[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7122-7128]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1730
                           STEM CELL RESEARCH

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Fudge). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 2009, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I am very grateful to be here for this hour. 
And I hope some of my colleagues will join me on a very important 
discussion about embryonic stem cell research and the huge 
alternative--``the'' alternative--adult stem cells, that have proven 
beyond any reasonable doubt that it is not only ethical, but it works.
  Madam Speaker, at a time when highly significant--even historic--
breakthroughs in adult stem cell research have become almost daily 
occurrences, and almost to the point of being mundane, President Obama 
has chosen to turn back the clock and, beginning just 3 days ago, will 
force taxpayers to subsidize the unethical over the ethical, the 
unworkable over what works, and hype and hyperbole over hope.
  Human embryo destroying stem cell research is not only unethical, 
unworkable, and unreliable, it is now demonstrably unnecessary. 
Assertions that leftover embryos are better off dead so that their stem 
cells can be derived is dehumanizing, and it cheapens human life.
  There is no such thing as a leftover human life. Ask the snowflake 
children, Madam Speaker, ask their parents. Snowflake children are 
those cryogenically frozen embryos who were adopted while still frozen. 
This past Monday, I had the privilege of being with several of those 
children. They look just like any other kid, any other child. And those 
kids could have been subjected to embryo-destroying research or they 
could have been poured down the drain. But thankfully, the donors, the 
biological parents, decided that they are better off alive and 
flourishing. And these kids, like so many of the other snowflake 
children that I have met in the past, were just like any other child.
  Life is a continuum, Madam Speaker. It does not begin at the moment 
of birth. It starts at the moment of fertilization and continues 
unabated, unless interfered with, until natural death. Birth is an 
event that happens to your life and to mine, it is not the beginning of 
life.
  Madam Speaker, a recent spectacular breakthrough in the 
noncontroversial adult stem cell research and clinical applications to 
effectuate cures or the

[[Page 7123]]

