America's Wildlife Heritage Act

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he might consume to my good friend and colleague, Zach Wamp.

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 Thompson 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 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 Thompson, 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. Thompson 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. Thompson 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

As you said, the pioneers of embryonic stem cells are now the pioneers of the ethical IPS.

Mr. Jordan.

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.

I would like to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Fleming.

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, thank you so much.

Mrs. Bachmann.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

Thanks to the gentleman for yielding.

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.

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.

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.

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.