[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6397-6403]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         THE PROTECTION OF LIFE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he might 
consume to my good friend and colleague, Zach Wamp.
  Mr. WAMP. I thank the Speaker, and most of all I thank the gentleman 
from New Jersey for his extraordinary leadership. He brings us to the 
floor today to talk about something that doesn't get enough attention.
  At a time of economic duress and hardship, all eyes are on the 
economy, and for many reasons that is absolutely right. But there are 
some real big issues that, frankly, are being overlooked under this new 
administration and across the country today and they are fundamental to 
what kind of people we are.
  Today, we're talking about the protection of life. We all know that 
abortion divides our country. And we're grateful for all those 
Americans who say that they want to reduce the number of abortions in 
our country, those that say that they oppose abortion, but then when it 
comes time, as the previous speaker said, to actually enact policies, 
that's the most important time that you can actually stand up for what 
you say you believe.
  With the stroke of a pen, we now have a new executive order that says 
that taxpayers, basically, in this country will fund abortions that 
Americans want to have anywhere in the world. That is something 
overwhelmingly opposed by the American people, that their taxpayer 
dollars would go to fund abortion.
  We teach our children the lesson of the boiled frogs, where if you 
throw a frog in a pot of boiling water it will jump right back out, but 
if you leave the frog in cold water and slowly turn the temperature up, 
that frog will die and never leave the water. So, over time, here we 
are just becoming more and more accustomed to this harsh treatment of 
innocent life by the people of the greatest Nation in the history of 
the world.
  This issue of abortion does divide us, but there are fundamental 
truths about the protection of innocent life from conception forward 
and our Constitution, which we all swear to uphold, protecting life.
  Today, Mr. Smith is going to go into detail about why it is so 
important for those of us who believe as we believe--many of us on 
religious convictions--that we should protect all innocent life, and 
how, frankly, that is under assault in this country today, sometimes by 
the stroke of a pen, sometimes on the floor of this great deliberative 
body, but it is constantly now something that is under attack.

                              {time}  1630

  I have recently reintroduced a bill that is very related, H.R. 1050, 
reintroduced with an outstanding Member of Congress from the Democratic 
side, Representative Bart Stupak from Michigan, a devout Catholic. He 
and I have introduced H.R. 1050, which bans human cloning.
  Listen, most people would say, what, you have to pass a bill to ban 
human cloning? Human cloning is not banned under the laws of the United 
States of America? And the answer is no.
  Now, interestingly, seven of the other G8 countries, the 
industrialized nations, including Canada, France, Germany and Italy, 
have completely, unequivocally, banned human cloning, but not the 
United States of America, no.
  If anything, I would think it would be the other way around. We would 
have been the first to say ``no'' to human cloning, but with the G8 we 
are the last.
  This process that the proponents of cloning call therapeutic cloning 
is advancing to the degree that reproductive cloning, the cloning of 
human beings, is just the next step. Many have given testimony here at 
the Commerce Committee, the health subcommittee, that human cloning is 
just a matter of time. It's not if it will happen in this country, it's 
when it will happen in this country.
  The other industrialized countries, the sophisticated countries of 
the world have said, no, ban it, stop it. This is a Frankenstein-type 
outcome. This is fundamental. It's not gray, it's black and white.
  This does not ban embryonic stem cell research. It bans embryonic 
human cloning. This is a fundamental question of what we are all about 
and whether or not we will allow this.
  Even the United Nations, which is not exactly a conservative body in 
the world, passed a declaration to adopt all measures necessary to 
prohibit all forms of human cloning inasmuch as they are incompatible 
with human dignity and the protection of human life.
  This hour is dedicated to the protection of human life. Let's ban 
human cloning in this country, surely to goodness. We can do that in a 
bipartisan way on the floor of this House.
  I call on the House to support Bart Stupak and Zach Wamp in H.R. 
1050.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend, but especially for 
his extraordinary work on banning human cloning and for his leadership 
on life issues in general.
  Madam Speaker, human embryo-destroying stem cell research is not only 
unethical, unworkable and unreliable, it is now demonstrably 
unnecessary.
  Recent spectacular breakthroughs in noncontroversial adult stem cell 
research and clinical applications to effectuate cures with the 
mitigation of disease or disability have been well documented. For 
several years, significant progress has been achieved with adult stem 
cells derived from nonembryonic sources, including umbilical cord 
blood, bone marrow, brain, amniotic fluid, skin and even fat cells. 
Patients with diseases, including leukemia, type 1 diabetes, multiple 
sclerosis, lupus, sickle cell anemia and dozens of other maladies have 
significantly benefitted from adult stem cell transfers.
  Members will recall back in 2005, President Bush signed legislation 
that I authored, along with my friend and colleague, Mr. Artur Davis, 
which provided $265 million to establish a comprehensive nationwide 
network to collect, type and disseminate, using best practices, 
umbilical cord blood, the aftermath, the leftover, the medical waste, 
after a baby is born.
  Some 4 million women give birth in the United States every year. In 
the past, the umbilical cord and the placenta was simply thrown away, 
despite the fact that it is teeming with stem cells that could be used 
to effectuate cures and to mitigate disease. The legislation combined 
cord blood and bone marrow efforts under HRSA, so now we have a 
program, a nationwide program, to try to help people who are suffering 
from serious disease.
  We know that leukemia patients can be greatly benefitted, in some 
cases cured, from leukemia as a result of those transplants. Many of 
our African-American friends, some 1 out of every 500 who suffer from 
sickle cell anemia can also benefit greatly from these kinds of 
transplantations. That legislation is being run by HRSA and it is 
working.
  Adult stem cells, Madam Speaker, are truly remarkable. They work, 
they have no ethical baggage, and advances are made every day at a 
dizzying pace.
  But perhaps the greatest breakthrough of all, Madam Speaker, was the 
discovery of a process that turns every day ordinary skin cells into 
pluripotent embryo-like stem cells.
  On November 20, 2007, Japanese scientists Shinya Yamanaka and 
Wisconsin researcher James Thomson shocked the scientific community by 
independently announcing their ability to derive pluripotent stem cells 
to the reprogramming of regular skin cells, regular skin cells turned 
into pluripotent skin cells. The iPS cells, as they are called, are 
made by adding a small number of factors or genes to regular skin cells 
in a Petri dish that can remodel mature cells into stem cells that are 
functionally identical to those obtained from embryos.
  In other words, Madam Speaker, scientists have found a way of 
transforming your cells, skin cells, and mine, into stem cells called 
induced pluripotent stem cells or iPS. Pluripotent stem cells are those 
miraculous building block cells that can be