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 a myriad of diseases, including leukemia, type 1 
diabetes, multiple sclerosis, lupus, sickle cell anemia, and dozens of 
other diseases have significantly benefited from adult stem cell 
transfers.
  In 2005, Madam Speaker, I wrote a law, the Stem Cell Research and 
Transplantation Act of 2005. It was legislation that created a national 
program of bone marrow and cord blood, umbilical cord blood--or that 
blood that is found in the placenta--that is teeming with stem cells of 
high value that can be coaxed into becoming pluripotent, capable of 
becoming anything in the human body.
  We know for a fact that cord blood stem cells can mitigate, and in 
some cases even cure--and there have been several--those suffering from 
sickle cell anemia. One out of every 500 African Americans, 
unfortunately, have sickle cell anemia. And cord blood transfers have 
the capacity and the capability to effectuate cures or the mitigation 
of that disease. And we have several examples.
  I remember when the bill was stuck--first here, and then on the 
Senate side. We were able to bring people, including Dr. Julius Erving, 
to a press conference to appeal to the House and Senate leadership to 
bring that legislation forward simply because it would save lives, but 
it was being held hostage by the hype and the hyperbole of embryonic 
stem cell research, which has not cured anyone. The legislation passed 
the House. Finally, it was dislodged from the Senate and became law. 
And now we have a nationwide network overseen by HRSA, under the 
Department of Health and Human Services, to grow our capacity--the 
number of specimens of cord blood stem cells--to type it, freeze it, 
use best practices, and promote cures.
  Now, the greatest of all breakthroughs--the greatest, in my opinion, 
and in the opinion of many eminent scientists--is what is known as 
induced pluripotent stem cells. And I say to my colleagues, and I say 
to anyone who may be listening on C-SPAN, iPS cells, induced 
pluripotent stem cells, are the future and the greatest hope for cures. 
They are embryo-like, but they are not embryos. There is no killing of 
an embryo to derive the stem cells.
  On November 20, 2007, Japanese scientist, Dr. Shinya Yamanaka, and 
Wisconsin researcher, Dr. James Thomson, shocked the scientific 
community by independently announcing their ability to derive induced 
pluripotent stem cells by reprogramming regular skin cells. And 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 antirejection medicines are administered, induced 
pluripotent stem cells, iPS cells, have none of those deficiencies, and 
again, are emerging as the future, the greatest hope of regenerative 
medicine.
  Mr. Obama is way behind the times. Making Americans pay for embryo-
destroying stem cell research is not change we can believe in--far from 
it--it is politics.
  A decade ago, the false hope of embryo-destroying research made it 
difficult to oppose, no doubt. There was a lot of hype, a lot of hot 
air--much of it well meaning, perhaps--but it was very misleading. That 
is no longer the case. So the question arises; 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.
  I would be happy to yield to my good friend and colleague for any 
time he would like to take.
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  In a week that has already been overcome by a blizzard of legislative 
activity and news, I rise for two reasons today; number one is to 
commend the gentleman from New Jersey, whose passion for human rights, 
for human dignity, for the sanctity of life is in high relief on the 
floor today. I commend the gentleman for coming to the floor and 
bringing his passion and his knowledge to this issue in the wake of a 
profoundly disappointing decision by the President of the United States 
of America. So I commend the gentleman.
  My second point is to simply say that what was most disappointing to 
me about the President's decision in authorizing the use of taxpayer 
dollars to fund research that involves the destruction of human embryos 
is that it seemed to me, Madam Speaker, to be a moment where the 
President and his party were putting ideology over science. I say that 
grounded in the notion that that was an accusation that was leveled at 
those of us on the side of life in the last 8 years, those of us who 
believed that we ought not to use the taxpayer dollars of millions of 
pro-life Americans and use it to fund research that involves the 
destruction of human embryos for scientific purposes. But we were told 
that we were putting ideology--presumably our pro-life views--over 
science. But actually, science overcame the debate when, in 2007, 
nearly 7 full years after President George W. Bush had signed his 
executive order, and years after Republican majorities in this Congress 
had authorized tens of millions in increased Federal funding to the 
National Institutes for Health for ethical adult stem cell research, 
science came through.
  As the gentleman just referred, the extraordinary breakthroughs of 
not one, but two scientific research teams in 2007 found that adult 
stem cells could be converted into stem cells that essentially were 
identical to embryonic stem cells through a process called induced 
pluripotent stem cell procedure. Now, this was a miracle of science. 
And I remember full well, I remember seeing a report on all the major 
television networks that said that science has rendered the debate over 
destructive embryonic stem cell research moot. It seemed as though 
science had stepped into one of the most difficult and contentious 
issues of our times and it had taken it off the table.
  Because of these scientific breakthroughs, it would no longer be 
necessary to even consider using Federal taxpayers to fund research 
that destroys human embryos because--and the gentleman, I'm sure, will 
correct me, having forgotten more about this issue than I've learned--
but I believe scientists found that by introducing a virus into adult 
stem cells, that they would convert into that highly dynamic mode, they 
would be induced to take the form of pluripotent stem cells, which 
scientists have long desired--and have, through private funding, 
appreciated the opportunity--to do research for the purpose of finding 
cures and therapies. And so it is not casually that I come to the floor 
today to say that I believe when President Obama signed an executive 
order authorizing the use of taxpayer dollars to fund stem cell 
research that involves the destruction of human embryos, that this 
administration was putting ideology over science.
  I didn't hear a word this week about induced pluripotent stem cells. 
I heard no reference--I'm happy to stand corrected, Madam Speaker--but 
I heard no reference by the administration or any of its spokesmen, or 
by the President, to those extraordinary scientific breakthroughs which 
obviated the need to use my tax dollars and the taxpayer dollars of 
millions of pro-life Americans to fund research that destroys human 
embryos.
  So as I prepare to yield back to the gentleman, I come to the floor 
with really a heavy heart. I mean, I believe the sanctity of life is a 
central axiom of Western civilization. I believe that ending an 
innocent human life is morally wrong. But I also believe it is also 
morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of pro-life Americans and 
use it to fund abortion overseas or to fund research that involves the 
destruction of human embryos at home. But I found a new layer, Madam 
Speaker, of wrongness; it's also wrong to do it when it's completely 
unnecessary. It's wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of

[[Page 7124]]

pro-life Americans and use it to fund research that destroys human 
embryos when science itself, in the last year and a half, has made it 
completely unnecessary to do so. And so it was a moment where this 
administration put ideology over science.
  My hope--and, frankly, my prayer--as we enter into this brave new 
world that could result in embryonic farms, that could result in 
ultimately setting us on a path where therapies are developed and, 
therefore, stem cells need to be cloned, we will no doubt hear, it is 
my hope and my prayer that science will continue to march forward and 
will overtake the practice of ideology in this Capitol and reaffirm the 
principle that human life is sacred, we ought not to use taxpayer 
dollars of pro-life Americans to destroy nascent human life, and most 
especially, when it is not scientifically necessary to do so to achieve 
the extraordinary advances that are taking place.
  I commend the gentleman, and I'm grateful for the opportunity to 
speak.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank Mr. Pence for his excellent remarks, 
and for the logic, the compelling logic that he brings to the floor, 
not just today, but so often.
  This is a human rights issue. It is also a patient issue. You know, 
one of the overlooked--and the mainstream press sometimes gets it 
right, but we are only beginning to see, in some of the commentary 
post-decision on Monday by President Obama, one of the things he lifted 
was an executive order that President Bush put into effect on June 20, 
2007 expanding approved stem cell lines in ethically responsible ways. 
And it provided a boost to the National Institutes of Health to do 
research on alternative sources of pluripotent stem cells that 
prioritizes research with the greatest potential for clinical benefit. 
He revoked this--he being President Obama. In other words, that which 
has worked, that has absolutely stunned, in a positive way, the 
community, the scientific community, now takes a back seat to what is 
essentially abortion politics, turning that which is unborn, that which 
is newly created into a commodity that could be destroyed at will.

