[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 20]
[House]
[Pages 29191-29196]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



         SENSE OF HOUSE REGARDING THE TRAFFICKING OF BABY PARTS

  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to 
the resolution (H. Res. 350) expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives with respect to private companies involved in the 
trafficking of baby body parts for profit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H. Res. 350

       Whereas the National Institutes of Health Revitalization 
     Act of 1993 effectively lifted the ban on federally funded 
     research involving the transplantation of baby body parts, 
     and such Act made it a Federal felony for any person to 
     knowingly, for ``valuable consideration,'' purchase or sell 
     baby body parts (with a term of imprisonment of up to 10 
     years and with fines of up to $250,000 in the case of an 
     individual and $500,000 in the case of an organization);
       Whereas private companies have sought to meet the demand by 
     both public and private research facilities by providing baby 
     body parts;
       Whereas the definition of ``valuable consideration'' under 
     the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993 
     does not include reasonable payments associated with the 
     transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, 
     quality control, or storage of baby body parts; and
       Whereas private companies appear to believe that the 
     definition of ``valuable consideration'' allows them to 
     circumvent Federal law and avoid felony charges with impunity 
     while trafficking in baby body parts for profit: Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of 
     Representatives that the Congress should exercise oversight 
     responsibilities and conduct hearings, and take appropriate 
     steps if necessary, concerning private companies that are 
     involved in the trafficking of baby body parts for profit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Fossella) and the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).


                             General Leave

  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on H. Res. 350 and to insert extraneous material on the 
resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 350, a much-needed 
resolution which would bring greater attention to a sordid trade in the 
bodies of aborted babies. I salute the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Tancredo) for working so diligently to bring this matter to the 
attention of the House.
  I have a copy of a brochure from a company called Opening Lines 
recently of West Frankfurt, Illinois, which has now moved its base of 
operations to an undisclosed location. This brochure boasts, ``Our goal 
is to offer you and your staff the highest quality, most affordable, 
and freshest tissue, prepared to your specifications, and deliver it in 
the quantities you need when you need it.''
  This company was founded, according to its brochure, ``in order to 
provide a convenient and efficient way for researchers to receive fetal 
tissue without a lot of bureaucracy.''
  The brochure explains that, ``We have simplified the process for 
procuring fetal tissue. We do not require a copy of your IRB approval 
or summary of your research, and you are not required to cite Opening 
Lines of the source of tissue when you publish your work. We believe in 
word-of-mouth advertising. If you like our service, you will tell your 
colleagues.''
  Mr. Speaker, Congress has spoken forcefully on the matter of selling 
aborted baby parts before. There is no question that it is illegal in 
the United States for any person to buy or sell fetal tissue effecting 
interstate commerce.
  Yet, the documents we have here show very clearly that, if this is 
true, that anyone can buy whatever part of a dead baby may be decided. 
According to this brochure, it is $50 for ears, $150 for lungs and 
hearts, $325 for a spinal column, and a pair of eyes cost $50. But the 
buyer is offered a 40 percent discount for a single eye. Prices are in 
effect through December 31, 1999.
  Mr. Speaker, companies like Opening Lines and their main competitor, 
the so-called Anatomic Gift Foundation, play a significant role in 
destroying the sanctity of innocent human life and apparently profit 
from this illicit activity even though it is illegal to buy and sell 
fetal tissue.
  According to Opening Lines, ``Our daily average case volumes exceeds 
1,500, and we serve clinics across the United States.''
  How are they getting around the law? I think Congress and the 
American people deserve to know.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I know a lot of folks in this body, a lot of 
Members come down and speak so eloquently and passionately when it 
comes to such things as cruelty to animals, and in many ways they are 
justified in their eloquence and their beliefs. I would just hope that 
those same Members come down to this floor and speak as eloquently and 
passionately when it comes to the destruction and cruelty to innocent 
human beings.
  I ask my colleagues to cast their votes in support of H. Res. 350 and 
ask that we work together to shed more light on this industry that has 
been operating in the shadows of darkness.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague from Colorado (Mr. 
Tancredo) would be available to engage in a short colloquy with me.
  Mr. Speaker, I just would like to try to clarify the intent behind 
this resolution before I make my statement. The reason is because, as I 
read the resolution, it says that it is a Federal crime for any person 
to knowingly for valuable consideration purchase or sell, quote, ``baby 
body parts,'' and then it goes on.