[[Page 6398]]

coaxed into becoming any type of tissue found in the human body.
  Unlike embryonic stem cells that kill the donor, are highly unstable, 
have a propensity to morph into tumors and are likely to be rejected by 
the patient unless strong anti-rejection medicines are administered, 
induced pluripotent cells, stem cells, have none of those deficiencies 
and are emerging as the future, the greatest hope of regenerative 
medicine. While some Members of Congress and President Obama still 
don't get it, the breakthroughs have not been lost on the mainstream 
press.
  For example, on November 21 Reuters reported, and I quote, ``Two 
separate teams of researchers announced on Tuesday they had transformed 
ordinary skin cells into batches of cells that look and act like 
embryonic stem cells, but without using cloning technology and without 
making embryos.''
  The New York Times reported on this same day, ``Two teams of 
scientists reported yesterday that they had turned human skin cells 
into what appear to be embryonic stem cells without having to make or 
destroy an embryo--a feat that could quell the ethical debate troubling 
the field.''
  The Associated Press said, ``Scientists have created the equivalent 
of embryonic stem cells from ordinary skin cells, a breakthrough that 
could someday produce new treatments for diseases without the explosive 
moral questions of embryo cloning.''
  Even University of Wisconsin's Dr. James Thomson, the man who first 
cultured embryonic stem cells, told The New York Times, ``Now with the 
new technique, which involves adding just four genes to ordinary skin 
cells, it will not be long before the stem cell wars are a distant 
memory. `A decade from now, this will just be a funny historical 
footnote.'''
  Dr. Thomson told the Detroit Free Press, ``While ducking ethical 
debate wasn't the goal, (it is) probably the beginning of the end of 
the controversy over embryonic stem cells.''
  In Medical News Today, Dr. Thomson went on to say, ``Speaking about 
this latest breakthrough, the induced cells do all the things embryonic 
cells do. It's going to completely change the field.
  ``The other advantage of the new method is the fact that using cells 
drawn from the patient's own skin, the stem cells can be customized to 
the patient, bringing numerous benefits, such as the elimination of 
immune system rejection. They are probably more clinically relevant 
than embryonic stem cells.''
  Madam Speaker, this past Monday, more good news, no, let's call it 
great news on the iPS front. Research teams from the United Kingdom and 
Canada published two papers in the prestigious scientific journal, 
Nature, announcing that they had successfully reprogrammed ordinary 
skin cells into induced pluripotent skin cells without the use of 
viruses to transmit the reprogramming genes to the cell. Using a 
``piggyback'' system, as they called it, the scientists were able to 
insert DNA where they could alter the genetic make-up of the regular 
cell before being harmlessly removed.
  According to many scientists, the removal of potentially cancer-
causing viruses means this breakthrough increases the likelihood that 
iPS cells will be safe for clinical use in human patients. The lead 
scientist from Canada, Andras Nagy, was quoted in the Washington Post 
saying, ``It's a leap forward in the safe application of these cells. 
We expect this to have a massive impact on this field.''
  And George Daley at Children's Hospital in Boston said, ``It's very 
significant. I think it's a major step forward in realizing the value 
of these cells for medical research.''
  This breakthrough, Madam Speaker, suggests the momentum has 
decisively and irrevocably swung to noncontroversial stem cell research 
like iPS cells and away from embryo-destroying research. The lead 
scientist from the UK was quoted in the BBC saying, ``It is a step 
towards the practical use of reprogrammed cells in medicine, perhaps 
even eliminating the need for human embryos as a source of stem 
cells.''
  Finally, in the Washington Post Dr. Nagy made a series of interesting 
comments this week. First, that his studies showed that the iPS cells 
had many of the properties of embryonic stem cells. Secondly, while the 
research in this case was done on fetal cells, the approach had worked 
equally well with adult stem cells. And, third, since iPS cell research 
should no longer require the specialization of virus labs and 
researchers, the number of researchers working on iPS cells is expected 
to increase again beyond the large number already devoting their 
attention to induced pluripotent cells since November of 2007. There 
has been an explosion in this area, because this holds the greatest 
promise.
  Time magazine reports, reporting on the efficacy and the advantage of 
iPS stem cells, ``The iPS technology is the ultimate manufacturing 
process for cells; it is now possible for researchers to churn out 
unlimited quantities of a patient's stem cells, which can then be 
turned into any of the cells that the body might need to replace or 
repair.''
  Despite all of this, Madam Speaker, this new and extraordinary 
progress in the iPS and adult stem cell research arena, the Obama 
administration and the House and Senate Democratic leadership remain 
obsessed with killing human embryos for experimentation at taxpayer 
expense.
  Why persist in the dehumanizing of nascent human life when better 
alternatives exist, alternatives that work on both ethics grounds and 
efficacy grounds. Nonembryonic stem cell research is the present and it 
is the future of regenerative medicine, and the only responsible way 
forward.
  At this point, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield to my good friend 
and colleague, Virginia Foxx.
  Ms. FOXX. I want to thank my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) 
for sharing this time with me and for taking the lead on this special 
order on stem cell research.
  I want to also say that I want to associate myself with the remarks 
from our colleague from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) in saying that this is an 
extremely important issue for us to be dealing with.
  If we don't deal with the issue of life, if we don't deal with what 
are the ethical principles that drive us, then the other things really 
don't matter. We have a lot of things that are weighing on people's 
minds in terms of the economy, and we know that's important, and we are 
very concerned about folks who have lost their jobs and who are 
struggling with the economy.