                              {time}  1745

  Let me also say that the Washington Post had an excellent piece today 
by Kathleen Parker, and the headline was ``Behind the Cell Curve, Why 
is the President Ignoring a Scientific Gift?''
  Kathleen points out: ``One fact is that since Obama began running for 
President, researchers have made some rather amazing strides in 
alternative stem cell research. Science and ethics finally fell in 
love, in other words, and Obama seems to have fallen asleep during the 
kiss. Either that or he decided that keeping an old political promise 
was more important than acknowledging new developments. In the process 
he missed an opportunity to prove that he is pro-science but also 
sensitive to the concerns of taxpayers who don't want to pay for 
research that requires embryo destruction.''
  She points out that ``in fact, every single one of the successes,'' 
every one, ``in treating patients with stem cells thus far for spinal 
cord injuries and multiple sclerosis, for example, have involved adult 
or umbilical cord blood stem cells, not embryonic stem cells.
  ``The insistence on using embryonic stem cells always rested on the 
argument that they were pluripotent, capable of becoming any kind of 
cell. That superior claim no longer can be made with the spectacular 
discovery,'' as I said at the outset, ``in 2007 of `induced pluripotent 
stem cells,''' or iPS cells, ``which was the laboratory equivalent of 
the airplane. Very simply, iPS cells can be produced from skin cells by 
injecting genes that force the cells to revert to their primitive 
`blank state' form with all the same pluripotent capabilities of 
embryonic stem cells.
  ``But `induced pluripotent stem cells' don't trip easily off the 
tongue,'' she goes on to say, ``nor have any celebrities stepped 
forward to expound their virtues. Even without such drama, however, 
Time Magazine named iPS innovation number one of its Top Ten Scientific 
Discoveries of 2007, and the Journal of Science rated it the number one 
breakthrough of 2008.
  ``The iPS discovery even prompted Ian Wilmut, who led the team that 
cloned Dolly the sheep, to abandon his license to attempt human 
cloning, saying that the researchers `may have achieved what no 
politician could: an end to the embryonic stem cell debate.'''
  And yet now we see that Barack Obama has put that front and center 
again, choosing politics over science, over ethics, in promoting 
embryonic stem cell research when the clear future of stem cell 
research is in the area of induced pluripotent and in the area of adult 
stem cells.
  I would like to yield to Dr. Broun, a distinguished medical doctor, 
for any comments he might have.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As a medical physician, a medical doctor, I'm certainly concerned 
about my patients, and I can understand people who are in wheelchairs 
wanting to walk again. I understand people who have Parkinson's disease 
wanting to not have the rigidity and shakes that they have with that 
disease and the degradation of their lifestyle that that horrible 
disease causes. And I, as a medical doctor, want to find cures for 
these diseases as well as many others.
  But as we look at this issue, I don't think there's a single person 
with Parkinson's disease or a single person that's in a wheelchair that 
would be in favor of killing another human being so that they could 
walk again or so that they wouldn't shake and have the rigidity and all 
the devastating effects of Parkinson's. I don't think there's a person 
in this country, in this world, who would say ``I'm in favor of killing 
this 2-year-old little girl or this 6-year-old little boy so that my 
disease will be cured.''
  But the facts are very simple. When we do embryonic stem cell 
research, we're killing human beings. That's a separate human being. 
It's a separate entity. And that person has the right to live just like 
you and I do. We can't forget that. These are people. They may be a 
one-cell or just a few-cell human beings, individuals, but they are 
still distinct human beings that have their own genetic makeup, that 
have their own ability to live if we will just put them in an 
environment where they can.
  Now, I've got a friend at home that says that we ought to be able to 
take our 13 year olds and put them in the ground and dig them up when 
they're 25 and they'd be a whole lot better. And there are some parents 
who threaten to kill their teenage children, but they wouldn't really. 
But the thing is we are killing people. We're killing human beings.
  And the unfortunate part of this whole discussion is there has been 
virtually zero, zero, very little, if any, positive results from 
killing these human beings, bringing about the research on these human 
beings. There has been very little. Whereas with adult stem cells, with 
germ cells, we see a tremendous promise. And just as you said, 
Congressman Smith, the President has put politics and the radical pro-
death abortion groups in this country ahead of science. It is a mantra 
of death and destruction.
  I don't see things as being in the gray area, particularly on this 
issue. You're either pro-death or you're pro-life. You're pro-abortion 
or you're anti-abortion. I have wondered frequently whether this whole 
issue about embryonic stem cell research was just a mechanism to try to 
give credence to the abortion industry, just to try to give credence to 
being able to take that right or at least the designation of personhood 
away from these human beings that are just one or two cells.
  I introduced a bill called the Sanctity of Human Life Act that gives 
the right of personhood to one-cell human beings. And we have got to 
stop the killing in America. God commands in Proverbs to speak up to 
the speechless and the cause of those appointed to die. Congressman 
Smith for years and years and years has been coming to the floor and 
introducing legislation and speaking up for those innocent human beings 
that are killed through abortion, killed through embryonic stem cell 
research, and we have got to stop it. God cannot