[[Page 29192]]

  When I read this, I went and looked at the Federal statutes. I found 
no Federal statute which criminalizes specifically selling ``baby body 
parts.''
  I was wondering if the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) was 
talking about either some insidious plot to take babies and kill them, 
and horribly, to sell the body parts; or if the gentleman was referring 
to the unlawful purchase of human organs as it would apply to minors, 
or, as I suspect from what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) 
said, that the gentleman may be talking about the unlawful sale of 
organs or fetal tissues is prohibited by statute.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. DeGETTE. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. TANCREDO. The answer to the gentlewoman's question is, it is the 
latter.
  Ms. DeGETTE. So it is the intention to talk about the unlawful sale 
of organs or fetal tissue.
  Mr. TANCREDO. That is correct.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
for that clarification.
  As I stated in the colloquy, any way we interpret this resolution, 
the unlawful sale of either children, of children's organs, or of fetal 
tissue would be illegal under Federal statutes. Murdering children 
would be illegal under 18 USC Section 1958(a) and, in fact, it would be 
a capital offense under Federal law. Unlawful purchase of human organs 
is also unlawful under 42 USC Section 274(e)(a), and, as noted by the 
gentleman from New York, it is also illegal to profit from the sale of 
organs or fetal tissues under 42 USC Section 289g-2(a). Those who 
partake in this illegal activity are subject to fines, 10 years in 
prison or both. And, obviously, it is a Federal crime to murder 
anybody, including babies or small children.
  The reason I raise this issue in this way is because what we are 
discussing here today is a serious issue of medical ethics, and I think 
that it is incumbent upon all of us in Congress to make sure that 
proper protocols are being followed with respect to research and that 
no illegal activity is occurring. However, the use of inflammatory and 
imprecise language in resolutions such as this one does nothing to 
ensure that these laws are being enforced or that proper controls are 
in place. In fact, we do not even need to consider a resolution in 
Congress to request an oversight hearing.
  If, indeed, illegal acts are occurring, then the oversight and 
investigation subcommittee of the Committee on Commerce, of which I am 
a member and I believe the gentleman from New York is also a member, 
should investigate these acts and any violation of Federal law should 
be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
  When fetal research was legalized in 1993, in the NIH Revitalization 
Act, a portion of that legislation established the conditions under 
which federally-funded fetal tissue research can take place. This law 
provides that it should be unlawful for any person to knowingly 
acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for 
valuable consideration. Specifically, it prohibits the purchase of 
human fetal tissue. It is interesting to note that a GAO report issued 
in 1997 determined that these requirements were in fact being met and 
no further complaints have been issued or detected, according to the 
NIH.
  We called the company, Opening Lines, which the gentleman referred to 
in his opening statement, and we learned that they have closed their 
offices and could find no other evidence of them. However, as I noted a 
moment ago, if protocols are not being followed, and if, in fact, fetal 
tissue is being sold, then Congress should hold hearings, investigate 
this matter, and the perpetrators should be prosecuted to the fullest 
extent of the law.
  But in establishing protocols and in thwarting illegal acts, we need 
to be mindful of the benefits that legitimate fetal tissue research has 
brought. Fetal tissue research has already resulted in significant 