                              {time}  1645

  But what's most important is that we deal with the essential elements 
of what makes us human beings, and I think it's important that we are 
doing this Special Order tonight.
  One of the most gratifying experiences that I have had since I have 
been in Congress was one night about 3\1/2\ years ago when we were 
supposed to be doing a Special Order on stem cell research. We were 
scheduled to do that. I wasn't going to lead it, but all of my 
colleagues suddenly had conflicts and asked me if I would lead the 
Special Order. I was standing right here and I spoke for about 40 
minutes about the issue. And when I got back to my office, which took 
me about 5 minutes, it was at 9:30 at night, and one of my staffers was 
still there waiting for me, and she told me that she'd had a call, as 
soon as I finished my speaking on the floor, from a gentleman from 
Maryland. He said he had never watched C-SPAN in his life. He was 
surfing through the channels, saw this little gray-haired woman 
standing on the floor of the House, wondered how an average citizen was 
able to stand on the floor of the House and speak because he thought it 
was only Members of Congress that could do that. So he stopped to 
listen. And he heard my description of stem cell research. And he just 
called to thank me for doing it and to tell me that he didn't 
understand the issue and now he did and he was very gratified by that.
  So I am very, very pleased that our speaking to people about this 
issue does make a difference, and I hope that by having this Special 
Order today, we will have many people who understand

[[Page 6399]]