[[Page 7125]]

and will not continue to bless America while we're killing 4,000 babies 
every day through abortion. We must stop it and do everything that we 
can. And stopping embryonic stem cell research is also extremely 
important because these are human beings that God has created. He tells 
us in His Word that he opens the womb and He closes the womb. I believe 
in the depth of my heart as a physician that he allows those human 
beings to be formed, even in a petri dish, and we need to protect them. 
We need to protect the beginning of life; we need to protect the end of 
life.
  When I graduated from medical school from the Medical College of 
Georgia in 1971, I made a pledge. It's an oath. It's called the 
Hippocratic oath. They don't give that in medical school, I don't 
think, much anymore, if ever, and the reason they don't is because of 
the abortion industry, because in that pledge, in that oath, it says I 
will not do an abortion. It also says I will do no harm. Embryonic stem 
cell research kills a human being. It does harm, and physicians who are 
doing that are breaking their Hippocratic oath if they take it 
seriously. It's not a legal document. It's just something that those of 
us who believe in doing no harm, who believe in rendering good to our 
patients and trying to preserve life, that's exactly what we try to do; 
so we must stop this heinous, and it is heinous, practice of destroying 
human life. No matter how good somebody paints the picture of this 
procedure, they paint a picture that has not been true, that it's going 
to bring about all these good cures, but it's an empty promise. And 
those who cling to it have been sold a bill of goods. They have been 
sold a bald-faced lie. It's a lie of a promise that has not shown to 
have any promise really. There are other research methods, other 
scientific methods, where we can put money, we can put effort to bring 
about the critical cures that we need to help people get out of their 
wheelchairs, to help cure cancer, to help cure diabetes, to help cure 
all these diseases that are absolutely critical for us to cure as a 
Nation, and we need to put our focus where it should be, and that's not 
on killing people. And that's what embryonic stem cell research does. 
It kills people. Put it on the things that will save people, things 
that will cure their disease, hopefully get people out of their 
wheelchairs and walking, help them to live their lives and be 
productive in society. I'm all for that, but I am totally against 
killing embryonic human beings just for the sake of medical 
experimentation. We must stop it, and I will do everything I can, and I 
join Congressman Smith in his efforts and I applaud his efforts over 
the years.
  I just greatly appreciate all that you've done, my dear friend. And, 
Chris, I just want to join with you in everything that you do to try to 
stop this heinous practice of killing human beings through abortion, 
through embryonic stem cell research, and all the other things that you 
have so valiantly fought against all these years. I thank you.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my very distinguished colleague Dr. 
Broun. Thank you for your kind words, but more importantly, thank you 
for the contribution you make, especially given your background.
  I think Americans need to know that physicians who believe in the 
sanctity of life, that patients before birth who might be in need of 
blood transfusions--I mean one of the things I will never forget, 
Bernard Nathanson, one of the founders of NARAL, an abortionist himself 
who did thousands of abortions, quit as the head of the center in New 
York, and he wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine ``I have come 
to the agonizing conclusion that I have presided over 60,000 deaths.'' 
So this innovator, this man who walked in the vanguard of the abortion 
rights movement, gave it all up. And he did so because, like you, he 
became a physician who said there are two patients, the unborn child 
and his or her mother, and both need to be treated with respect. The 
Hippocratic oath that you cited so eloquently is an admonishment that 
has fallen by the wayside with some, not all.
  The newborn didn't get that way, a healthy newborn, traversing the 
birth canal. It had to do with good prenatal care. The mom taking care 
of herself and being treated obviously well by the family so that she 
could get her proper rest, all the things that lead to a good delivery, 
it all occurs prior to birth.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. That's right.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. So two patients. And that's what led Dr. 
Nathanson. When he was doing blood transfusions at St. Luke's Hospital 
and prenatal surgery, and he would say this patient here who deserves 
respect is getting help he or she needs while in another room of that 
hospital or clinic, they're getting dismembered or chemically poisoned 
or killed by some other toxic substance, and they call that abortion 
and ``free choice.'' It is violence against children and it is 
injurious to mothers as well.
  I just met, Dr. Broun, with some individuals, a father whose daughter 
committed suicide in New Jersey some time ago as a direct result of an 
abortion. She was one of the happiest young women imaginable. Her 
brother and father came to visit me. She went into a very severe 
mental, and you probably could speak to that very well, downward slope 
after she had that abortion. The mental complications are very real. I 
know we're here to talk about embryonic stem cell research, but it is 
so closely allied to the dehumanization of unborn life and newly 
created human life. And as I said at the outset, birth is an event that 
happens to all of us. It is not the beginning of life. The Flat Earth 
Society folks might say that's when life begins, but 3D ultrasound, 4D 
ultrasound, has shattered that myth.
  I yield to Dr. Broun.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. The reason that the pro-abortion people don't 
want ultrasound is because moms look at that baby and they say, 
``That's a baby. That's not just a little glob of tissue. It's not some 
amorphous goop that's there in my womb. It's a baby.'' And it is. And 
before she ever knows that she has missed a period, I mean by the time 
she has missed a period and goes a little bit further, that baby 
already is developing neurological function. It's already developing a 
heartbeat. It's a human being.

