Tim Murphy

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. I thank the gentleman for yielding and the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, also, to spend some time on some of the important points in our world today. We are so very deeply concerned that throughout our world and really throughout the history of humankind, so many people have lost their lives and blood has been shed and cities have been burned and armies have been massed, unfortunately, in the name of religion. It has sometimes and very frequently distorted its goals. I wanted to start off by going back to some of the speech that Pope Benedict gave. In a sentence that followed his quote under question again, where he is continuing his quote about the emperor and saying, The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. ``God,'' he says, ``is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly without violence and threats. To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death.'' As I read this, I am also struck by some of the similarity with an article about religious tolerance in Islam. There are several quotes which I need to read into the record, too, to talk about some things we need to understand as Americans and the world needs to understand. Our nation, predominantly a Christian nation and one that is founded on many of those principles and very much a part of our history, our Constitution and our laws, there is so much we need to learn. I say these things not in any kind of way of being conciliatory but a way of saying we need to approach things with understanding and not the violence which is occurring around the world. It is so disturbing to see churches burned, to see a nun shot, to see calls and crying out for assassinations. This is not the way to seek peace. Let me read here from this article on religious intolerance in Islam about piety, where the author, Dr. Abdullah M. Khouj, writes: Piety eliminates any type of racial, social or national discrimination. Religious discrimination is completely incompatible with Islam. Islam was revealed in a part of the world and at a time when the majority of people were polytheists. Islam came and showed people the need to believe in one God as the only way to understand themselves and to improve their lives. Allah confirmed to the prophet that we must believe all previous messengers and that we must reach a level of understanding with other religions. He says: ``Say ye: `We believe in God and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and the tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to all prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to God in Islam.''' The author goes on to say: And when a Muslim discusses religion with a non-Muslim, Allah enjoins us to speak with reason and good manners. Again he continues: ``And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better than mere disputation, unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong and injury: But say, `We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and that which came down to you. Our God and your God is one; and it is to him we bow in Islam.''' Again the author continues: Indeed, Allah requires us to ensure that religious discussion never be allowed to become violent. Finally he quotes: ``Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from error. Whoever rejects evil and believes in God hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold that never breaks. And God heareth and knoweth all things.'' As I read those words that have come from the Islamic Center, I am struck that really throughout history, so many faiths and governments have dealt with religious conflict. Early this evening, in fact, I was meeting with folks from Northern Ireland, from Ireland and the United Kingdom who have themselves been dealing with a conflict which has gone on more predominantly for the last few decades but really for centuries of conflicts between Catholics and Protestants/Christians in Northern Ireland. Much blood has been shed. There have been revolutions. There has been a peace agreement which has been in place since 1998 but a government is not yet set. It is true these things we have to remember, that when people have religious intolerance and wars and bloodshed ensues, it is of terrible consequence. One of the reasons we are here today is to say that we are are not here to support any kind of intolerance. We are here to call the world to do what it should do in terms of those principles of religious freedom which are so important for bringing peace to the world. Here let me call upon something that George Washington said. He said, back in 1792, ``Of all animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be most inveterate and distressing and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy which has marked the present age would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.'' He goes to say, in 1775: ``As the contempt of the religion of a country by ridiculing any of its ceremonies or affronting its ministers or votaries has ever been deeply resented, you are to be particularly careful to restrain every officer from such imprudence and folly and to punish any and every instance of it,'' he was saying to Benedict Arnold. ``On the other hand,'' Washington continues, ``as far as lies in your power, you are to protect and support the free exercise of religion of the country and the undisturbed enjoyment of the rights of conscience in religious matters with your utmost influence and authority.'' It would seem to me at that time, as Washington has said, as so many countries have dealt with these issues, that what we need to have is not more violence, not more accusations, not more calls for assassinations and murders and burnings, not more continuation of war, hiding behind these with some extremists who have themselves captured or are hiding behind some aspects of faith, but understand that we are in a world that can little tolerate these burnings, these assassinations, these murders but on one which really must call for an interfaith dialogue, of patience, of understanding; truly seeing what the words are and not using them as some sort of vehicle for more incendiary language. There is so much that we need to use and perhaps, in the Pope's words, those should really be a stepping-off point to continue this dialogue, not to continue on with this violence which we are seeing. The world can little afford more war. As I watched also the comments of the United Nations today from leaders to continue these comments, this is not the way the world should be operating. This is not the way the U.N. should be operating. My hope is that every American of every faith, that every man or woman of the cloth of every faith, not only here in the United States but throughout the world, sees this as an opportunity to be called upon by their Maker to speak out and say that if there is any hope for us in this world, if there is any hope for the faiths of which we adhere, that this is the time above all times when truth and dialogue are needed to discuss things rather than swords.