the issue better and will have their minds changed if they were going 
in the wrong direction or have their minds made up if they didn't have 
an opinion.
  What I did that night was describe basically what stem cell research 
is and what are the differences in the way people talk about it, and I 
think that continues to be an important issue.
  I am a very strong pro-life person. All people who are pro-life are 
in favor of stem cell research. I support stem cell research. Many 
people believe that pro-life people do not support stem cell research.
  However, we don't support research that requires the killing of human 
life. That's what's important to us. We know that we can do stem cell 
research without destroying human life. We also know that a lot of 
taxpayer money is being spent on embryonic stem cell research. And I 
think, frankly, we're paying more than our fair share for research that 
many people find to be morally repugnant.
  For 2008 NIH estimated it would spend $37 million on embryonic stem 
cell research. That $37 million is not nothing; it is a lot of money. 
However, from that money we have achieved no positive results. That is, 
we have nothing to show for all the money that has gone into embryonic 
stem cell research. That point needs to be made over and over again 
because we have gained treatment for 70 diseases through the use of 
adult stem cell research, and what separates those of us who are pro-
life from those who are pro-abortion is that we support research into 
adult stem cells.
  One of the reasons I am also very excited about the research that is 
going on in adult stem cells is because Dr. Anthony Atala and his team 
at Wake Forest in the Institute of Regenerative Medicine are getting 
great results as a result of their research into adult stem cells and 
they are not destroying human life. Dr. Atala, who came to Wake Forest 
from Harvard and brought a large team with him, is a tissue engineering 
specialist, and he has found that amniotic fluid stem cells have those 
pluripotent properties that have been pointed out earlier that grow as 
fast as embryonic stem cells. He's received tremendously positive 
response, particularly in growing bladders. In addition, stem cells 
coming from the umbilical cord and from the placenta and amniotic fluid 
have shown tremendous results, as my colleague Mr. Smith has talked 
about.
  So it's important that we always distinguish between adult stem cell 
research and embryonic stem cell research. We must continue to educate 
the American public on this issue, and we need to explain to people the 
ethical questions that we are dealing with.
  We should never in this country sanction research that would harm 
other human beings. Many of us know that there was research done in the 
1930s with prisoners that was very wrong. We have condemned that 
research over and over again. But since that time, we have had very, 
very strong and ethical programs to protect adults from diseases that 
would cause them harm and that would cause them death, and yet people 
don't see the same problem when we are dealing with embryos, and we 
must point that out to people. We are crossing an ethical Rubicon when 
we sanction using embryos for research or creating embryos for this 
research. That is going over the line, and we must explain that to the 
American public. We must explain the long-term implications for our 
society and for the human race. Not being careful to take care of human 
life at the beginning of life has implications for whether we will take 
care of human life all throughout life and particularly at the end of 
life. We also have to point out that we have gotten much better 
results, again, from the use of adult stem cells and umbilical cords 
and other ways to get cells other than destroying life.
  I hope today that there's at least one other person like the 
gentleman in Maryland who saw me do this 4 years ago and who's 
understanding this issue for the first time and understands 
particularly 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. Then we can continue to 
support programs like that of Dr. Atala at Wake Forest University and 
other places where they're seeing excellent results. That's the kind of 
research this country should be doing. We know we can get good results 
from that.
  And I want to support again my colleagues who are here tonight 
speaking on this issue and helping the American public and others 
understand it. We are an ethical people, and we want to continue to be 
an ethical people and do research that will produce good results.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back to the leader for tonight, Mr. 
Smith.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you, Congresswoman Foxx, for your 
wonderful and very incisive comments today, and I really appreciate 
your leadership on life issues as well, especially when it comes to 
embryonic stem cell research and the alternative that is, without 
question, adult stem cells and especially induced pluripotent stem 
cells derived from such everyday skin that we all carry on our bodies, 
which has proven to be highly efficacious and works, and I think it is 
the future.
  I would like to now yield to Mr. Fortenberry.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. First, let me thank the gentleman from New Jersey 
for conducting this very, very important discussion.
  Madam Speaker, over the past several years, I have received scores of 
letters from my constituents that reflect widespread national confusion 
about stem cell research. Let me take a few moments to cut through the 
fog on this important issue.
  There are two types of stem cell research often confused in our 
public debate. The first, which I wholeheartedly and enthusiastically 
support, is the type of stem cell research which uses cells derived 
from sources such as cord blood, skin, and bone marrow, commonly known 
as adult stem cell research. This is good science, helping to save 
American lives and providing real treatment options now.
  The American people deserve to know that adult stem cell science is 
progressing at a staggering pace, showcasing over 70 successful 
clinical treatment models for conditions ranging from heart disease to 
Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injury, sickle cell anemia, stroke 
damage, leukemia, chronic liver disease, and many, many more. The 
empirical evidence is sound, and it really is eye opening, giving hope 
to those who suffer from these debilitating conditions.
  Madam Speaker, the American people also deserve to know that there is 
a clear distinction between adult stem cell science and embryonic stem 
cell science. Between hope and promise for cures on the one hand and 
misleading, misguided efforts to funnel their tax dollars to bail out 
research companies, research enterprises, that thrive on the 
destruction of nascent human beings, embryos, who are no less human 
than Members of this august legislative body.
  Widely touted and vigorously promoted nationwide as a potential cure 
for many of the same conditions that adult stem cell research may 
treat, embryonic stem cell research requires the destruction of unborn 
human persons to derive stem cells for research. We know that embryonic 
human life is still human life. The marvels of modern science leave no 
room for confusion on this important point. Moreover, embryonic stem 
cell research has shown no clinical success to date. It represents a 
degradation of human life that is wrong. Science that harms human 
beings, no matter how small they are, no matter how vulnerable they are 
or easily disposable they are, is always wrong.
  With so many proven ethical alternatives, embryonic stem cell 
research presents an unnecessary moral dilemma for persons of goodwill. 
It siphons limited Federal funds away from adult stem cell research 
that is now saving lives. And American taxpayers, who have recently 
been asked to shoulder an unprecedented deficit that will burden 
generations to come, should not

[[Page 6400]]

be forced to pay for it. Adult stem cell research works, saves lives, 
and avoids the ethically divisive issue of the destruction of innocent 
and unborn human life.
  So, again, with that I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey 
for conducting this important dialogue.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank Mr. Fortenberry for his leadership. 
He has shown, since he has been here, himself to be not only a leader 
but someone who thinks both inside and outside the box on so many human 
rights and humanitarian issues. And this is a human rights and 
humanitarian issue, and I thank him for his contribution not just today 
on the floor but every day as a Member of this august body.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Thank you very much.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I would like to yield to Mr. Forbes.
  And before doing so, I'd just remind our colleagues that a couple of 
years ago, Mr. Forbes and Mr. Lipinski brought a researcher from Brazil 
and a researcher from the United States who had another breakthrough, 
in this case cord blood, for type 1 diabetics. And some of the 
diabetics, virtually all except two, who had been given cord blood 
transplantation got off their insulin. They were no longer insulin 
dependent. And, again, so many people in this Chamber, so many people 
in the White House, and perhaps even HHS don't seem to get it; that the 
real progress, the real advances are being made in the realm of adult 
stem cells, and those kinds of advances are being made each and every 
day. And Mr. Forbes is the prime sponsor of some very, very important 
legislation dealing with adult stem cells, which I hope he will 
elaborate on.
  I yield to Mr. Forbes.
  Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Congressman Smith. And I also want to thank 
Congressman Fortenberry for his comments and to begin by saying that 
many of us come to this debate for different reasons. Some because of 
philosophical reasons, some for political reasons. I come to it for a 
rather personal reason.
  My father, about 5 years ago, died from Parkinson's disease. My 
brother currently has Parkinson's disease. So it's near and dear to my 
heart. But what's most important is I don't need political debates or 
political rhetoric. What I need is some cures or I need someone who can 
provide some way of treating those illnesses.
  If you just step back and take a moment, as Congressman Smith has 
pointed out, we find that all of the major breakthroughs have been with 
adult stem cells, not with embryonic cells. In fact, I have here a 
scorecard, and I know no one can see this in the body tonight, but if 
you showed the victories for peer-reviewed studies from adult stem 
cells, you would have 73 different illnesses that have been treated 
successfully with adult stem cells. And then if you look on the 
embryonic side, you would find 0 over there.
  And one of the exciting things for us as we go through this debate 
is, as I travel around, I find, Congressman, as I know you do, that a 
lot of people really do not understand the difference between the two 
because the debate gets muddled many times; but as Congressman 
Fortenberry pointed out so correctly to us, we really have now three 
major types of cells that we're talking about.