                              {time}  1800

  And that's the thing about embryonic stem cell research goes back to 
the same thing that I mentioned and what you are talking about, and 
what we all talk about who are pro-life, that life begins when the 
sperm cell enters the cell wall of the oocyte, the egg. I call it 
spermatazoa, that's a medical term for the sperm cell, enters the cell 
wall of the egg, the oocyte.
  It forms a one-cell human being that's genetically different from the 
mom. It's a separate human being. It has everything it needs except for 
just a good place to live, to become a human being and be a Member of 
this House of Representatives, to grow up to become a President of the 
United States. And it's a human being, nonetheless.
  It's a zygote, which needs to have the right, under law, of 
personhood. And, in fact, in the Roe v. Wade decision, as you know, as 
all of us who are pro-life know, the Supreme Court justice who wrote 
the majority opinion, Justice Blackmun, said in his decision, that if 
we could ever define the beginning of life at conception--now I say 
``fertilization'' because the word ``conception'' has become obscured, 
they want to obscure all this stuff.
  But if that could ever be determined that that would vacate Roe v. 
Wade, we have got to protect these people. A society is going to be 
judged by other societies about how it cares for the most vulnerable in 
its society, the poor people, the old people and the very most 
vulnerable of the young people.
  And these embryonic cells that have this big scientific name, like 
embryonic stem cell research, which sounds kind of lofty, but the 
bottom line is it kills human beings, separate human beings, and we 
must stop it and we will do everything we can. God cannot and will not 
continue to bless America while we are doing this.
  We look through history how human beings have been experimented on. 
We

[[Page 7126]]