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our guest chaplain today, the Archbishop Donald Wuerl, for leading us in prayer. He attended Saint Mary of the Mount parish and school, and then studied at the Athenaeum of Ohio in Cincinnati, was ordained to the priesthood in 1966. He received graduate degrees from the Catholic University of America, the Gregorian University in Rome, and his doctoral in theology from Saint Thomas Aquinas in Rome in 1974. He began his career as an assistant pastor at Saint Rosalia parish in Pittsburgh. There he became a secretary to Pittsburgh Bishop John Wright. From 1981 to 1985, he served as rector for Saint Paul's Seminary in Pittsburgh, and in 1988 Bishop Wuerl was installed as the 11th Bishop of Pittsburgh, where for 18 years he led 800,000 Roman Catholics in 214 parishes throughout southwestern Pennsylvania. We also knew him in Pittsburgh for his weekly television program, ``The Teaching of Christ,'' which is now widely distributed through the Christian Associates cable channel, and throughout its national syndication. As a writer, his best-selling catechism of the same name is now in its 30th year of publication and has been translated into more than 10 languages and used throughout the world. We are very grateful for Archbishop Wuerl's presence here. We are sorry to have him gone from Pittsburgh, but we know he will do a great job now in the diocese of Washington, DC.

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 443, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 444, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 442, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 441, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, September 11, 2001, is a date which we will remember for many things. I will now remember it in a different way, because on September 11, 2006, I traveled with several other people to Shanksville to watch the families commemorate the fifth anniversary of this tragedy. Where I was sitting, I spent much of that ceremony looking at their tear-filled eyes, the husbands, the wives, the fathers, the mothers, their brothers and sisters, the cousins, the sons and daughters, and knowing that much of what they must have been thinking then and now is what happened and what we will do to prevent it from happening again? I also know that on September 11, 2001, as that plane, Flight 93, was flying back towards Washington, DC, it flew over areas south of Pittsburgh, and I could not help but think as they passed over our homes and schools that passengers on that plane delayed their action until they got away from populated areas. But what they did that day was they began an offense against what we have been taking for granted for 30 years. For 30 years, the kidnapping in Iran, the USS Cole bombing, the bombing of the Khobar Towers, the bombings of our embassies, the bombing of the Marine barracks, for 30 years we did relatively nothing but fight back by taking people to court. And that did not work. It is important that we see this as a battle, as part of a longer struggle to fight those radical extreme elements of Islamic fascists who want to take this as a war. Not all Muslims, but that small element that we must fight against. We agree we have to win. But what we don't agree with is that we have to fight, we have to interrogate, we have to detain, we have to listen in on and we have to track their financial records. And that is why the acts this Congress has passed, the PATRIOT Act, intelligence reform, border security, are all an important part of us taking the fight back. What we will learn from September 11 should be not just a day which stands alone, but like other September 11ths, this one, the battles that took place in New York and the Pentagon and Shanksville, September 11, at the Battle of Brandywine in 1777, that is not a stand-alone date, but it is a date of which we acknowledge the change of what happened to the American colonial forces in the Revolutionary War. Or September 11, 1683, a turning point for the Ottoman Empire in the Battle of Vienna. It ended the siege of the Turks and the turning point of a 300-year struggle, of which at that time those forces sought to control Europe. For the families of 9/11, we must continue to recognize that all of this is part of a larger battle, not a single act, and if we sit back and we do nothing beyond that, we will not really be acknowledging all that these victims need. It is part of a battle we have to continue to fight.

