U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

63–102CC WASHINGTON : 2000

FETAL TISSUE: IS IT BEING SOLD IN VIOLATION

OF FEDERAL LAW?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 9, 2000

Serial No. 106–104

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce

(

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

TOM BLILEY, Virginia, Chairman

W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, Louisiana

MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida

JOE BARTON, Texas

FRED UPTON, Michigan

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

Vice Chairman

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania

CHRISTOPHER COX, California

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky

GREG GANSKE, Iowa

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia

TOM A. COBURN, Oklahoma

RICK LAZIO, New York

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

JAMES E. ROGAN, California

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING,

Mississippi

VITO FOSSELLA, New York

ROY BLUNT, Missouri

ED BRYANT, Tennessee

ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

BART GORDON, Tennessee

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

ANNA G. ESHOO, California

RON KLINK, Pennsylvania

BART STUPAK, Michigan

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

TOM SAWYER, Ohio

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland

GENE GREEN, Texas

KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin

BILL LUTHER, Minnesota

LOIS CAPPS, California

JAMES E. DERDERIAN, Chief of Staff

JAMES D. BARNETTE, General Counsel

REID P.F. STUNTZ, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida, Chairman

FRED UPTON, Michigan

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky

GREG GANSKE, Iowa

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia

TOM A. COBURN, Oklahoma

Vice Chairman

RICK LAZIO, New York

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING,

Mississippi

ED BRYANT, Tennessee

TOM BLILEY, Virginia,

(Ex Officio)

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida

BART STUPAK, Michigan

GENE GREEN, Texas

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin

LOIS CAPPS, California

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

ANNA G. ESHOO, California

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,

(Ex Officio)

(II)

2

C O N T E N T S

Page

Testimony of:

Alberty, Dean .................................................................................................... 54

Cohen, Samuel L., Pathology/Microbiology Department, University of Nebraska ............................................................................................................ 56

Fredericks, Lynn ............................................................................................... 51

Kinney, Hannah C., Division of Neuroscience, John F. Enders Pediatric

Research Laboratories .................................................................................. 62

Samuelson, Joan I., President, Parkinson’s Action Network ........................ 59

(III)

(1)

FETAL TISSUE: IS IT BEING SOLD IN

VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW?

THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2000

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m. in room

2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael Bilirakis

(chairman) presiding.

Members present: Representatives Bilirakis, Upton, Stearns,

Greenwood, Deal, Burr, Bilbray, Whitfield, Ganske, Norwood,

Coburn, Lazio, Cubin, Pickering, Bryant, Bliley (ex officio), Brown,

Waxman, Deutsch, Stupak, Green, Strickland, DeGette, Barrett,

Capps, Hall, Towns, and Eshoo.

Also present: Representative Largent.

Staff present: Brent DelMonte, majority counsel; Marc Wheat,

majority counsel; Amy Davidge, legislative clerk; John Ford, minority counsel; and Edith Holleman, minority counsel.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. The hearing will come to order.

Before the Chair gives his opening statement, the Chair calls

upon the chairman of the full Commerce Committee, Mr. Bliley, for

his opening statement.

Chairman BLILEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you

very much for holding this hearing today, which will consider

whether human fetal tissue is being bought and sold in America in

violation of Federal law.

In 1993, Congress made it illegal to buy and sell human fetal tissue for valuable consideration. Federal regulations also prohibit

anyone from altering the timing, method, or procedures of abortion

solely for the purpose of obtaining human fetal tissue and require

a woman’s informed consent before fetal tissue can be used for research purposes.

While these latter restrictions are limited to federally funded

transplantation research only, many independent researchers have

adopted similar guidelines because of the ethical and patient safety

issues involved in such matters.

Congress’ objectives in this area were threefold: to ensure that

fetal tissue could be made available for valuable research purposes,

while at the same time preventing the development of a market for

such tissue and ensuring that the health of women undergoing

abortions would not be put at risk simply to acquire the tissue. Yet,

over the last 7 years, since this bill became law of the land, there

2

has been no government oversight of any type concerning whether

this important law is being followed.

We contacted the National Institutes of Health, and it informed

us that since the law was passed the agency has not reviewed at

all whether the law is being complied with.

We contacted the Department of Justice, and their representatives told us the same thing, even though the 1993 law is a criminal statute with criminal enforcement provisions.

Today, I am glad to say that this governmental neglect ends.

In explaining the meaning of the law that is the focus of the

hearing today, our colleague from California, Congressman Waxman, once said, ‘‘It would be abhorrent to allow for the sale of fetal

tissue and a market to be created for that sale.’’