                              {time}  1700

  We are talking about the adult stem cells, which have absolutely no 
ethical problems and have shown all of the benefits for really dealing 
with illnesses. We then have the embryonic stem cells, which have a 
number of ethical concerns and have shown absolutely no benefits in 
treating illnesses. And now we have the induced pluripotent stem cells, 
or the IPS cells, which are ethical, because they, Congressman, as I 
think you mentioned, really come back from the adult cells as we work 
back and reprogram those and they have all the capacity of the 
embryonic cells without any of the ethical problems.
  So really what we have is a situation where the science in this whole 
discussion has outpaced the debate, and the science has now proven that 
we really don't need the research for the embryonic stem cells. But in 
a day and age where every day we give up and see so much negative news, 
there is some exciting, good news, as Congressman Smith has pointed 
out, and I would like tonight just to talk about some of those great 
advances that we have seen.
  First of all, in 2007, the Journal of the American Medical 
Association published a study on the first stem cell treatment for 
diabetes patients. Researchers from Northwestern University and Brazil 
performed a clinical trial with 15 diabetic patients, and 13 of the 15 
patients with type 1 diabetes were insulin-free after receiving an 
adult stem cell transplant using blood stem cells.
  In 2002, doctors treated a patient for Parkinson's disease with his 
own neural stem cells. This is the world's first clinical trial using 
stem cells for the treatment of Parkinson's disease. Doctors actually 
isolated the patient's stem cells, induced them to differentiate into 
the desired nervous system cells and implanted them back into the 
patients' brain.
  Just a few weeks ago, a study on this treatment was published in the 
Bentham Open Stem Cell Journal and the study outlines the long-term 
results of this trial. For the 5 years following the procedure, the 
patient's motor skills improved by over 80 percent for at least 36 
months.
  Now, a word of caution must be added that since this is a single case 
study, a larger clinical trial is needed to replicate these findings 
and assess their long-term sustainability. But notwithstanding, this is 
an incredible scientific breakthrough.
  In 2006, the Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine reported a treatment for 
spinal cord injury using adult stem cells. A doctor in Portugal 
transplanted nasal stem cells into seven patients with spinal cord 
injury. Following the procedure, these patients regained some motor 
function and sensation, and two patients showed bladder control 
improvement.
  I understand that the FDA recently approved a clinical safety trial 
using human embryonic stem cells for newly injured spinal cord 
patients. However, it is important to note that this is not a 
treatment, but only approval to begin experiments with humans to test 
for safety. On the contrary, this 2006 study demonstrates actual 
patient treatment using adult stem cells.
  All of these studies show that stem cells can be derived from human 
cells and used to successfully treat patients, all while maintaining 
ethical standards. Advancing scientific development and protecting life 
do not have to be opposing forces.
  In just a brief summary, I would like to respond to another question 
that Congressman Smith had or suggested he had, and that is that we 
talk about the Patients First Act, which is a bipartisan bill that was 
introduced previously. It is now H.R. 877, the Patients First Act, 
which has been introduced in the 111th Congress. It was originally 
introduced by Congressman Lipinski from Illinois and myself as H.R. 
2807.
  As we step back, for those of us with loved ones who suffer from 
these illnesses as I did with my father and I currently do with my 
brother, it just makes common sense that we would like to do a couple 
of things.
  First of all, we would like to get as much research as we can to the 
problem, and not just floating out for some hypothetical research. The 
second thing is we don't want all the theories around, we don't want 
all the political posturing. What we want is cures in today's time so 
that we can get them to these patients and they can impact their lives.
  So we wrote a bill that did something that is really novel. It used 
some common sense. It just said what would happen if for a change, 
instead of worrying about what all of the interest groups wanted, we 
put the patients first. If you put the patients first, you ask one 
simple question of the NIH. You simply ask them to do this: Tell us 
which research, either on the adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells, 
is going to get the most near-term clinical benefits for the patients, 
and that is where we want to laser in our money. That is