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. Now, you have to imagine what it was like to meet Mayor Bob O'Connor. He was not a man of great physical stature and height, but he made up for it with what one reporter, Rich Lord, referred to him as a large tuft of whipped cream white hair that stood high upon his head, and he loved to get out throughout the City of Pittsburgh. He was one that was very much hands on. Whether it was a set of stairs in the city that was falling into disrepair or checking out potholes or just walking down the street, there was Bob O'Connor. In fact, one of his last public acts was to be on top of a cherry picker where he personally installed the first wireless system for the city because he wanted the Nation to see a wireless downtown Pittsburgh for the Major League Baseball All-Star game. Now, he also had a plan going at that time to ``redd up'' the city. Now, for the purpose of the Record and for the Nation, it is important to know that in Pittsburgh this type of ``redd'' is spelled r-e-d-d, and it does not mean you paint the town red, but it is a term that means to make ready, much like, as we would say in the Burg, ``yinz going to get redd up for this event,'' meaning make things look good in the city. And that is, indeed, what the mayor was about to do, when suddenly he and his family were hit with a diagnosis that he had cancer, a very rare cancer of which there is really only a handful of cases that had been diagnosed in this Nation, and as rare as the cancer was itself so was the knowledge of the treatment for it. Now, I worked with Mayor O'Connor over the last decade not only when he was on city council but also when he represented Governor Rendell for southwestern Pennsylvania and then finally as mayor of the City of Pittsburgh. I am pleased to have called him friend, although I found, attending his funeral that was packed at the cathedral, that so many called him friend, and, indeed, that only seemed natural because you could not help be around Bob O'Connor and not leave the room feeling that you had made a new friend forever. Indeed, this man's compassion for love and affection is one that I would see, that he and Judy's wedding would be measured as lasting an eternity and not just a few decades. What struck me most about this wonderful, kind, and gentle man is he was a person who personified the best in what a public servant can be. He certainly was a gracious, affable man, a tireless worker, and a leader who sincerely wanted to improve the lives of Pittsburgh. I know whenever I talked to him about issues, although I do not personally represent the City of Pittsburgh itself, whenever we spoke about issues in the remainder of southwestern Pennsylvania, he would say that what was good for the city was good for the region and what was good for the region was good for the city. And because he took down those barriers, it made him all the more pleasant to work with. But in addition, he took down political barriers perhaps because, as a professional businessman, he worked for a couple of decades managing a chain of restaurants and he learned about the importance of putting the customer first. His people-oriented personal policy helped him set aside the politics in discussions. He was perhaps most admired for being a man of his word. A handshake was a true contract. And all of us, unfortunately, live in an era of extreme partisanship at all government levels. When we sit here in this Chamber and we watch debate, too often what should be discussed as policy turns into rancor. Accusations fly back and forth, and as such, the Nation who may sit and watch C-SPAN or be in the gallery watching this proceeding sometimes wonder if we can get along at all. Indeed, we do recognize that we do get some things done in this Chamber, but it is unfortunate, actually tragic, that sometimes the issues of politics stand so far above policy that the public, indeed, just continues to wonder what is it that comes first. But that was not my experience with Bob O'Connor. It is important to know that he was the kind of guy that perhaps the best compliment you could say about him is you never had to look over your shoulder because what you said to him would be held in confidence, would not end up in a newspaper or show up in a campaign ad. That was not how he did things. You knew that he was honest, congenial, and pragmatic. And even when Mayor O'Connor or President of Council O'Connor had conflicts, I don't recall his ever turning it into a public session of whining or political smearing. Rather, he handled it in a professional manner. One of the ways that we can mark the hope that his death brought was comments made by his son the Reverend Terry O'Connor, when he said that ``This is a day marked with much sadness. It is also a day filled with a tremendous amount of hope,'' he said at his father's funeral, ``hope in God's loving and mysterious plan for my dad and for us all.'' He recalled a time when in the 1990s there was a big blizzard in Pittsburgh, and Bob O'Connor, being the sort of man he was, made sure all the kids got in their car, slipping and sliding and fishtailing a bit down the street to get to mass, saying there were about five or so other people in attendance, and he said, ``I guarantee you they all walked.'' Bob O'Connor lived the Golden Rule, believing to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Indeed, that was his motivation for getting into politics. He wanted to help people. He helped start the Caring Place in Pittsburgh, a facility used to help children who lost loved ones, a place that is remembered by so many other people. I will miss Bob O'Connor, as will so many people of Pittsburgh; of St. Rosalia Parish; of Greenfield; of everybody from the Giant Eagle, where he shopped, to the coffee places he got his coffee every day. We will miss him because of his generosity, his friendship, his kind Irish smile. But we are so very grateful for what he left behind, a wonderful caring family who carry on his legacy and, above all that, a Pittsburgh, which is a grateful, grateful town of Pennsylvania, which is a grateful State for not just what he left but for what he left all of us, inspiration and hope for the future.

