[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 14874-14877]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           STEM CELL RESEARCH

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Price of Georgia). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Gingrey) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority 
leader.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be here this evening as the 
designee of the majority leader talking about something that is hugely, 
hugely important that we debated on the floor of this House just an 
hour, maybe a couple of hours ago. And, Mr. Speaker, I am referring, of 
course, to the issue of stem cell research.
  And just to kind of set the record straight, Mr. Speaker, I think my 
colleagues know that my prior profession was that of a physician, in 
particular as an OB-GYN doctor, a pro-life OB-GYN practicing in my home 
State of Georgia for 26 years.
  And the President, before I was elected to the Congress in August of 
2001, Mr. Speaker, made a very careful, thought-out and prayerful 
decision in regard to the issue of the utilization of embryonic stem 
cells for medical research in hopes of providing someday a cure for 
some of the devastating diseases that we have seen in public service 
announcements on television. And God rest his soul, I remember when the 
actor Christopher Reeve was talking about the suffering and his malady. 
And, of course, there are other conditions such as Alzheimer's and 
Parkinson's and Type 1 diabetes and things like that. And we do hope 
and every Member in this body hopes on both sides of the aisle, and the 
other body as well, that someday we can have our medical research 
scientists, doctors, develop an ability to treat some of these chronic, 
devastating diseases. Spinal cord injury certainly is another.
  But the President made this decision because people were asking that 
we take so-called extra embryos from fertility clinics that couples 
were not going to use. Maybe they had already achieved a pregnancy or 
several pregnancies and they had completed their family, and yet 
because of egg retrieval and in vitro fertilization, there were these 
embryos that they owned, that belonged to them, that were frozen in 
case they may, indeed, need them at some point in the future. Some 
couples, of course, would decide that their family was complete and 
maybe never utilize these frozen embryos. And there was a great push on 
the President to say, well, look, these are just extra. They are going 
to be thrown away anyway. The couples have already said they do not 
want them and they are willing to donate them to research.
  And the research we are talking about, Mr. Speaker, is the ability to 
take those embryos and obtain from them something that we refer to as a 
stem cell and, by definition, an embryonic stem cell. But to do that, 
as the President so clearly understood, these embryos were being 
destroyed. Although it is not an exactly accurate description, Mr. 
Speaker, but you may say you just put these embryos in a blender and 
you churn them up and you centrifuge and at some point you are able to 
obtain these stem cells from the embryo that have a potential in cell 
culture, when stimulated in a certain way, to grow into really any 
tissue of the body.

                              {time}  2100

  There are three different germ cell layers. But in essence, if you 
needed cardiac muscle in somebody who, let's say had a heart attack, 
and you could go these embryonic stem cells and make them become heart 
muscle, maybe you could repair that scar on a person's heart. Or if you 
could stimulate these cells to become nerve tissue, maybe indeed you 
could help a little child overcome the paralysis of spina bifida, or 
someone with a spinal cord injury like a very fine Member of this House 
that suffered a spinal cord injury as a teenager, maybe you can do 
that.
  The President recognized that. But basically what he said to the 
American people in August of 2001, shortly before 9/11, is we are not 
going to allow taxpayer dollars to be used for research on embryonic 
stem cells if it results in the destruction of human life, the 
destruction of one life, maybe a near perfect life if you allow it to 
continue to live,

[[Page 14875]]

