[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 9065-9069]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 9066]]

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 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

[[Page 9067]]

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 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

[[Page 9068]]

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 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

[[Page 9069]]

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 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.

                          ____________________