see all the time, we hear complaints, particularly from the other side, 
even the pro-abortion people on the other side, look aghast of how we 
treat prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and just putting women's 
underwear on those folks' heads.
  But, on the other hand, they are willing to kill a human being 
through abortion, through embryonic stem cell research, and it doesn't 
matter. The thing that really gets me, Congressman Smith, is they want 
to do it all the way up to the time that baby totally pops out of the 
birth canal. In fact, that's what the Freedom of Choice Act is all 
about. It should be called the Freedom to Kill Babies Act, not the 
Freedom of Choice Act.
  In fact, let me just mention that too as we see that partial-birth 
abortion, late-term abortions are being promoted by this administration 
by many in this House. The only medical reason that procedure was ever 
developed is to guarantee a dead baby by the abortionists. There is no 
other medical reason, no other medical reason than to guarantee a dead 
baby.
  The abortionists were faced with a problem. They were aborting babies 
and winding up with a live fetus. Now, ``fetus'' in Latin means 
``baby.'' They were winding up with a live baby, and what are they 
going to do with this? They couldn't have that, so they had to develop 
those dilatation extraction procedures, partial-birth abortions to 
guarantee a dead baby.
  So I applaud your efforts to try to help bring forth the truth, and 
that's what you have been doing for years, and I applaud you. And 
that's why I had to come down here to put in my 2 cents as a medical 
doctor, to tell the American public that the truth, that there is very 
little, if any, potential of scientific breakthroughs to treat all 
these awful diseases, which I want to treat, but there is a light. 
There is a potential, and it's through other methods that don't kill 
these babies.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for his eloquent 
statement. We have two Members that want to join in. I would just very 
briefly say, and I would recommend, that those who may be watching this 
either look at this in the Record or Google it.
  In the U.S. News & World Report, Dr. Bernadine Healy, from Ohio, who 
used to be the head of the National Institutes of Health, asks a very 
probing question and then answers it why embryonic stem cells are 
obsolete. And as she points out, the breakthroughs have been in the 
areas of adult stem cells. And as she calls the induced pluripotent 
stem cells--again, the ones that can be taken right from our skin--she 
calls that the blockbuster discovery of 2007.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me and 
appreciate his reference to Dr. Healy. I have her name in my notes as 
well.
  But let me start by saying this. Look, we understand there is a 
debate in our culture over whose set of principles, whose set of values 
are going to prevail.
  And that is, of course, one of those fundamental principles is 
respect for human life. It is why I so appreciate the Congressman from 
New Jersey and his leadership of the Pro-Life Caucus here in Congress, 
because he has had a steadfast adherence to that fundamental principle 
that all life is sacred and worthy of protection, that same principle 
that the Founders of this country understood when they wrote down the 
words that started this great experiment that we call America. And they 
said, ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are 
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain 
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit 
of Happiness.''
  I always tell folks it's interesting to note the order the Founders 
placed the rights that they chose to mention, life, liberty, pursuit of 
happiness. You can't pursue your goals and dreams, you can't go after 
those things that have meaning and significance to you and your family 
if you don't first have freedom. And you never have true freedom, true 
liberty, if government doesn't protect your most fundamental right, 
your right to life.
  That's ultimately what this debate is about. When the President the 
other day issued his executive order, at the press event he talked 
about the adherence to science and picking science over politics.
  I am sure that the chair of the Pro-Life Caucus, the gentleman from 
New Jersey and our friend from Texas who has joined us, know that the 
science is on our side. All the positive treatments, all the beneficial 
things that have happened to individuals and their families who love 
and care about them, in treating disease, have happened through the 
adult stem cell research, not the stem cell research that destroys 
human life.
  And so we strongly support the use of science in developing the cures 
and the treatments that are going to help people. And it's interesting 
to note the ethical decision is the smart decision, and right now the 
evidence is all on our side.
  The Congressman from New Jersey is exactly right when he talks about 
Dr. Healy. What's interesting is Dr. Healy and I did a radio show the 
other night, talked about this, she happens to be a Republican but also 
ran as a candidate for the United States Senate as a pro-abortion, pro-
choice candidate. So she doesn't exactly share our belief on this issue 
completely, and yet she is willing to look at the science in an 
objective way and come down on the right side.
  Two last things I would finish with here in my remarks, this decision 
scares me in a couple of ways, the first one is this, the slippery 
slope argument is real. I mean, once you start down this road there are 
all kinds of problems that can accompany this that are harmful. My 
guess is the gentleman from New Jersey has talked about cloning and 
some of the other things that this can lead to.
  I am sure your comments will be appropriate in that area. These are 
scary things. But, remember, politicians are good at saying one thing 
and not exactly following through on it. So even though people will 
tell us they support this, there are safeguards built in, we know it 
destroys life and we know that there are worse things that can come 
down the road.
  Finally, I would say this, thus far, with this administration, we 
have seen a couple of pro-life policies overturned, the Mexico City 
policy with an executive order, and now the stem cell, the embryonic 
stem cell research policy.
  We know, as we now enter the 2010 appropriations cycle, and what's 
going to happen with taxpayer dollars as we move forward relative to 
protecting life and the fact that millions of families, millions of 
Americans don't want their tax dollars used to promote something that 
they know is wrong. As we move into that debate, the precedent has been 
set now with these two decisions. We have got a fight on our hands. 
There are 22 what are commonly called pro-life riders that are part of 
the appropriation bills that we need to protect.
  The one that most people understand and recognize is the Hyde 
amendment which says we are not going to use your tax dollars to 
perform the abortion procedure in this country. We are going to protect 
the use of your tax dollars.
  So this idea that we are now moving in a direction that is going to 
use tax dollars for embryonic stem cell research sets a dangerous 
precedent. And it's something that we have to watch as we move forward, 
because, again, the vast majority of families in this country don't 
want their tax dollars used for this procedure.
  So, again, I commend the gentlemen who are with us here tonight, 
particularly our chairman of the Pro-Life Caucus, Congressman Smith, 
for your steadfast adherence to the fundamental principle that life is 
precious, life is sacred and deserves the protection that the law 
should offer it.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you, Mr. Jordan, for your leadership. 
I think the American public would be pleased to know that you headed up 
an effort with a Member on the Democratic side, Heath Shuler, and 180 
Members signed a letter to the leadership of the House, the Democratic 
leadership, asking that these pro-life riders--we do not want our 
funding, our tax dollars being used to facilitate to kill children.