in the hopes that you can, in destroying it, take these beginning cells 
that we call stem cells from the embryo and help somebody else.
  Well, the President basically said, Mr. Speaker, and I agreed with 
him then and I agree with him wholeheartedly today as a pro-life 
physician and a pro-life Member of this body, there was too much 
collateral damage. In this instance the collateral damage was the death 
of that embryo, that little baby, if you will. We call them fetuses, 
embryo, fetus, but really it is just a little baby.
  Today at a press conference, and they have been on the Hill before, 
but it was so poignant to me, Mr. Speaker, to see some of these so-
called snowflake babies, these little embryos from these fertility 
clinics, these so-called extras.
  Well, lo and behold, almost 100 couples were aware of the 
availability and asked some of these parents who owned those embryos, 
they were their children and they had the right to throw them away or 
donate them, offer them up for adoption, and some infertile couples, 
many of whom we saw today, Mr. Speaker, at this press conference, 
legally adopted these so-called throwaway, extra, nobody-wants-them 
embryos.
  In two instances, they resulted in twins, identical twins. I saw 3-
year-old boys, beautiful boys and 2-year-old identical twin girls, two 
different couples of these almost 100 moms and dads who have adopted 
these so-called throwaway embryos.
  Mr. Speaker, those two sets of twins that me and some of my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle saw today at this press 
conference, they could have been in that blender churned up so that 
their stem cells would have been obtained in hopes of helping somebody 
else. These precious lives would not exist today.
  This President has got a great heart and great compassion and great 
morality, and he was absolutely right to say we will fund with taxpayer 
dollars through our National Institutes of Health and our great 
scientists, we will fund research programs on stem cells, even 
embryonic stem cells, but not if it means we have got to kill some 
little baby in harvesting these cells.
  Well, the President was right. But last year in this body a couple of 
our Members sponsored a bill, one from both sides of the aisle, two 
well-respected Members, I have great respect for both of them, and 
Members in the other body wanted to bring this back up and felt that 
because the American public, after watching all of these public service 
announcements that tug at your heartstrings, felt that, well, you know, 
why not? You are just going to throw away those embryos.
  Of course, these public service announcements didn't talk about the 
snowflake babies, the children that we saw today. If they had known 
that, if the public knew that, if they were fully aware of it, then all 
these polling numbers that we hear, Mr. Speaker, that say, oh, the 
public wants this, the public demands this, and therefore we have this 
bill last year, the so-called Castle-DeGette bill, H.R. 810, I believe 
is the number, and it passes this body. It passes this body with 
support on both sides of the aisle, but with more Democrats supporting 
it than Republicans. But, in any regard, it passes.
  Now, today the bill passes the Senate. I think they thought they were 
going to roll the table over there, Mr. Speaker. It barely got the 
number of votes that it needed, 63, where they require that 
supermajority in the other body.
  So this bill is going to go to the President. It is going to go to 
the President. It is probably already on his desk, or maybe it will be 
there tomorrow, and he is going to be expected to vote yea or nay on 
that bill.
  Well, not only do I hope and pray, I have every confidence that this 
President will stand by his convictions, as he always has, Mr. Speaker, 
whether we are talking about fighting the Global War on Terrorism or 
protecting the sanctity of human life, and this President will veto 
that bill, as well he should.
  Now, one of the main purposes of me wanting to speak tonight about 
values, and there is hardly anything more important in this body that 
we attend to than the values of this great Nation that we are so 
privileged to be a part of, we have another bill. We have a bill that 
was voted on in this body today, and it required by the rules of 
procedure a two-thirds vote here, and it did not quite get it today. It 
did not quite reach that two-thirds majority for passage. But I want to 
just kind of talk about the bill a little bit and make sure my 
colleagues fully understand.
  I hope there was no confusion about this alternate bill, because 
really what the bill does, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, it is an 
opportunity to obtain these same embryonic stem cells without 
destroying or even harming human life. I as a physician know that it 
can be done. In fact, it is occurring in nature. I will describe that 
in just a minute.
  My colleague who really drafted the original bill, Roscoe Bartlett, 
the gentleman from Maryland, this became the Senator Santorum bill, 
which was a companion bill, I commend the Senator from Pennsylvania, a 
great pro-life, traditional, family value member in the Senate, for 
introducing it.
  Mr. Speaker, that bill in the Senate today, it didn't pass with 63 
votes like the H.R. 810 Castle-DeGette bill did. The vote was 100-0. I 
don't even know how many days you are going to have 100 members. That 
is 100 percent of that body present. It is hard at any time to have 100 
percent of the membership present, what with family emergencies and 
things like that.
  But today there were 100, the whole body was there, and a 100-0 vote 
in support of Senator Santorum, Representative Bartlett's bill, that 
would fund research, would let taxpayer dollars go to grants to 
research ways of obtaining those embryonic and other stem cells without 
harming or destroying human life.
  Now, it passed. That bill passed here in the House of Representatives 
this afternoon, but it was just a little bit short of the two-thirds 
that it needed. We will bring that bill back to this floor, Mr. 
Speaker, tomorrow, and it will pass, and it will pass with bipartisan 
support, and it will pass with a wide majority. A great plurality of 
the 435 Members of this body will support this bill. Two-thirds? No, 
but darn close to it.
  It will go to the President and the President will have an 
opportunity then to say to the American people, you know, I have got 
these two pieces of legislation here. They both seek the same result. 
Each bill wants to give us an opportunity to put money behind research 
so that we can obtain these embryonic and adult stem cells so we can 
help people like the late great Christopher Reeve and Michael J. Fox, a 
person who we all know who is suffering from parkinsonism, but, more 
importantly, the folks back home, our constituents, our families, our 
moms, our dads, our grandparents, the child I see in church every 
Sunday who is suffering from a spinal condition, probably spina bifida.
  We know that we can put money behind research in either one of these 
two bills, the Castle-DeGette bill, H.R. 810, I think it is, or the 
Santorum-Bartlett bill.
  But, Mr. Speaker, the difference, there is a huge difference in the 
two bills. As I told my colleagues on the floor today, the difference 
is in the collateral damage. In the Bartlett-Santorum bill, it allows 
this research to be able to obtain stem cells maybe from an embryo by a 
biopsy without harming the fetus, or the Castle-DeGette bill, where you 
do it the easy way. You just kind of take the embryo and you churn it 
up and centrifuge off the stem cells.
  I heard someone on the floor today say that, well, you know, we know 
that method, the blender method, if you will, where we destroy human 
life in obtaining the embryonic stem cells. It is easy. It is proven. 
We can do it. There is no problem. Why should we go through another 
step or two and go to the trouble and the expense? And, oh, by the way, 
it may take a year or two before we know for sure that it works. Why 
don't we just go ahead and do the expedient thing?