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Speaker, as part of the debate on House Resolution 983, I ask unanimous consent that the following statement from Mayor Luke Ravenstahl of Pittsburgh be included in the Record: Bob O'Connor was more than just the Mayor of Pittsburgh. He was our friend, and will be dearly missed. He left behind a dynamic and exciting agenda for Pittsburgh's renewal. His words and actions will serve as a model to my tenure as mayor of the City of Pittsburgh.

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 430, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 432, the King of Iowa amendment, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' (By unanimous consent, Mr. Thomas was allowed to speak out of order.) Moment of Silence in Memory of Former Member of the House of Representatives, Bob Mathias

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 431, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Speaker, a recent study by the Institute of Medicine reported preventable medication errors injure over 1.5 million patients and cost over $3.5 billion each year. In other studies these costs are even higher. One stated it cost Medicare $29 billion per year in health care costs. Medication errors include adverse drug reactions or errors of dosage or type of medication. A misspelled drug name, illegible handwriting, or if the physician is not aware of a patient's other prescriptions, these can all lead to problems. Yesterday, the House passed the Health Information Technology Promotion Act to help doctors and hospitals work together to eliminate drug errors. Computerized prescriptions instantaneously give physicians vital information and double-check all prescriptions to put patient safety first. To learn more about eliminating preventable medication errors, or other ways we can save lives and save money in health care, I would urge my colleagues to visit my Web site at murphy.house.gov.

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 407, the Stearns of Florida Amendment to H.R. 5682, the United States and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act of 2006. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye''.

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for putting this important amendment in. Previously, it has been cited that the CBO report did not show a savings. Let me mention three things that chronic care management does. 300,000 asthmatic children were studied with chronic care and found that lowered rehospitalization by 34 percent. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center reduced rehospitalization of diabetics by 75 percent. Washington Hospital, Washington, PA, reduced rehospitalization of chronic heart disease by 50 percent. I suggest the CBO look at how electronic medical records can save money in this. I have listed a lot of these things in a report entitled, ``Critical Condition, the State of the Union's Health Care,'' which I have available at my Web site; and I urge my colleagues to look at that, and I urge the CBO to read it as well. They might learn something.

Mr. MURPHY. Reclaiming my time, that makes sense, because I work with many patients who are disabled, who have literacy problems, and it is important that the medical community works to help those patients. I just want to make sure also the electronic medical records then serve both purposes, to help those patients, but certainly to make sure the primary aspects of having the medical records there electronically is to help doctors communicate quickly and swiftly with accurate data. Along those lines, I think it is an excellent idea.

Mr. MURPHY. I am assuming that is what you meant. It is important that hospitals not see this as something that they, for example, have to constantly rewrite records in ways that would impair understanding between physicians as well. And along those lines, I think it is an excellent idea to provide it, because it does provide access of information for the doctors.

Mr. MURPHY. I thank the gentlewoman, and I have a question for the distinguished gentleman from Texas just to help clarify this, because my assumption is the amendment would be one that would help those who have problems with illiteracy or language skills, perhaps English language is not of good grasp to them and they may be in a hospital where the staff may not be aware of that, and one of the importance of an electronic medical record is the files would be there on record. So even if the person had limited abilities, the doctor would have access. But I want to just ask a clarifying question to make sure this is what you meant by this amendment. By this, I am assuming it is not a matter that would impede in any way the doctor's ability to have information on record, that would have swift and high standards of medical care there, in no way would this impede; such as the records would have to be written in multiple languages for doctors who wouldn't necessarily understand that. I am assuming that is the case in this, that you are saying that the best interest of the patient is what you have in mind here so that the records are always available, that the doctor could understand them clearly even if the patient has difficulty communicating. Am I correct in that, sir?