Just recently, Congressman Waxman reinforced these comments

by saying that companies that sell this tissue, ‘‘Should be prosecuted. Any price is unreasonable and illegal.’’ I wholeheartedly

agree.

The clear intent of the statute was to permit donations of fetal

tissue, with those involved in acquiring or providing the tissue

being permitted to recoup their reasonable costs. But I am saddened to report to the committee and to the American people that

there does appear to be evidence that, in fact, a market has been

created for the sale of human fetuses and fetal body parts.

We also will hear today about how this growing market for fetal

tissue may be influencing the manner in which abortions are being

performed, with potential risks to the health of the mother.

Before the ‘‘20/20’’ piece ran last night on ABC, which I hope all

were able to see, I had the opportunity to view and comment upon

the undercover hidden camera interview that producers conducted

with Dr. Miles Jones of Opening Lines, a fetal tissue broker who

was subpoenaed to attend today’s hearing. In seeing the interview,

I heard Dr. Jones assert that during some weeks he could make up

to $50,000 in profit from buying and selling fetal tissue and body

parts.

He clearly stated on several occasions that market force determines the price at which he sells fetal body parts. ‘‘It is what you

can sell it for,’’ he said in response to a question about how much

a brain or kidney goes for. He also made clear the cost of procuring

the fetus ‘‘is the same whether you get one kidney or two kidneys,

a lung, a brain, a heart.’’ The rest he agreed was just money in the

bank.

I was absolutely shocked and sickened at what I heard, and I

know the vast majority of Americans would be, as well.

Let us be clear. Today’s hearing is not about whether fetal tissue

research is a good or bad thing, and it is definitely not about

whether a woman should have a right to choose to have an abortion, which is the law of the land. Rather, we are here today to

gather information about whether fetal tissue brokers and others

involved in this industry are complying with Federal law.

Whether we are pro life, pro choice, Republican, Democrat, or

Independent, I think and hope that we can all agree that present

Federal law which allows for this research should be both respected

and enforced.

3

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yield back the balance of my

time.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I thank the gentleman.

Ms. DeGette for an opening statement.

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, initially I understand there are members of the

full committee who do not serve on this subcommittee but wish to

join us here today, and so, as you know, it is a longstanding custom

of the committee to allow them to participate.

I make a unanimous consent request right now that you would

extend to any full committee members on either side of the aisle

this courtesy.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. The gentleman reserves the right to object.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Just to clarify, the procedure that we have followed in the past, and I presume we will follow today, the members

of the subcommittee will have the first opportunities for questioning the witnesses. I do not know if you even want to open up

the questioning by members who are not on the subcommittee, by

the times we have allowed them to make statements and not to engage in questions, but certainly the members of the subcommittee

ought to have the first opportunity for questions.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Is there an objection to the unanimous consent request?

Mr. STEARNS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. The gentleman is recognized.

Mr. STEARNS. I think the purpose of the hearing is to hear from

the witnesses, and you and I have been in these hearings where

we have a series of opening statements and it consumes a lot of

time.

It seems to me that members who are not on this subcommittee

could submit their questions for the record and they do not necessarily need to have an opening statement or have the opportunity

to ask questions, and so, in the spirit of trying to get maximum effect from the witnesses, my concern is, if we open it up to nonmembers of the committee, that we not only lengthen the process,

dilute the process, but we take time away from the witnesses.

So I would reserve.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. You are still reserved, but you have not objected

at this point?

Mr. STEARNS. Well, I would object.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. You would object?

Mr. STEARNS. I would object.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. All right. Objection has been heard.

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, in addition, I hope maybe we can get some consent for this, that members not present be allowed to submit their

opening statements.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Without objection, that is always the case, and it

will be the case today.

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Like everybody in this room, I was shocked at the taped statements I saw law night on ABC’s ‘‘20/20.’’ Dr. Miles Jones, the

owner of Opening Lines, essentially stated that he profited from

4

the illegal sale of fetal tissue, in direct contravention of both medical ethics and Federal law.

Dr. Jones’ statements were incriminating, to say the least, and

he must be investigated by Federal authorities immediately.

I was almost as shocked, frankly, when I learned that, despite

the majority’s apparent knowledge of these facts since last November, no one has made a formal request to the Department of Justice

to investigate Dr. Jones and his company.

Last November, my colleague from Colorado introduced a resolution condemning the illegal sale of fetal tissue and calling on this

committee to hold a hearing, which I agreed with. So here we are

today, almost 5 months later.

During all of this time, despite the horrific nature of the allegations against Dr. Jones and his company, no one has made a formal

attempt to stop him, his business practices, or his company.