advances in the treatment of Parkinson's Disease and even in more 
potential advances for Alzheimer's, diabetes, and many other serious 
medical conditions. There is a wide range of disorders and diseases 
that may benefit from fetal tissue transplantation research, including 
Alzheimer's disease, Huntington's disease, spinal cord injuries, 
leukemia, Down's syndrome, Tay-Sachs disease, hemophilia, epilepsy, 
cancer, and perhaps even brain damage caused by an accident or a 
stroke.
  Scientists estimate that fetal tissue transplants could help 
approximately 1 million Parkinson's disease patients, 2.5 to 3 million 
people affected with Alzheimer's, 25,000 people suffering from 
Huntington's disease, 600,000 Type I diabetics, 400,000 stroke victims, 
and several hundred thousand persons who have suffered a spinal cord 
injury.
  As the co-chair of the Congressional Diabetes Caucus and, more 
importantly, as the mother of a 5-year-old child who could benefit 
significantly from appropriate fetal tissue research, I want to ensure, 
and I know my colleagues want to ensure, that this critical research 
continues in an ethical manner so that we may find a cure for diabetes, 
Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, and these many, many other 
diseases in the near future.
  Again, if there is illegal activity going on, we should fully 
investigate it. But let us not cloud this issue with hyperbole or 
inaccurate language. Let us make sure that all of the protocols are 
being followed and illegal activity is not going on.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds just to respond 
that if anybody wants to use inflammatory language, that is not our 
intent, but this, again, is the price list from Opening Lines: A brain 
is $999, a kidney is $125, eyes at 8 weeks are $50, 40 percent discount 
for a single eye. That is the issue before us, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, if I were to tell my colleagues that human bodies were 
being dissected and that the parts were being methodically catalogued, 
preserved and sold for profit, they might well recoil at such a 
picture. They might think I was referring to the grotesque deeds 
carried out in Communist China, where buyers can place orders for 
specific organs from bodies of certain blood types. Prisoners matching 
the specifications are then slaughtered and their organs harvested and 
sold. Or perhaps, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues might think I was 
detailing the actions of Nazis, when they found the market in human 
hair, skin, and bones to be lucrative, so they turned the concentration 
camps into profit centers.
  It is, indeed, a tragic commentary on our times, Mr. Speaker, that I 
must tell my colleagues that it is not Communist China nor is it Nazi 
Germany to which I refer, it is contemporary America. The specific 
sites are not prisons or concentration camps, they are abortion 
clinics. Unfortunately, entrepreneurs appear to have found a profitable 
niche within the abortion industry and have begun to traffic in the 
body parts of aborted babies.
  Now, this practice was outlawed by the passage of the Health 
Revitalization Act, to which my colleague has referred. However, some 
unscrupulous individuals have found that by simply calling a charge a 
fee-for-service, that they could possibly avoid persecution and 
prosecution and turn a tidy profit on the sale of body parts.
  Mr. Speaker, on this poster we can see that the price list advertised 
by Opening Lines, one of the companies doing business in this area, and 
by the way it is true that one of their outlets has gone to ground 
since this all came to light, but there are other companies out there 
doing the same thing, clearly and unabashedly this sets out the 
specific price for each part. It is not I who stand here talking about 
baby body parts and offending the sensibilities of my colleagues; it 
is, of course, the organizations that are involved with selling them. 
What else would we call the