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, for the record I would like to note that the HIPAA laws do apply to this with regard to privacy, whereby there would be fines up to $250,000 and up to 10 years in prison for disclosure or obtaining health information in many of these areas. So it does apply. The second is the CBO report which is being taken out of context. It mentioned that there can be savings for Medicare in this. And as hospitals learn to adapt to health information technology, if they do not adapt right, that may be more costly; but overall there are many savings in this.

Mr. MURPHY. I thank the chairman and the Members for an opportunity to talk about this vitally important bill. Years ago, when I was working at Children's Hospital in Pittsburgh, I happened to be walking by the emergency room when a resident called me urgently in on a case that was there. It was a child who was having out-of-control behavior, rapid heart rate, rapid breathing, and she merely commented that this child's behavior was out of control. That could have been a symptom of anything. Was the child having a seizure? Was the child poisoned? Was the child having a drug problem, a neurological crisis, a heart problem, or a whole host of issues? As it was, I happened to recognize the child as a patient of mine and we quickly came to the conclusion that one of the aspects may be a medication overdose, or a bad medication reaction. The parents had not yet arrived and we had not yet accessed his medical records. Why? Because the medical records were in a file somewhere back in my office in another section of the hospital and were ones that the emergency room staff could not acquire. Think of this, too. If one of us, any of us, any American is traveling in a town somewhere in America and a medical crisis hits them, for someone who is diabetic or perhaps has heart disease or some other problems, where do we get the records to determine what to do? It is for this reason that we recognize about $162 billion a year is lost in health care, according to the RAND Corporation, and you include all the other paperwork and problems that come with hospital care, perhaps $290 plus billion is spent on that. Why? Because of medical records. The current medical records system is this: Room after room after room in a hospital filled with paper files. What happens if we move to electronic medical records where it is, instead of here, it is in a computer? This is what that room looks like. It is now in a computer, accessible to physicians in a hospital, with pass codes and access codes that keep it secure, because HIPAA laws say it must be secure; that people can't have that, and then it becomes records that look more like this. Again, a doctor with clear authorization ahead of time could find a patient's name, see their status, see what is going on, and move towards that and pull these records out. Otherwise, you end up in a situation of medical crisis. Patients can carry this information in a credit card or on a zip drive they can carry on their key chain. All this is critically important because it saves lives and saves money. The best doctors and the best hospitals in America, if they cannot get the patient information they need when they need it, it can lead to morbid consequences: Higher mortality. And that is what ultimately this bill is about. This is a huge step forward because we have to have standards and other things moving forward. Hospitals all across America are moving towards some level of electronic medical records. But if we don't find ways of making them able to talk to each other, with uniform standards, interoperability, et cetera, we are essentially creating a medical Tower of Babel. We have more information, but they can't talk to each other. At that moment of crisis in a health care center, whatever that is, whether you are at home or far away, no matter how good your doctor and hospital is, you want them to have that information. Patients can preauthorize that information. They can carry that with them. But this is the new technology, and if we don't do this, we will see many lives lost, and that is something we cannot afford to do. That is why I urge the passage of this bill.

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 407, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Sherman

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. Madam Speaker, I strongly support House Resolution 921 and America's ally, Israel. This is a critical time for the entire Middle East. The unprovoked, illegitimate acts of Hamas and Hezbollah in recent days have been despicable. As the President has said, Israel, like any other sovereign nation, ``should be allowed to defend herself.'' Israeli citizens should not have to live with hundreds of Hezbollah's Katyusha (ka-TOO- sha) rockets reigning down upon them in their neighborhoods. Let there be no question that the attacks on the northern border and the kidnapping of the soldier along the western border are the result of more than 58 years of hatred against Israel by supporters of groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. These terrorist organizations simply do not want to live in peace alongside Israel. Hamas and Hezbollah both officially state they are totally dedicated to ending the nation of Israel and killing Israelis. Certainly, the loss of innocent life anywhere in the world is tragic. We all mourn for families in Lebanon and Israel who have been torn apart in the recent violence. But perhaps the real treachery of extremist terrorists lies in their efforts to assimilate into nations of the world and hide amongst law-abiding citizens. For one full week now, from civilian areas of Lebanon, Hezbollah terrorists have lobbed more than a thousand rockets at innocent people in Israel. In response, Israel retains every right to retaliate against these attacks, and Hezbollah's disregard for innocent life on both sides of the Lebanese- Israeli border has led to needless deaths. While our brave servicemen and women fight for freedom and democracy in Iraq, we must never forget that the nation of Israel has for decades been the greatest Middle East ally to the U.S. and all democratic, free nations. The enemies of Israel can choose to live in peace alongside Israel. If they do not choose peace, Israelis have every right to defend their nation, with full confidence the United States will always stand with them.