[[Page 14876]]

  Goodness gracious, my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, the expedient thing 
results in the loss of life, and no snowflake embryos, no precious 
twins that we saw today. It is just not the right thing to do.
  This President, thank God, has a good heart and a good soul and a 
good mind, and he knows that. And I think God has given him the wisdom 
to make the right decision in this case and resist the pressure and 
understand that the polling, many times when you ask the question, if 
people don't fully understand what I am trying to explain to my 
colleagues tonight, and anyone that might be listening at home, that 
when you look at it and understand what I am saying, and it is the 
absolute truth, what I am saying, I think the American people 
overwhelmingly would say, well, gee, you know, if we are going to get 
the same result and there is already good research going on with 
Federal funding, our tax dollars supporting research on adult stem 
cells and we are getting good results, all right.
  In the private sector, Mr. Speaker, there is plenty of research going 
on in regard to embryonic stem cells, some of which are obtained from 
those fertility clinics with the destruction of human life. If private 
people want to do that, the State of California recently enacted 
legislation or had a statewide referendum that called for $3 billion in 
funding for embryonic stem cell research that does result in the death 
of the embryo, and that is fine. If they want to do that in California 
with their money, fine. If private companies want to do it, that is 
fine.
  But to say to the American people, who I am sure I am correct in 
saying that more than 50 percent of them, certainly in my district in 
my State, in my hospital, are strongly pro-life, and to say to them, 
you know, we are going to take your money, your tax dollars, and we are 
going to put it and let NIH researchers or give grants to doctors, 
wherever, you know, I am not going to name names or places, but these 
higher institutes of learning, these ivory towers, they are great, we 
love them.