[[Page 29193]]

liver, 8 weeks; the spleen, 8 weeks; the pancreas, 8 weeks; intestines; 
mesentery; kidney without adrenal or kidney with adrenal? You can get 
either one. What would my colleagues call that if it is not a baby body 
parts list?
  This issue is not about fetal research. I knew that was going to be 
the issue my colleague and others would like to sort of cloud this 
thing with, fetal tissue research, the many benefits that may accrue 
from that. Anyone can stand up and say this resolution is about 
increasing the possibility for nuclear war. Anyone can say anything 
they want. The fact is, it is very clear it is a resolution simply 
calling for an investigation. If there are no problems, if in fact 
everybody is operating within the law, as my colleague suggests and 
hopes, then there is nothing to fear from investigation, and that is 
all this asks for. It is not legislation correcting or changing 
anything, but there is certainly evidence that something out there is 
wrong. Something is amiss. It is not going according to the way people 
who wrote the 1993 law wanted it to go.
  This organization was even more exuberant in their advertising when 
they said, ``Our goal is to offer you and your staff the highest 
quality, most affordable, freshest tissue prepared to your 
specifications, delivered in the quantities you need and when you need 
it.'' Now, this is not my stuff, this is not something I am making up, 
this is from their brochure.
  It is important at this point to cite the specific language of the 
Health Revitalization Act which says it is a Federal felony for any 
person to knowingly, for valuable consideration, purchase or sell human 
body parts, or fetal tissue, however one wants to put it. When I looked 
at this, it was body parts.
  Mr. Speaker, how much more clearly could we have said it when we 
wrote the law? We evidently need to do more to get the point across 
that the trafficking in human body parts is disgusting, dangerous, and 
completely unacceptable in a society which presumes to call itself 
civilized. I, therefore, have introduced this resolution, which calls 
upon the Congress to hold hearings to determine the extent to which 
this practice is going on and, if necessary, if necessary and only if 
necessary, to take appropriate steps to end it.
  Now, the last thing is this GAO report to which my colleague 
referred. The GAO study actually did come back and say it was not 
happening; it was not happening in three places, the Colorado Health 
Sciences Center, Mount Sinai, and the University of South Florida. And 
they were only looking at one specific aspect of this, they were not 
looking at private companies, they were not looking at pharmaceutical 
companies. So it is disingenuous, at least, to say this study sort of 
exonerates the industry. It was a very narrow study and in those three 
places it was not happening. In a lot of other places it is.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 350. When I 
heard from my staff last night that a resolution addressing illegal 
sale of fetal tissue would be offered on the floor today, my immediate 
reaction was if any illegality was taking place, it ought to be 
investigated immediately. Then I read the text of H.R. 350, with its 
use of terms like ``trafficking'' and ``baby body parts'', and I tried 
to call the company accused of wrongdoing, using the phone number 
listed in a Dear Colleague, and the number was not in service.
  My colleagues, these are serious allegations and we ought to react to 
them responsibly. If there are legitimate complaints or evidence of 
illegality, Congress has the power to act. But instead of taking time 
on this floor, we could be working in committee conducting oversight of 
the National Institutes of Health, which is charged with protecting the 
integrity of federally funded research.
  As the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), said, in 1997, as 
required by statute, the General Accounting Office investigated 
compliance with the detailed Federal regulations governing this 
research and the GAO found no evidence of wrongdoing or abuse. I would 
like to repeat that. The GAO found no evidence of wrongdoing or abuse.
  And yesterday, the NIH confirmed the GAO conclusion, again stating 
that no complaints regarding fetal tissue research have been 
investigated by the National Institutes of Health's Office for 
Protection from Research Risks, and no compliance cases or 
institutional reports have been filed with the NIH since the GAO 
reported to Congress in March 1997. And the National Institutes of 
Health, my colleagues, has no record of any Member of Congress to date 
requesting a review or presenting any evidence of wrongdoing, despite 
the fact that the NIH is the agency charged with oversight of federally 
funded research. No Member of Congress has called the NIH or requested 
in writing any investigation.
  Research involving fetal tissue is an integral part of the pioneering 
field of stem cell research which may offer millions of Americans, as 
the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) has said, suffering with 
diseases the opportunity to be cured. We should do everything we can to 
assure that this research proceeds in an ethical and cautious manner.