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. Madam Speaker, while this week we are discussing ways to treat disease with stem cells, let us not overlook what we should also be doing to prevent disease. Each year nearly 50,000 adult nonsmokers die from lung cancer or heart disease from secondhand smoke. A recent U.S. Surgeon General report found 60 percent of nonsmokers, about 126 million people, have biologic evidence of nicotine, carbon monoxide and tobacco-specific carcinogens in their systems from secondhand smoke. In adults, secondhand smoke can increase the risk of developing lung cancer and heart disease by up to 30 percent. And in children secondhand smoke leads to premature birth, asthma, respiratory illness and ear infections. Encouraging smoke-free workplaces will help to reduce $10 billion in annual medical costs. Offering deductions in health insurance, and smoking-cessation treatment are just a couple of ways that the Federal Government and employers can cut health care costs. To learn more about ways to save lives and money in health care, I urge my colleagues to visit my Web site at murphy.house.gov.

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of sustaining the President's veto. This is not a vote for or against stem cell research. Many U.S. companies and universities are engaged in a great deal of embryonic stem cell research. In fact, the President and the U.S. Congress have supported this research with over $90 million for embryonic stem cell lines derived from embryos that had already been destroyed with more than 700 shipments to researchers since 2001. The question is whether to use federal money or U.S. taxpayer dollars to destroy human embryos for research? The research bears out that several types of stem cell research have been successful. These are adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood stem cells. However, no research has shown embryonic stem cell research to be fruitful. A year ago when we debated this issue, a study at Seoul National University in Korea was brought up as an example of success to create the world's first embryonic stem cells from a cloned human embryo. Since then, we've learned that study was filled with erroneous data. The DNA studies on the two preserved stem cells did not match those from the published study and were not cloned human embryonic stem cells. But, beyond this, we must keep in mind how we use human life and think about where we should draw the line. Those who support destroying embryos for this research have stated these will be embryos that will be discarded. This is not true. Many parents would love to adopt these embryos and raise these children as their own. According to the non-partisan RAND Corporation the ``vast majority'' or 88 percent of the 400,000 embryos that have been frozen since the late 1970s are not going to be discarded but are held for family building and not for medical research. In fact, over 21 families who visited the White House last year adopted these embryos in order to fulfill their own dreams of having a family. Even to refer to these embryos as ones that are unwanted and will be destroyed raises the ultimate question: where do we and where will we draw the line? If we say a human embryo is unwanted and discardable, we head down the road of asking ``what next?'' Do we view seriously disabled newborns as unwanted? Will it be acceptable to discard them? This is a road down which we cannot afford to turn. The research does not support it, morality does not condone it. U.S. taxpayer dollars must not support destroying a life to save a life.

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. I thank the Speaker and the Members on this as I speak in favor of this amendment. As a person who has spent my career as a child psychologist and have dealt with many children who have struggled with many problems in families, I have seen families ripped apart by so many things that sometimes law has tried to deal with. Instead, I think over the years we have cut the strength of marriage and relationships by the law and weakened the institution. We have tried to deal with relationships with no-fault divorce, with child custody, with so many other avenues; and it has not helped. What I do say is, yes, children may be resilient and they have been able to deal with all sorts of difficulties they have faced, but the bottom line is this: I believe very strongly children need a mother and a father in the home. They need strong relationships with men and women both, and they are the ones that I believe are part of what is preserved in this amendment and why I believe we need to support this, if anything, for the sake of those children who need this kind of support in their lifetime.