[[Page 6401]]

where we want to focus in our money, because that gives us the greatest 
opportunity for a cure and certainly for treatment.
  I am convinced if you do that, right now the scorecard would be 73 
for the adult stem cells and zero for the embryonic stem cells. But as 
Congressman Smith has so accurately stated, even if you say there is 
research potential with the embryonic stem cells, there is actually no 
reason why we couldn't use the IPS cells to do all of that without one 
bit of ethical problem.
  So, Congressman, I just want to tell you tonight in this world of bad 
news, there is some exciting news out there of what we are seeing. I 
think patients have reason today to hope if we just do our job and we 
say let's get off of the divisive debate that has marred this whole 
area for so long. Let's concentrate on where we can put our research to 
help patients. In so doing, I think we will end up doing the research 
with the adult stem cells, and the promise there I think is really 
limitless now for what our patients will see.
  So thank you so much.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you to Randy for his extraordinary 
contribution and for his leadership on these issues, especially having 
dealt with and currently dealing with such a difficult hardship with 
his own family.
  I will never forget when Parkinson's disease and fetal tissue 
transplantation in the mid-1990s was being offered as the panacea, the 
brass ring, to try to end that very horrible disease, which we all know 
people, you know it personally in your own family. Unfortunately, we 
found very quickly that taking fetal tissue from a baby about to be 
aborted turned out to be an unmitigated disaster as this very unstable 
group of cells would very quickly proliferate and became various bone 
tissue and other tissue inside the brain, causing worse convulsions and 
tremors on the part of the patients in whom the transplantation was 
given.
  I think we have a very similar parallel today where there is an 
excessive amount of hype and hyperbole about embryonic stem cells, 
which have an unbelievable propensity, very grave propensity, to become 
tumors. Not only are they killing embryos to derive the stem cells, but 
once those stem cells are in hand they become tumors, they are 
unstable, and, if transplanted into humans, there is a great fear that 
we would see a replication of the fetal tissue debacle of the mid-
1990s.
  As you pointed out so well, Randy, there is an ethical alternative 
that does not have the rejection factor, will not require anti-
rejection drugs, whether it be Celsep or any of these other drugs that 
those that get transplants get. None of that would happen. And you 
don't have the tumor formations from these IPS cells.
  Mr. FORBES. If the gentleman will just yield briefly and then I will 
yield right back, one of the things that is so exciting for us as we 
look in this debate is many of the people that began, the scientists 
that began doing research on embryonic research have now folded their 
tent and realize they don't have to do that. They are going back and 
now saying we don't need to do that. We will use IPS cells or do the 
adult stems cells.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. As you said, the pioneers of embryonic stem 
cells are now the pioneers of the ethical IPS.
  Mr. Jordan.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for the 
comments from our colleague from Virginia too.
  I want to just take us a minute to thank the gentleman from New 
Jersey for his commitment over the years, over the decades, even though 
you don't look that old, over the decades of standing up for the 
defenseless, the most vulnerable, for standing up and making a 
commitment to the truth that all life is precious, it should be 
protected, it is sacred, and government has a fundamental 
responsibility to protect the weak from the strong. That is what 
Congressman Smith has done for years, and I am proud to join in that 
effort, along with other pro-life Members of the United States 
Congress.
  We all want positive treatments to result from stem cell research. We 
just don't want to destroy human life in getting those treatments. And 
I thought the gentleman's comments from Virginia were right on target 
where he talked about the positive results, the positive treatments 
that have resulted from adult stem cell research. Unbelievable. The 
scorecard, as the gentleman from Virginia pointed out, is 
overwhelmingly in favor.
  It is interesting, and the gentleman from New Jersey made this point: 
The ethical decision is the smart decision. The ethical decision is the 
actual productive decision. It is the one that leads to positive 
results for families, for people out there, so they can get the 
treatment they need, and doesn't destroy human life in the process. 
That is what we should champion. That is the ideal that is consistent 
with this country that is frankly consistent with our founding.
  I always go back to this, and I will close with this and yield back 
to our pro-life chairman of the Pro-Life Caucus. The document that 
started it all, and I think it is important to go back to these first 
principles, the document that started it all in this country, the 
Declaration of Independence, it is interesting what the Founders said 
when they said we hold these truths to be self-evident. All are created 
equal, endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, that 
among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
  It is always interesting to note the order the Founders placed the 
rights they chose to mention. Can you pursue happiness, can you go 
after your goals and your dreams, those things that have meaning and 
significance to you and your family if you first don't have liberty, if 
you first don't have freedom? And do you ever experience true liberty, 
true freedom, if government doesn't protect that most fundamental 
right, your right to life.
  That is what the congressman from New Jersey, Congressman Smith, has 
been doing for years, and we appreciate that and we are proud to join 
in that effort to protect human life and to protect research that is 
actually going to make sure we protect human life as we move forward 
and get those positive results that are going to help all kinds of 
people across this country, around the world, all kinds of families 
around this country and around the world.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I would just say to my friend, I thank you 
for your leadership as well. You are new to the Congress. Not that new. 
You certainly have stepped out time and time again, and it is greatly 
appreciated by all.
  It is interesting that before we have had votes on embryonic stem 
cell research in this body, Members who take the other view have taken 
to the floor, to the well of the House, and said things like this, this 
is from Rahm Emanuel as reported by The Washington Post, I remember 
when he said it, ``It is ironic that every time we vote on this 
legislation, [embryonic stem cell research, embryo destroying research 
legislation] all of a sudden there is a major scientific discovery that 
basically says you don't have to do embryonic stem cell research.''
  Our good friend and colleague Diana DeGette said, ``I find it very 
interesting that every time we bring this bill up there is a scientific 
breakthrough.''
  That is because, Madam Speaker, almost every day there is a 
scientific breakthrough in the area of adult stem cell and the induced 
pluripotent stem cells. The skin cells that have been turned into 
embryo stem cells without destroying or killing an embryo, without the 
ethical baggage, that is the biggest breakthrough of all. And it seems 
to me that we should be rejoicing. We have moved beyond the ethical 
debate because we have something in hand that is the promise and the 
hope of regenerative medicine.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Well said, Congressman Smith.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I would like to yield to the distinguished 
gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Fleming.
  Mr. FLEMING. Thanks to the gentleman for yielding.