So what are we really up to here? Are we trying to stop an operator who is likely engaging in criminal activity, or is there a larger

agenda?

Frankly, because of our shock after watching the ABC news program last night, my Democratic colleagues and I have sent the Department of Justice a letter requesting that an investigation begin

immediately. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit that for the

record.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Without objection, that will be the case.

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you.

[The information referred to follows:]

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

March 9, 2000

The Honorable JANET RENO

Attorney General

Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530

The Honorable LOUIS FREEH

Director

Federal Bureau of Investigation

J. Edgar Hoover Building

935 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20535

DEAR ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO AND DIRECTOR FREEH: Last night on the ABC

News show ‘‘20/20’’, allegations were made that Opening Lines, a company that provides fetal tissue to researchers, was illegally profiting from the sale of this tissue

by charging researchers a fee that includes more than Opening Lines’ cost of providing the tissue.

Section 498B of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g-2) states that it

is a felony to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if this transfer affects interstate commerce. Valuable

consideration does not include ‘‘reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human

fetal tissue.’’

Although allegations of obtaining illegal consideration for human fetal tissue by

Opening Lines have been made by various parties for many months, it is our understanding that none of those making the allegations have ever referred this matter

and their documentation or other evidence of criminal activity to the Justice Department for investigation.

Therefore, by this letter, we are requesting that the Justice Department and the

Federal Bureau of Investigation conduct a full investigation of Opening Lines, its

5

principals and its current and former employees to determine if violations of Section

498B have occurred, and take ate enforcement action.

Sincerely,

JOHN D. DINGELL

Ranking Member, Committee on Commerce

SHERROD BROWN

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Health and Environment

RON KLINK

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

HENRY A. WAXMAN

Member, Subcommittee on Health and Environment

DIANA DEGETTE

Member, Subcommittee on Health and Environment

BART STUPAK

Member, Subcommittee on Health and Environment

FRED UPTON

Member, Subcommittee on Health and Environment

Ms. DEGETTE. Dr. Miles Jones made very incriminating statements during a hidden camera interview on the program that indicates he may have profited from the illegal sale of fetal tissue. The

authorities must investigate these statements.

I also just saw a letter that the chairman showed me from the

Department of Justice to Mr. Upton. Apparently, Mr. Upton had

contacted the Justice Department and was sent a letter, which I

would also ask unanimous consent to include in the record, that

they are reviewing the information obtained by 20/20.

[The information referred to follows:]

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS

March 9, 2000

The Honorable FRED UPTON

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

DEAR REPRESENTATIVE UPTON: This responds to your telephone conversation this

morning with Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder and your subsequent letter regarding the Department’s efforts in enforcing the ban on the sale of fetal tissue for

profit, especially in light of the information obtained by 20/20 on this issue, and

your request to open an investigation on this matter.

As you know, recently there have been many troubling but unsubstantiated allegations in the media regarding the sale of fetal tissue for profit. However, based

upon a preliminary review of our records, it appears that the Department has not

received any information meeting our standards for triggering a formal investigation

that fetal tissue has been sold for a profit. We are still reviewing our records for

receipt of information. Further, three weeks ago, the National Institutes of Health

and the Department of Health and Human Services informed the Department that

they also had not received information of this kind. In addition, a 1997 study conducted by the General Accounting Office failed to turn up any reported violations

of the ban by federally funded researchers covered by the study. See GAO, NIHFunded Research: Therapeutic Human Fetal Tissue Transplantation Projects Meet

Federal Requirements 3 (1997).

We are currently reviewing the information obtained by 20/20 to determine

whether specific allegations raised by 20/20 warrant the opening of an investigation

by the Department or a referral to another agency for investigation.

In the event that the Department receives specific information that a violation of

federal law has occurred, we will investigate the matter to determine if there is sufficient evidence to support a prosecution or, where appropriate, refer the information to the proper agency for investigation.

Please do not hesitate to contact my office if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

ROBERT RABEN

Assistant Attorney General

6

Ms. DEGETTE. So the good news, I hope, is that we will have an

investigation by the Department of Justice into these allegations.

One thing I noticed about the report last night was that there

was no evidence of widespread criminal activity in fetal tissue

sales. That report and the witnesses listed for this hearing today

point to one offender. We need to take measures to stop him immediately, while at the same time preserving the important medical

research that proper fetal tissue protocols afford us.

Mr. Chairman, 16 million people have diabetes in the United

States, 4 million Americans have Alzheimer’s, 1.5 million people

suffer from Parkinson’s disease, 30 million Americans have an

autoimmune-related disease, 10 million women have been diagnosed with osteoporosis, 8.2 million Americans suffer from cancer,

450,000 Americans are paralyzed or have spinal cord injury, and

150,000 children are born with birth defects each year.