                              {time}  1130

  Allegations of wrongdoing, if substantiated, should be investigated, 
not, my colleagues, brought to the floor of the House to inflame. This 
resolution is not needed in order for oversight hearings to be held.
  So why are we debating this on the House floor? Let us put aside the 
inflammatory words and work together with the NIH to get the facts. 
That is why I urge my colleagues to reject H. Res. 350.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of truth to what the gentlewoman from New 
York said. However, there is an absence of appropriate timing with 
that. There is no question we are going to have an oversight hearing on 
this. There is no question we are going to do it. There is no question 
that they are violating the law and the intent and purposes of the law. 
We are going to do that.
  But this needs to be inflamed, I say to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Lowey), because this is exactly the slippery slope we said we 
would be going down.
  Let me tell my colleagues what this process is creating. If I am in 
there to rent some space from their abortion clinic and I tell them 
that can I sell a brain for a thousand dollars, do my colleagues know 
what I am going to do if I am an abortionist? I am going to do an 
abortion now that is most important in saving the brain rather than in 
caring for that woman who is having a pregnancy terminated. Because 
money then becomes the driving object in my abortion, not in the care 
of the woman who has made a difficult decision and is giving up a life.
  So now what we have had is we violate this law and the intent of it, 
although technically they may not be, but in fact their intent is to, 
we are inducing through the profit motive abortionists to put the life 
of their patient at risk for monetary gain, a fetal brain for a 
thousand bucks.
  How abhorrent can we be? Why should we not be inflamed? Why should we 
not be agitated? Why should we not be angry, in fact, when this process 
is going on exactly in contraindication to what we said in the law? We 
should inflame this. Everyone in America should know that the value of 
life has just gotten less, not the value of the fetus, the value of the 
very woman undergoing abortion. Because now her life is going to be put 
at risk because somebody is going to try to capture a brain intact 
regardless if that is the best and safest indication for that woman.

[[Page 29194]]