[[Page 6402]]

  I have put up a quote here which we'll get to in just a moment, and 
it is on the subject that we are currently discussing about stem cell 
research. I apologize if some of this is redundant, but I think this 
new information is very interesting and very exciting and I think it 
bears perhaps a little important redundancy.
  For more than a decade Congress has been debating the ethics of using 
taxpayer dollars to fund research that requires the destruction of a 
human embryo. Science is making this debate obsolete.
  At the beginning of the embryonic stem cell debate, only 2 years 
after human embryonic stem cells were first derived, President 
Clinton's Bioethics Council concluded, and here it is written, that in 
our judgment, in 1999, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission under 
President Clinton, said, in our judgment, the derivation of embryos 
remaining following infertility treatments is justifiable only, that is 
only if no less morally problematic alternatives are available for 
advancing this research.
  Now, thanks in part to the very same researcher who first discovered 
how to derive human embryonic stem cells, researchers have discovered 
how to make pluripotent embryonic-like stem cells without harming or 
destroying a human embryo.
  Let me repeat that. They have discovered a way of creating embryonic-
like stem cells without harming or destroying a human embryo.
  You may have heard about these cells. They are called IPSC for 
induced pluripotent stem cells. They were first discovered in 2007. 
These cells are made by reprogramming adult cells, such as cells from 
your skin, into embryonic-like cells.
  Of course, just to digress for a moment, to understand what the 
purpose of this whole idea of stem cells is, it is taking 
undifferentiated cells, and the future is amazing. We can create organs 
potentially.

                              {time}  1715

  Just think about, in terms of kidneys, hearts or whatever being 
transplanted. We would have organs that would no longer require any 
sort of immuno-suppressive drugs.
  Anyway, in the 2 years since this technique was first published, 
hundreds of scientists have been feverishly at work perfecting this 
technique. Just this week, researchers published a major, just this 
week now, a major improvement on the technique of creating human iPSC 
stem cells. You may have read about this in the Washington Post that 
came out on Monday.
  Previously, in order to reprogram cells to their embryonic-like 
state, researchers relied on viruses which were known to cause cancer 
when injected into humans. Now, researchers have shown that it is 
possible to make iPSC stem cells without the harmful virus. In fact, 
the factors used to reprogram the cells are completely removed, leaving 
behind only the embryonic-like iPSC stem cells.
  So what this means is, not only are we having to use embryonic cells, 
which means destroying an embryo, a human life, but we can literally 
take it from the skin of an adult. And even more importantly, we don't 
have to use viruses to reprogram the nucleus. The problem with viruses, 
of course, you can introduce all sort of matter into the DNA, such as 
cancer, which is very dangerous.
  These cells are even better than embryonic stem cells from embryos 
created through IVF because they can both be patient-specific and 
disease-specific, even for diseases we only barely understand.
  Surely this meets the criteria set forth by the Clinton Bioethics 
Commission. Researchers, funded in part by our own National Institutes 
of Health, have discovered a viable and promising alternative to 
destroying embryos for their stem cells. Such research is no longer 
justifiable, even according to the Clinton criterion, which I've laid 
out here in large print. And certainly research that is both morally 
controversial and out of date does not need to be subsidized by the 
American taxpayer.
  So, even in spite of all this, through private means, embryonic stem 
cell research can still go on, even though it's not needed, as long as 
taxpayers do not pay for it.
  I feel there was never a justification in the past to destroy embryos 
for the purpose of stem cell research. But now we have two reasons to 
embrace this new technology, and that is, as I pointed out a minute 
ago, the fact that it's safer because we don't have to use viruses, and 
we no longer have to destroy embryos.
  So, in closing, Madam Speaker, surely, even those who maintain a pro-
abortion position will support this newer, safer technique which 
requires no Federal dollars to destroy human embryos.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend, Mr. Fleming, for his 
contribution and for his leadership. I would like to yield to Mr. 
Bilirakis 3 minutes.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Madam Speaker, fellow Members, I'm glad to be on the 
House floor with you this afternoon discussing this very important 
topic of adult stem cell therapy. The breakthroughs in technology that 
have been already discussed, they are exciting, the breakthroughs. And 
I'm encouraged that science and medical communities are moving toward 
an ethical approach to treating very sick patients.
  This miracle of ethical adult stem cell therapy really hit home with 
me last month when I met with a Florida cardiologist by the name of Dr. 
Zannos Grekos, who has been using adult stem cells to treat his very 
sick cardiopulmonary patients. The doctor has had extraordinary 
results, and the best part is no embryonic stem cells are used.
  Dr. Grekos' groundbreaking procedure involves a simple blood draw 
which extracts adult stem cells from the patient's own blood. Since it 
is the patient's own blood, there is no possibility of the body 
rejecting its own stem cells. The few naturally occurring stem cells in 
the blood are cultivated into millions of regenocytes. The regenocytes 
are re-injected back into the patient's heart or blood vessels. They 
then stimulate tissue re-growth and greater blood flow to the affected 
area.
  This treatment has proven to have miraculous results, and once again, 
the best part is that embryos are not destroyed and, because 
regenocytes are extracted from the patient's own blood, they cannot be 
rejected by the patient's body.
  It was reported on CNBC.com a couple of weeks ago that this 
groundbreaking treatment has successfully treated heart disease, and 
even helped a patient beat a rare metabolic condition known as Fabry 
Disease, which would otherwise require a heart transplant
  Madam Speaker, the government should not be in the business of 
funding destruction of embryonic stem cells. We should be in the 
business, however, of assisting bright, young, innovative doctors and 
scientists like Dr. Grekos, who have forged a path of ethical adult 
stem cell therapy.
  I, for one, am excited about the future of this therapy, and 
encourage this body to do all we can to support ethical adult stem cell 
therapy.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Bilirakis, thank you so much.
  Mrs. Bachmann.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding.
  It's exciting to see what science has wrought just in the last few 
days, the discoveries that have come about. But the bottom line in all 
of it is this: Cloning will lead to the exploitation of women. That's 
harmful and that's not good, especially for poor women in the United 
States and around the world.
  Women's eggs are required in the process of cloning, and the 
extraction technique exposes otherwise healthy women to the risk of 
infertility and, sadly, tragically, even of death.
  The recent cloning scandal that we've witnessed in South Korea should 
serve as a warning here to those of us in the United States. Many 
Korean women were coerced into donating their eggs for Professor 
Hwang's fraudulent research. Not only is it wrong, really wrong to 
destroy human embryos, but it's even worse to put

