The issue we face today is not whether to move forward with embryonic stem cell research, but how.  How do we ensure that all unnecessary barriers to the research and development of life-saving cures are removed, how do we establish parameters that provide ethical oversight of this most delicate issue, and how do we help as many people as possible as expediently as possible?  Unfortunately, today these questions are being answered in the context of a policy that imprisons the potential of this nation’s leading scientists.

As many of you know, on November 7 last year, I became the first quadriplegic elected to Congress.  While my physical condition does not define me, it does affect me on a daily basis, providing me with a unique perspective on stem cell research.

At the age of 16, I spent my summer vacation participating in the Warwick police cadet program.  I had dreamed of being a police officer or an FBI agent my entire life.  But on August 22, 1980, my dream was shattered.  I stood in a locker room with a fellow cadet watching two members of the SWAT team examine a handgun.  It accidentally discharged, launching a bullet that ricocheted off a metal locker and into my neck, severing my spinal cord and leaving me paralyzed for life – perhaps until now.

While embryonic stem cell research could give me the chance to walk again, please understand that I am here today not just for myself, but to alleviate the pain and suffering of millions of people whose lives could be saved, lengthened and dramatically improved by this research.  Nearly half of all Americans could benefit from embryonic stem cell research, including 1 million children with juvenile diabetes, 8.2 million people with cancer, 60 million people struggling with heart disease, 4 million Alzheimer’s sufferers, 10 million people fighting osteoporosis, 43 million arthritis sufferers, 230,000 people with spinal cord injury, and 30,000 Lou Gehrig's disease patients.  Every family in America has been touched by these diseases and conditions, and now we have the opportunity to offer them real hope.

That is why I support using stem cells derived from excess frozen embryos that otherwise would be discarded to save, extend and improve lives.  Every year hundreds of thousands of couples experience the joy of childbirth through in vitro fertilization, a process which necessarily creates more embryos than can be used.  To relegate these potentially life-saving cells to the trash heap after the arbitrary deadline of August 9th is simply wrong.

While I applaud the door President Bush opened with the new embryonic stem cell policy, I am frustrated with the discovery of just how little room it leaves for medical advancement.  Despite NIH’s recent disclosure of the 64 stem cell lines that existed before August 9th, we are now learning that they are not all “robust” as once claimed, and some of these cells are still in development and cannot yet be classified as lines.  Questions about the safety of using the cells in human trials are also surfacing because many researchers have mixed human cell lines with mouse cells, which poses the risk of infecting people with animal viruses.  Finally, irrespective of the president’s guidelines for the existing embryonic stem cell lines, the private sector in United States, as well as the public and private sectors abroad, will continue to conduct research on stem cells that fall outside of the parameters established by the Bush administration.  

What will we do when an embryonic stem cell derived from the in vitro fertilization process after August 9th leads to a cure for heart disease, the number one cause of death in this country?  Will we deny 60 million Americans this life-saving cure?  And worse, what if such a cure is found through the morally offensive procedure of creating embryos purely for harvesting stem cells?  We must fund research on other cell lines besides the 64 cell lines identified by NIH, and we must provide strong oversight of this research to ensure that it is conducted by ethical means that do not force us to wrestle with similar moral quandaries in the future.

The administration’s policy impedes unprecedented, life-saving research and raises critical ethical dilemmas that we must not ignore.  Because embryonic stem cell research cannot deliver on its promise of therapeutic benefit for millions of people under this policy, I am compelled to oppose it.  I understand the struggle to balance a pro-life position with embryonic stem cell research.  This was one of the most difficult decisions I’ve ever made.  Having come so close to losing my own life, I am reminded every day of how precious a gift life is.  And that is why I am pro-life.  

However, nothing is more life-affirming than using what otherwise would be disposed of to save, extend and improve countless lives.  I urge my colleagues to open the door to research on all excess embryonic stem cells derived from in vitro fertilization, and to do so with government oversight that ensures ethical research procedures.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.