  So we do need to send the letters, and we are going to, from the 
Subcommittee on Health, I assure my colleagues. We are going to have an 
oversight. And we should as a body say, this is not right. This should 
stop. There are all sorts of unintended consequences occurring because 
this procedure is ongoing.
  The reason the phone is disconnected is just like the phones were 
disconnected a month ago at another one of them, because when everybody 
finds out, they shut down and move somewhere else simply because they 
know it is not right, not right ethically, not right morally, and not 
right legally. So I am inflamed about it. I am upset about it. Because 
the purpose of the law, what their intent is, is to go completely 
around that.
  I assure my colleagues that the Subcommittee on Health and the 
Oversight and Investigation Committee of the Subcommittee on Health of 
the Committee on Commerce is going to look at every aspect of this. And 
we already know what the answers are. We have had good undercover 
investigative reporting that has shown us the answers. But we are going 
to allow the people to give us the opportunity to do that.
  I hope, in our heart of hearts, that as we protect abortion in this 
country, the first thing we do is protect the women undergoing the 
abortion.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just clarify my position since the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) was directing his comments to me. I 
certainly respect his views on any issue. But my position was that I 
would respectfully suggest that the order in this House of 
Representatives is to have a hearing, to do an investigation, and not 
come to conclusions with the purpose of inflaming on the floor. I am 
delighted that they are going to have an investigation.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the purpose of the 
resolution is to raise the awareness of how foul, how dirty, how nasty, 
how abhorrent this is.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my 
colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this resolution. The proponents of this 
resolution are attempting to corrupt medical research with the politics 
of abortion. They are attempting to stall proper research to save lives 
to gain political advantage. I am not surprised, but I am disappointed.
  The resolution is totally misleading, and that may in fact be its 
real purpose. Sale of body parts for profit, the resolution talks 
about. No one is going out selling body parts, arms, or legs for any 
purpose.
  Researchers do use stem cells and tissue samples from the earlier 
stages of fetal development to promote research for the treatment of 
Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease and diabetes and other 
serious medical conditions. This is potentially life-saving research 
that can save thousands and thousands of lives. It is intended to 
alleviate pain and suffering and to save lives.
  But we do in the talk about that, we talk about selling body parts, 
which does not happen. We talk about having abortions to generate body 
parts, which does not happen. And again, I agree with the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Lowey). This is backwards.
  If the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) thinks that some foul 
stuff, as he put it, is going on, that some foul deeds are being 
committed, have an oversight hearing, look into it, find out the facts 
first. Do not declare the facts first and then investigate. We do that 
too often in this House these days, and this is a prime example of it.
  I do not think those foul things are happening. I think it is a 
concoction; I think it is propaganda to inflame debate to stop medical 
research into life-saving techniques.
  But if they are happening, let us find out; let us have a hearing. 
They will have a hearing. The gentleman says so. Fine. So why this 
resolution? This resolution is total demagoguery and ought to be 
rejected for the demagoguery it is. Let us have the hearings and find 
out the facts and then see what we ought to do, if anything.
  Facts first. Action later. Demagoguery not at all.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of this 
resolution which says very simply that the House should hold hearings 
on the commercial trafficking in baby body parts.
  Here is the issue in a nutshell. Based on reliable reports, abortion 
clinics are selling parts of babies, and the older the better, to 
middlemen. Those middlemen, in turn, sell them to researchers. This 
means more money for the abortion clinic. Instead of the problem of 
disposing of dead bodies, now abortion clinics have a lucrative means 
of getting rid of the ``unintended babies.'' This means money for the 
middlemen.
  Just look at this price list that is duplicated, blown up from an 
article obtained from a national business which traffics in unborn baby 
body parts. Up here we see a liver, $150. But they can get it for $125 
if it is from a younger baby, or they can get a 30 percent discount if 
it is ``significantly fragmented.'' A spleen is $75. Pancreas, $100. 
This is their document. A thymus, $100.
  Look at this. A brain, $999. Notice they even use marketing 
techniques in this gruesome big business, selling it for one dollar 
less than a thousand dollars to make it, I guess, a more attractive 
purchase. And again, if it is fragmented, and what a terrible way to 
describe a baby's injured brain from an abortion, they can get a 30 
percent discount. Almost like, step right up, ladies and gentlemen, do 
you want a baby's ear? Seventy-five dollars, $50 if a baby is less than 
8 weeks old. How about eyes? A pair of eyes $75; $40 for one eye. Skin, 
a baby in a second trimester, $100. Spinal cord, $325.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish this gruesome price list were a cruel Halloween 
hoax, but it is not. It is the price list for human body parts from 
aborted babies.
  It is almost like the bureaucratization of the Nazi's final solution 
hammered out in conferences and committed to legal documents, except 
now it is in the form of capitalistic price lists organized for 
commerce, sanitized for the grim reality which it is.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw attention to the job of one young 
woman. Let us call her Kelly. Kelly's job at the abortion clinic was 
one of retrieving body parts from dead bodies for abortion and shipping 
them for profit to researchers who requested them. Here is her 
testimony. Kelly said: ``We had a contract with an abortion clinic that 
would allow us to go there on certain days. We would have a generated 
list of tissue that organizations were looking for. Then we would 
examine the patient charts.
  ``We only wanted the most perfect specimens that we could give. We 
were looking for eyes, livers, brains, thymuses, cardiac blood, cord, 
blood from liver, even blood from the limbs.''
  Kelly quit her job one day when an abortion doctor came in and 
brought in two babies, two 5\1/2\-month-old twins still moving. She 
could not take it anymore.
  It is time the Congress begin oversight hearings on this death-
dealing business. We need to begin tracing this money trail. The bill 
before us today does nothing more than call for hearings. It does not 
call for the elimination of trafficking. It does not require women to 
sign a consent form before their babies are sold for parts. It does not 
even prohibit Planned Parenthood or commercial middlemen from 
profiting. All it does is call for hearings. Surely, no one could 
reasonably oppose a hearing.
  Let me anticipate one line of protest. Some will say that medical 
progress requires that we turn tragedy into a blessing for the living. 
Well, they are right. We must do all we reasonably can to erase human 
suffering. But the

[[Page 29195]]