                              {time}  2115

  We are all for research. But not if it means that my money is going 
to fund something that results in yet another of the 40 million 
abortions that have occurred since Roe versus Wade in 1973.
  Make no mistake about it. Every time you kill one of these embryos to 
obtain those stem cells in this manner, that is yet another abortion. 
So I am very much opposed to the Castle-DeGette bill and very much in 
favor, Mr. Speaker, of the Santorum-Bartlett bill.
  As I say, I will in all probability have an opportunity to discuss 
the rule on the floor tomorrow. We will have another vote, and I will 
be very proud when my colleagues again on both sides of the aisle, 
there is no way this should be a partisan issue, really it is not. We 
will have the votes to do the right thing. I really look forward to 
that.
  I wanted, Mr. Speaker, to take a little time to talk about another 
issue or two, that may come up as we refer this week to ``values week'' 
in the House of Representatives. Although we sometimes get criticized 
and people say, well, you know, you all are spending all of your time 
talking about values, and yet we have got a deficit and we have got a 
national debt and we need to fund this and we need to fund that, and, 
you know, your responsibilities, you are neglecting them as you 
concentrate on these value issues like the Marriage Protection Act, the 
Pledge of Allegiance Protection Act and this stem cell issue, I would 
say to those critics, and some of them were sitting in this Chamber 
earlier today, from my perspective, I was sent here to do more than 
just spend people's money.
  Obviously we have to spend money, and we try to do it wisely. But the 
values of this country are just as important to me in my representation 
of those values, not just my district in Georgia, the 11th, or my 
State, but of this entire country, because we need to show the world 
that we are a country of strong moral values.
  I think that that in itself will help us as much as anything in the 
Middle East, to let the rest of the world know that we have character 
in this country and we stand by these values. And so for us to spend 
time standing up for the sanctity of marriage is an example. I would 
say to my constituents and my colleagues, that is no waste of time. 
That is no waste of time at all.
  The debate that we had on the floor today on this constitutional 
amendment resolution brought to us by the gentlewoman from Colorado 
(Mrs. Musgrave), a champion really of this cause, and I commend her for 
her ethics both in this 109th Congress and the 108th Congress.
  We fell a little short of the two-thirds vote we needed. They fell a 
little short in the other body. But I will guarantee you the American 
people would not fall short on this issue. 88 percent of them in 45 
States have already addressed this issue, and they cannot wait for this 
Congress with its two-thirds majority vote in both bodies to give them 
the opportunity to vote on this constitutional amendment, defining, 
defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
  I just went over, Mr. Speaker, before we started the time and looked 
at the dictionary. It is right to my left as we come into the door, 
these hallowed halls. And you see Members looking at it all the time. 
This happens to be the Random House Webster's dictionary.
  And listen to what they say about the definition of marriage. ``The 
social institution under which a man and a woman establish their 
decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments and religious 
ceremony''.
  That is what we are talking about. And when Members stand up and 
criticize and say, oh, well, what about Federalism and the power of the 
States? Well, the States regulate issues such as age of consent and 
consanguinity and the rules of civil procedure and inheritance, and 
that does not change at all.
  But it just says that these activist judges, because of a 
constitutional amendment that I know one day soon we will pass, that 
the definition, the definition of marriage is that union between a man 
and a woman.
  You know who benefits the most from that, Mr. Speaker? You know who 
benefits the most, my colleagues? It is the children of that marriage. 
And do not call me a bigot for my strong feeling that a child needs a 
mother and father. I feel very strongly about that. And this is not a 
racial issue. There is no hatred involved, certainly not in the heart 
of Marilyn Musgrave, a great mom and wife.
  The Members who really overwhelming support this. This is the right 
thing to do. And that is why we spend time in this body, precious time, 
yes, talking about our values. Our values in regard to the sanctity of 
life and the sanctity of marriage.
  Finally, finally, Mr. Speaker, let me talk a little bit about the 
pledge of allegiance. You know, I believe it is the 9th District Court, 
we sometimes refer to it as the Left Coast, but that would be 
California for those of you who do not know to what I am referring.
  For those judges to say that it is unconstitutional to have ``under 
God'' in the pledge of allegiance and make a decision, Federal District 
Court in the 9th District which includes California and the rest of the 
left coast, and to have that say that that is applicable to the entire 
United States.
  No way. No way. And we are not going to have it. We are not going to 
have it. And we will be discussing and voting on a bill tomorrow that 
says to these activist judges, you keep your legal opinions away from 
our pledge of allegiance. And you have no authority whatsoever to speak 
in regard to that.
  If some State court wants to do it, or some State supreme court wants 
to do it, and their citizens are happy with that, so be it. But not at 
the Federal level. I am going to tell you, if they did it in the State 
of Georgia we would throw the bums out. They may embrace them in 
California, but that is what makes this country great, you know. I 
mean, different strokes for different folks.
  But we want to make absolutely sure that these activist Federal 
judges are not taking God out of our pledge of allegiance, and we will 
have that vote, we will have the discussion. We will

[[Page 14877]]

have a good discussion and then we will have Members kind of go on 
record. Those votes will not be by voice vote, I can assure you of 
that, Mr. Speaker. They will be record votes, and I really, really look 
forward to that debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to conclude. I think we have a very important 
Rules Committee meeting coming up in a few minutes and I need to be at 
that noting.
  But again, I wanted to thank the leadership. I want to thank my 
Speaker and my majority leader, our conference chairwoman, Deborah 
Pryce for giving me the opportunity to come here tonight and spend 30 
or 40 minutes talking about values and how important they are on our 
side of the aisle, and how important they are to the leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that they are important really to all Members in 
this chamber. They are good people, good hearts, men and women on both 
sides of the aisle. And I think sometimes, though, we have a tendency 
to lose our way. We have got a lot of pressure, a lot of interest 
groups, a lot of advocates, stakeholders wanting us to do certain 
things.
  But I think if we stop and think, we do not get in too big a hurry, 
realize that we do not have to rush to destroy embryos, as an example. 
If we take our time, we can get the same result with no collateral 
damage. That is what it is all about. That is what values are all 
about.
  So I am happy to have had this time to share my thoughts with my 
colleagues. I look forward to tomorrow, another day, when we will have 
some very, very significant value votes in this body. With that, I 
yield back.

                          ____________________