[[Page 7127]]


  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. For just a second, and I appreciate the gentleman 
bringing that up, we did have a bipartisan press event where we 
announced 181 Members of Congress, Republican and Democrat, signing a 
letter to the Speaker of the House, telling the Speaker, don't mess 
with this language. This protects human beings. This protects taxpayer 
dollars. This protects what the vast majority of Americans respect.
  Don't change these procedures. Don't do what the Obama administration 
has already done twice, protect these procedures. And if you do mess 
with it, at least give us the rule so we can have a debate on the 
floor. At least allow us to play the game, have the debate, the full 
debate in front of the American people and have the vote.
  You can't get 181 Members to sign anything around here. The fact that 
we got a bipartisan 181 Members is testimony to the work that the Pro-
Life Caucus does and to the importance of this fundamental issue.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Olson.
  Mr. OLSON. I thank the chairman of the Pro-Life Caucus, my good 
friend from New Jersey, for leading this discussion tonight on this 
critical issue, and I want to identify myself with the comments of the 
speakers who preceded me, the chairman, Chairman Pence, Dr. Broun and 
our good friend, Congressman Jordan, for their impassioned comments in 
defense of innocent life.
  I rise today out of grave concern over President Obama's decision 
yesterday to lift restrictions on Federal funding for human embryonic 
stem cell research. His decision is financially overburdensome, 
scientifically unnecessary and morally offensive.
  The President's new executive order opens the door to Federal funding 
of embryonic stem cell research. Tremendous results have already been 
found using adult stem cells in the treatment of cancer, diabetes, 
Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease and heart disease. Creating 
more lines of pluripotent stem cells should be our continued focus. 
It's more versatile. You don't have to deal with the issues of 
rejection, and it doesn't take an innocent life.
  This administration continues a disturbing path of spending taxpayer 
dollars on programs and policies that are deeply offensive to millions 
of Americans, placing questionable science ahead of morality. Taxpayers 
are being asked to support an increasingly bloated Federal Government, 
and yet the administration is moving research from private funding to 
take advantage of money from President Obama's economic recovery 
package for further study of embryonic stem cells.
  How does the destruction of human life help our economy recover, how 
does that create jobs? It doesn't, and this most recent action by the 
administration is another example of a step too far.
  We must not forget the fundamental role of government in our lives, 
protecting its citizens, particularly the most innocent among us. This 
administration has not been in office yet for 2 months, and, yet, three 
times, it has already overturned some basic security rights of our 
citizens. It has forced men and women who do not want their money spent 
on morally objectionable scientific research to fund research.
  They have removed rules that protect medical providers who declined 
to perform abortions due to moral and religious reasons. And now they 
have failed to protect the most innocent among us by opening the door 
to embryo research and a senseless discarding of American life.

                              {time}  1815

  I'd like to make a couple of comments about the importance of 
ultrasounds for women who are pregnant. These are personal comments.
  God has blessed my family. We have two children; a daughter, who's 
12, and a son, who's 8. When my wife was pregnant with our daughter, 
our first child, she had an ultrasound at 13 weeks. We still have that 
ultrasound. Have it on our refrigerator door.
  If you look at that ultrasound, you look at the profile of that young 
human life, and you look at the profile of my daughter today as a 12-
year-old, thriving kid in sixth grade, there is absolutely no 
difference. Kate was a person then, she's a person now. And we need to 
protect the innocent life. And ultrasounds made available to women who 
are pregnant only are common sense.
  Again, I thank my colleague from New Jersey for spearheading this 
important debate, and I yield back the floor. Thank you.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Olson, thank you very much, and I 
appreciate your leadership and your consistency in respecting all human 
life, including the unborn child. So, thank you for joining us today.
  Let me just make a few final comments, Madam Speaker. While President 
Obama and some Members of Congress still don't get it, the breakthrough 
in adult stem cell research has not been lost on the mainstream press. 
For example, on November 21, 2007, 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 the same day, and I quote, ``Two teams 
of scientists reported yesterday that they had turned human skin cells 
into what appears 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 AP said, ``Scientists have created the equivalent of embryonic 
stem cells from ordinary skin cells, a breakthrough that could someday 
produce new treatments 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, and I quote, 
``Now with the new technique, 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.''
  If only that were true because, unfortunately, on Monday our Federal 
taxpayers' dollars will be used now to destroy embryos to derive their 
stem cells, even though they become tumors, if ever put into an 
individual, would be rejected and, of course, we know that they kill 
the donor when they are taken.
  In Medical News Today, Dr. Thomson said, and I say this again, 
``Speaking about the latest breakthrough, the induced cells do all the 
things embryonic cells do. It's going to completely change the field,'' 
he said. Again, this is the doctor who, in the late 1990s, gave us 
embryonic stem cells. He is saying induced pluripotent stem cells, 
those derived from your skin and mine, can be embryo-like, and really 
is the hope of regenerative medicine.
  Ten days ago, more good news. No, I would actually say it is great 
news on the induced pluripotent stem cell 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. ``With their new discovery, which they used a piggyback system, 
as they called it, they were able to insert DNA where they could alter 
the genetic makeup of the regular cell before being harmlessly removed.
  ``According to many scientists, the removal of potentially cancer-
causing viruses means that 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--this is just a week ago--``It's a leap forward in the safe 
application of these cells. We expect this to have a massive impact on 
this field.''