key is responsibility. We have a responsibility to the sick, the 
disabled, the children, the elderly.
  Who among us does not have a loved one who suffers from some disease 
or ailment? But do not be fooled between false choices between medical 
research and no medical research. We have other options other than 
buying and selling dead children's body parts.
  I urge Members to support this resolution.
  And that's the issue we focus on today--not research--but the buying 
and selling of baby body parts for profit, for financial remuneration.
  We can, we must, and we will do more to ease human suffering. But not 
at the ghastly price paid in dissecting babies, pricing their body 
parts, and distributing marketing lists.
  The Nazis killed their unwanted children under the guise of the 
``Realm's Committee for Scientific Approach to Severe Illness Due to 
Heredity and Constitution.'' Transportation of the patients to killing 
centers was carried out by ``The Charitable Transport Company for the 
Sick.''
  We should not join the Nazi's rationalization of unbounded research 
on the powerless to build a master race. No, we must not.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this common sense non-
binding legislation to call for congressional hearings on this issue.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, certainly no one in this chamber would ever advocate the 
improper sale of ``baby body parts'' or of ``fetal tissue.'' This is a 
very sensitive issue of medical ethics which is important for us to 
ensure is always being adhered to in the strictest way.
  This issue, if there is an issue, even though no one has documented 
it, if there is an issue of improper sale of fetal tissue or of 
children or anything of that nature, the sponsor of the bill, the floor 
manager, the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, any Member of this 
House could have requested NIH to investigate those allegations 
pursuant to the statute. That has never been done to date.
  They could have brought this issue up during the NIH authorization 
hearings, which the Committee on Commerce has jurisdiction over. That 
has not been done. They could have requested an oversight 
investigations hearing into these very deeply troubling allegations. 
That has not been done.
  After looking at what has not been done, it becomes clear that this 
practice of bringing this issue to the House floor to demagogue it is 
improper. We should go through the committee process and decide 
whether, in fact, these practices are occurring. And if they are, we 
should stop them immediately.
  No one would favor the sale improperly of fetal tissue or any other 
kind of tissue. But let us call this what it is. If there is an issue, 
let us have a hearing, let us investigate it, let us prosecute anybody 
who is breaking the law.
  That is what we should be doing, not standing here in November as the 
session is winding down and raising it on the floor for the first time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. Again, as I 
stated at the outset, there are so many Members who rightfully and 
legitimately in their mind come to the floor to speak so passionately 
about saving the dolphins and saving the tigers and saving the whales. 
That may all be legitimate. I would just hope that they would feel the 
same way when it comes to the saving and sanctity of innocent human 
beings.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). The gentleman from New Jersey 
is recognized for 3\3/4\ minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support 
of H. Res. 350 and urge swift and extensive oversight into the question 
of trafficking in the bodies of unborn babies killed by abortion. Mr. 
Speaker, the House has not addressed this issue since 1993, when the 
NIH Revitalization Act was passed by this body. At that time, many of 
us were deeply concerned, and expressed it on this floor, that research 
using the shattered bodies of aborted babies could quickly lead to a 
greater number of abortions, particularly if the demand for their body 
parts grew among researchers. Those concerns appear to have been well 
founded.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) for 
offering this resolution and, as he pointed out earlier, it was a pro-
life organization in Texas that compiled numerous documents about the 
horrific business of trafficking in baby body parts. The companies 
involved provide price lists for the individual parts. Let me read just 
some of those that are listed:
  Liver, $150, but a 30 percent discount if significantly fragmented. 
Pancreas, under 8 weeks, $100. Ears, under 8 weeks, $75. Brain, under 8 
weeks, $999, 30 percent discount if significantly fragmented. Intact 
trunk, with or without limbs, $500. Spinal column, $150. Skin, $100.
  Mr. Speaker, this is almost too grotesque to imagine. Yet this is a 
real business and these are real babies, innocent children who have 
been deprived of their lives.
  It is routine, Mr. Speaker, for pregnant women who are planning to 
abort their babies to be told that their children are nothing more than 
collections of cells or blobs of tissue. Yet these lists clearly give 
lie to that myth. Babies younger than 8 weeks have, as they point out 
on their price list, identifiable brains, livers, spleens, ears, and 
eyes, and they, as well as older babies, are being taken apart piece by 
piece, limb by limb, even skinned. Worst of all, there are profiteers 
waiting in the wings to make money from this tragedy by collecting and 
selling the pieces.
  Among the questions that Congress must investigate, Mr. Speaker, is 
whether these private businesses are operating inside or outside the 
scope even of our current infirm law, and whether Federal law has the 
gaping loopholes that we suggested back in 1993 which allow these 
companies to claim significant payments for body parts as, quote, 
reasonable compensation for obtaining them.
  We may also have to look at the clinics' financial interest, 
particularly where federally funded research is involved. When taxpayer 
funding of research using baby body parts was being defended 6 or more 
years ago, one thing that was said repeatedly was that these babies are 
already dead. The truth is, however, that they are not dead when a 
woman is asked to donate, and it may not even be true that the woman 
has decided to abort when she is presented with the prospect of handing 
over her baby's body parts for research purposes. And as we pointed out 
then, that may, among other factors, help tip the scale.
  Mr. Speaker, many women are ambivalent about abortion, and the 
studies show that many are undecided even as they walk into the clinic 
doors. They hope to get objective counseling about their options, but 
abortion clinic employees, as we have known, are far from objective. 
Currently there is nothing in Federal law or regulations, and almost 
certainly nothing in the private sector, to prevent a so-called 
counselor from telling a woman who is undecided about abortion that if 
she decides to abort, some good can result if she donates her dead baby 
to research.
  Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Colorado has pointed out to all of 
us, and again I want to salute him for bringing this to our attention, 
a woman who used to work for these middlemen has come forward to talk 
about their business arrangements with abortion clinics.
  She has recounted that the abortion clinic would give her information 
on the women in the waiting room so that she could pick out the best 
candidates to fill their requests for organs and tissues, based on the 
women's medical history and stage or pregnancy. How far- fetched is it 
to imagine that these women in particular were approached to get 
permission to dissect their babies bodies? The so-called safeguards in 
current law for federally funded research are inadequate in this area 
and need to be re-examined.