[[Page 6403]]

women in a position where their health is at risk to do unethical 
research, especially now, when we find science has taught us we don't 
have to.
  The use of the iPS cells, or the adult stem cells, make it 
unnecessary to use women's eggs, while researchers who have been 
pushing human cloning have been seeking them.
  We all know that November 20, 2007, a Wisconsin researcher and a 
Japanese scientist discovered, they independently announced their 
ability to derive pluripotent stem cells through the reprogramming of 
regular stem cells. This is a marvelous breakthrough.
  And then just days ago, on March 1, 2009, two research teams 
demonstrated they could reprogram cells without the use of potentially 
cancer-causing viruses. This is marvelous.
  iPS can produce a large number of both patient-specific as well as 
disease-specific stem cell lines because, according to the Telegraph 
newspaper, tests on the reprogrammed cell lines showed they behave 
exactly, exactly like embryonic stem cells. These cells have already 
been used to make heart muscle, brain neurons, motor neurons, blood, 
insulin secreting cells.
  We are thrilled at the advances that science has made. Let's use 
these advances to make sure that we can further do more research that 
will protect people's lives.
  But, at the same time, let's not hurt women, let's not destroy their 
lives, and let's not destroy their fertility; and certainly we 
shouldn't do anything that should lead to women's death.
  And I thank you so much to the gentleman from New Jersey for leading 
this important hour. Thank you so much.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mrs. Bachmann, thank you very much for your 
leadership and your very eloquent words.
  I yield such time as he may consume to Mr. Mark Souder.
  Mr. SOUDER. I thank my friend, colleague from New Jersey.
  I think one of the happiest moments in our life, or any grandparent, 
is to see your first grandchild. And my grandson, Grant, was born about 
a year and a half ago to my daughter, Brooke and her husband, Jeff. And 
we've watched him develop.
  But from the time he became an embryo, egg and sperm joined, his stem 
cell content, his cell content was the same as it is now. All he's 
added is a little bit of chubbiness and a little bit of height as he's 
grown.
  Now, in about a month our first granddaughter is going to be born, 
Reagan. And we've watched her grow in the womb. But from the time she 
was conceived, she became a separate human being. Nothing's really 
going to change. It's just she's going to grow and she's going to 
develop personality, add to her intelligence. But she's been the same 
make-up from the beginning.
  Now, the question is, is why are some so intent on taking human life? 
And why are they so intent in using our taxpayer dollars to make us do 
that?
  We've worked for many years. You've been a stalwart in this. We did a 
hearing, when we were in the majority, where we showed that there were 
already scientific breaks occurring in skin cells and so on. And as you 
said, sometimes the allegation is, why do these breakthroughs come 
right before we have a big vote?
  They come constantly, as you so eloquently said, on lupus, on 
different diseases. Now we have yet another one. The advances are all 
in non-embryonic.
  So why do we continue, other than because to try to take guilt relief 
off an abortion, to try to confuse the issue of when human life begins, 
why do we continue to, quite frankly, waste so much, when, in fact, 
many people would have been cured, healed and better had we put it into 
other types of stem cell research other than embryonic?
  Thank you for your leadership. And I yield to you for a close.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you very much, Mr. Souder.
  Let me just say in conclusion, Madam Speaker, that the present and 
the future of regenerative medicine, which holds great promise and hope 
for each and every one of us, every one of us has members of our own 
family who have suffered from degenerative diseases, developmental 
disabilities and the like. We all know the pain and the agony.
  I chair or co-chair the Autism Caucus, the Spina Bifida Caucus, the 
Alzheimer's Caucus, and believe passionately in trying to find cures 
for diseases. But the future of regenerative medicine is with adult 
stem cells, including and especially non-embryonic but embryo-like 
induced pluripotent stem cells, iPS. That has to become, iPS, a 
household word.

                          ____________________