[[Page 7128]]

  George Daley at Children's Hospital in Boston said, and I quote, ``It 
is very significant. I think it's a major step forward in realizing the 
value of these cells for medical research.''
  Many people seem to be getting it, except for Mr. Obama, who clings 
to the old hype and the hyperbole concerning the efficacy of embryo-
destroying stem cells. Science has moved on. It's about time the 
politicians caught up.
  This breakthrough suggests--remember, it's just 2 weeks ago, this 
newest breakthrough--that the momentum has decisively, and I hope 
irrevocably, swung to noncontroversial stem cell research, like iPS 
stem 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.''
  Time Magazine reports on the efficacy of the advantage of iPS stem 
cells saying, ``The induced pluripotent stem cell 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 repair or to replace.''
  Madam Speaker, there was an excellent op ed in the Wall Street 
Journal yesterday, which I read just a few paragraphs from, which I 
think really highlights and underscores the profound ethical issues we 
are facing. It was written by Robert George and Eric Cohen. The title, 
the President Politicizes Stem Cell Research. Taxpayers Have a Right to 
be Left Out of it.
  ``Yesterday, President Barack Obama issued an executive order that 
authorizes expanded Federal funding for research using stem cells 
produced by destroying human embryos. The announcement was classic 
Obama--advancing radical policies while seeming calm and moderate, and 
preaching the gospel of civility while accusing those who disagree with 
the policies of being; `divisive' and even `politicizing science.'
  ``Mr. Obama's executive order overturned an attempt by President 
George W. Bush in 2001 to do justice to both the promise of stem cell 
science and the demands of ethics. The Bush policy was to allow the 
government to fund research on existing embryonic stem cell lines, 
where the embryos in question had already been destroyed. But it would 
not fund or in any which incentivize the ongoing destruction of human 
embryos.
  ``For years, this policy was attacked by advocates of embryo-
destructive research. Mr. Bush and the `religious right' were depicted 
as antiscience villains and embryonic stem cells scientists were seen 
as the beleaguered saviors of the sick. In reality, Mr. Bush's policy 
was one of moderation. It did not ban new embryonic-destructive 
research, and did not fund new embryo-destroying research either;
  `Moderate' Mr. Obama's policy is not. It will promote a whole new 
industry of embryo creation and destruction, including the creation of 
human embryos by cloning for research in which they are destroyed. It 
forces American taxpayers, including those who see the deliberate 
taking of human life in the embryonic stage as profoundly unjust, to be 
complicit in this practice.
  ``Mr. Obama made a big point in his speech of claiming to bring 
integrity back to science policy, and his desire to remove the previous 
administration's ideological agenda from scientific decision-making. 
This claim of taking science out of politics is false and misguided on 
two counts.
  ``First, the Obama policy is itself blatantly political. It is red 
meat to his Bush-hating base. It pays no more than lip service to 
recent scientific breakthroughs,'' that I would note parenthetically, I 
and my colleagues have been talking about tonight, ``that makes 
possible the production of cells that are biologically equivalent to 
embryonic stem cells without the need to create or kill human embryos.
  ``Inexplicably--apart from political motivations--Mr. Obama revoked 
not only the Bush restrictions on embryo-destructive research funding, 
but also his 2007 executive order that encourages the National 
Institutes of Health to explore non-embryo-destructive sources of stem 
cells.
  Second, and more fundamentally, the claim about taking politics out 
of science is, in the deepest sense, anti-Democratic. The question of 
whether to destroy human embryos for research purposes is not 
fundamentally a scientific question. It is a moral and civic question 
about the proper uses, ambitions, and limits of science; it is a 
question about how we will treat members of the human family at the 
very dawn of life; our willingness to seek alternative paths to medical 
progress that respect human dignity.
  ``For those who believe in the highest ideals of deliberative 
democracy and those who believe we mistreat the most vulnerable human 
lives at our own moral peril, Mr. Obama's claim of taking politics out 
of science should be lamented, not celebrated.
  ``In the years ahead, the stem cell debate will surely continue--
raising, as it does, big questions about the meaning of human equality 
at the edges of human life, about the relationship between science and 
politics, and about how we govern ourselves when it comes to morally 
charged issues of public policy on which reasonable people happen to 
disagree.
  ``We can only hope in the years ahead that scientific creativity will 
make embryo destruction unnecessary and that, as a society, we will not 
pave the way to the brave new world with the best medical intentions.''
  Madam Speaker, I just conclude by saying that despite all of the new 
and the extraordinary processes in adult stem cell research and 
applications, despite these magnificent breakthroughs in induced 
pluripotent stem cells, a part of adult stem cells, the Obama 
administration and, I am sad to say, the leadership of this House, 
remain fixated on killing human embryos for experimentation at 
taxpayers' expense.
  The alternative has continued and will continue to prove itself to be 
highly efficacious. That is to say, adult stem cells. We don't need to 
kill human embryos to effectuate cures and to mitigate disease.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________