[[Page 29196]]

  Mr. Speaker, the prospect of economic gain causes can poison even 
those practices established with the most benevolent intentions. Just 
yesterday there was a news story about concerns that have been raised 
over trafficking in human organs internationally for profit. A 
university professor who founded a group, Organs Watch, to investigate 
this, said ``In the organs trade business, abuses creep in before you 
know it.'' The same abuses should be expected in the baby parts 
business.
  I would be astounded if any Member of this body objected to this 
resolution. If the laws we have, and the enforcement of them, are so 
great, then hearings will bring that out. But if they are inadequate or 
are being ignored, then Congress should be made aware of that as well.
  Mr. Speaker, the barest minimum that we can do is to have a full 
scale investigation into this and go wherever the leads may take us to 
try to stop this heinous practice.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on this important 
resolution. Let's let some light shine on this grisly business.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, it's hard to escape the conclusion that this 
resolution--by its very name--is designed to attack and cast doubt on 
fetal tissue research.
  First, let's be clear. The law that authorizes fetal tissue research, 
The NIH Revitalization Act of 1993, which I helped author, contains 
strong protections against the abuses alleged in this resolution. While 
we should be concerned if these protections are violated, this 
inflammatory resolution clearly means to whip up opposition to all 
fetal tissue research by substituting sound bites for facts. The facts 
are that fetal tissue research is subject to Federal, State and even 
local regulation. It is subject to informed consent. It is subject to 
audit by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Violations of 
Federal protections are subject to criminal penalties.
  Congress and the American public have already decided that fetal 
tissue research is both legal and ethical. It is crucial to women's 
health and reproductive research. It is enormously promising for 
Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, Tay-Sachs 
disease and juvenile diabetes. It could help cure victims of stroke and 
brain cancer. We should always do appropriate oversight. But a 
resolution that talks about ``baby body parts'' is not the way to do 
it. This resolution uses rhetoric to conceal its attack on the hopes of 
Americans with Alzheimer's and MS. It resorts to linguistic tricks to 
mask its impact on American mothers seeking cures to genetic birth 
defects--mothers who could have healthier babies as a result of fetal 
tissue research.
  I am very disappointed in the House. In the waning days of this 
Congress, we should be enacting the Patients Bill of Rights. We should 
be working on the Medicare drug benefit. But instead, once again, the 
House Republican leadership is kow-towing to its pro-life right-wing 
with misleading and sensationalist rhetoric.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) that the House suspend the rules 
and agree to the resolution, House Resolution 350.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________