem cells and kill them to allow this one to live, and we shouldn't
have to go there. And the amniotic fluid stem cells I think provide
that kind of excitement.
I thank the gentleman from Georgia and appreciate your interest and
care and love for life, all life, even life on both sides of the aisle
and for what you are doing here.
Mr. GINGREY. Judge Gohmert, I thank you for your kind remarks; and of
course you are here not to praise me but to praise God and life and the
sanctity of life at the extremes, the embryo and the senior citizens as
well.
My colleagues, Madam Speaker, I cannot over-emphasize the point as I
look at this and reference you to this next slide. No lives, no lives
are thrown away.
We have heard, all of our colleagues have heard people speak on this
floor and say there are 400,000 of these extra throw-away embryos
available for this research, and they are going to be and I have even
heard people say, thrown down the toilet, that they are garbage. I have
heard the expression, and I know this is appalling, Madam Speaker, but
to hear the expression that it is nothing but medical waste and they
are going to be thrown away anyway, I know that gives many of us and
you and me and many of my colleagues chill bumps to think about that.
But the point is of these 400,000, those are not all extra and
scheduled for the trash can and available for the harvesting of
embryonic stem cells. The fact is in April 2002, there were a total of
396,000 embryos that had been placed
[[Page H3471]]
in storage, frozen for possible later use. Of those, and that is what
this slide points out, 88 percent of these frozen embryos, in fact
close to 350,000, are being held for future family building by the
donors. They have not completed their family. Maybe they have not
gotten pregnant yet. They have not conceived. So 88 percent are going
to remain preserved in a frozen state so that hopefully these infertile
couples will hopefully at some point in the future become parents.
And only 2.8 percent, about 8,700 of the frozen embryos, are
designated for destruction. Couples a lot of times are asked the
question: Well, would you like to give this baby up for destruction so
that we can get these embryonic stem cells, or would you rather just
throw them away? Well, half of the people that own those embryos would
say for whatever reason, maybe the same reason that folks sometimes say
no, I don't want an autopsy on my loved one; or no, I don't want to
donate an organ when I am in a massive automobile accident and I am
brain dead. A lot of people will say, look, I don't want my embryo, my
child, to be put in a blender for the sake of obtaining those embryonic
stem cells. I would rather it be thrown away.
So this business of 400,000 available, it is nothing near that
amount. It is very important for people and our colleagues to
understand and to put that in perspective.
Madam Speaker, I know our time is running short. We are rapidly
approaching the time that this body will be adjourning for the day, a
busy day. And I have one poster in particular that I want my colleagues
to take a close look at. This is the one that I am presenting now with
these precious children.
These were frozen embryos. These were part of the so-called medical
waste that was going to be thrown away; or, indeed, put in a blender
and churned up, destroying these little lives. Thank God the ones on
this poster were adopted by infertile couples, with the permission from
the couples who owned those embryos. These are what we refer to as the
snowflake babies.
Last year when we were debating this issue, many of them, the parents
went out of their way to take time off work, to buy an airline ticket
and fly up here with these toddlers, some months old, and some a few
years old. And I saw at the White House, as President Bush vetoed this
bill last year, he was holding a set of snowflake baby twins. Indeed,
throw away medical waste. I think not.
These little children on this poster look a lot like my six
grandchildren. I have three precious granddaughters and three precious
grandsons, and I think how precious life is.
We need to think about this very, very closely. I want to ask my
colleagues this question, just like the survey, the polling done and
you ask the question in the right way: some of us are pro-life. Some of
us are pro-choice. Some of us are Democrats, some of us are
Republicans. But if we have an opportunity to obtain embryonic stem
cells, maybe they do have more potential than the adult stem cells. I
don't know. I do know they have this problem with tumor formation. But
if the argument is our hands have been tied, although we have funded
embryonic stem cell research on those existing cell lines, but if the
opportunity is there and we considered that tonight and talked about
Dr. Atala's work on obtaining nearly embryonic, nearly totipotential
cells, we also can do things like biopsy an embryo, that is called
pregenetic diagnosis, and we do that all the time now.
If an embryo is from a family that has a congenital defect like
hemophilia or muscular dystrophy, you can biopsy that embryo to make
sure that condition does not exist. If you can do that without harming
the embryo, and it has been done thousands of times, we ought to be
able to do the same technique and get embryonic stem cells. It takes
some research.
If we can continue to fund scientists like Dr. Stice at the
University of Georgia in regard to using those essentially brain dead
embryos that don't have any potential for further life and get those
embryonic stem cells, we don't have to get into this argument, Madam
Speaker, between the pro-life and pro-choice community.
Isn't that, my colleagues, the way to go? I hope there is an
opportunity this year in the 110th Congress to vote on that bill and
give the President something that he can sign and get back to us and
make it law.
____________________