Mr. Chairman, I could go down this list for my entire opening

statement and still not identify the millions of Americans who

could and may benefit from fetal tissue research.

This research has already resulted in significant advances in the

treatment of many diseases, such as Parkinson’s, and it offers extraordinary promise in the search for many other diseases. The scientific community is ecstatic about the promise of fetal tissue research and its derivatives, like stem cells.

As the co-chair of the House Diabetes Caucus, but, more importantly, as the mother of a 6-year-old child who was diagnosed with

diabetes 2 years ago, I am hopeful about the promise of fetal tissue

research.

Because of the extraordinary promises——

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Would the gentlelady please summarize?

Ms. DEGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I believe that you generally give

the ranking member some comity in opening statements.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. All right. The gentlelady is already at 61⁄2 minutes.

Ms. DEGETTE. I am almost done. Thank you.

Because of the extraordinary promise this science holds for millions of people, I want to ensure—and I know my colleagues on this

committee and in this body want to ensure—that the research is

conducted ethically. Any violators of the Federal laws and protocols

must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

As I said before, the House majority has been investigating these

allegations, I hope, since November of last year, yet, to my knowledge, no criminal investigation has been initiated. The majority’s

investigators have not even subpoenaed the financial records of the

company that purportedly violated the Federal statute that prohibits profiting from fetal tissue.

I would urge the majority to tone down the nature of this investigation and to really find out if there is a violator and, if so, they

need to be prosecuted.

Again, if this hearing or any subsequent investigations uncover

evidence of wrongdoing or abuse, it is imperative that violators

must be prosecuted and punished to the fullest extent of the law.

However, we cannot jeopardize legitimate and ethical fetal tissue

research. Too many millions of Americans’ lives are at stake.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

7

[The prepared statement of Hon. Diana DeGette follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DIANA DEGETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I understand there are members of the Full Committee

who do not serve on this Subcommittee but may wish to join us today. As you know

Mr. Chairman, it is a long-standing custom of this Committee to allow them to participate. I would hope he would extend any Full Committee Members this courtesy.

Like everyone this room, I was shocked at the taped statements I saw last night

on ABC’s 20/20. Dr. Miles Jones, the owner of Opening Lines, essentially stated that

he profited from the illegal sale of fetal tissue, in direct contravention of both medical ethics and federal law. Dr. Jones’ statements were incriminating, to say the

least, and must be investigated by federal authorities immediately.

I was almost as shocked when I learned that, despite the Majority’s apparent

knowledge of these facts since last November, no one has made a request to the Department of Justice to investigate Dr. Jones and his company. Last November, my

colleague from Colorado introduced a resolution condemning the illegal sale of fetal

tissue and calling on this committee to hold a hearing. So here we are today, almost

five months later. During all this time, despite the horrific nature of the allegations

against Dr. Jones and his company, no one has made any attempt to stop him, his

business practices or his company. So what are we really up to here? Are we trying

to stop an operator who likely is engaging in criminal activity or do we have a larger

agenda?

Because of our shock after watching the ABC News program 20/20 last night, my

Democratic colleagues and I have sent the Department of Justice a letter requesting

that an investigation begin immediately. Dr. Miles Jones made very incriminating

statements during a hidden camera interview on the program that indicates he may

have profited from the illegal sale of fetal tissue. The authorities must investigate

these statements.

One thing I noticed about the report last night was that there was no evidence

of widespread criminal activity in fetal tissue sales. That report, and the witnesses

listed today, point to one offender. We need to take measures to stop him—while

at the same time preserving the important medical research that proper fetal tissue

protocols afford us.

Sixteen million people have diabetes in the United States, 4 million Americans

have Alzheimer’s, 1.5 million people suffer from Parkinson’s disease, 30 million

Americans have an autoimmune related disease, 10 million women have been diagnosed with osteoporosis, 8.2 million Americans suffer from cancer, 450,000 Americans are paralyzed or have a spinal cord injury, and 150,000 children are born with

birth defects each year. Mr. Chairman, I could continue down this list for my entire

opening statement and still not identify the millions of Americans who could benefit

from fetal tissue research.

This research has already resulted in significant advances in the treatment of

many diseases, such as Parkinson’s, and it offers extraordinary promise in the

search for a cure for many other diseases. The scientific community is ecstatic about

the promise of fetal tissue research, and its derivatives, like stem cells. As the CoChair of the House Diabetes Caucus, but more importantly, as the mother of a sixyear-old child with diabetes who could benefit significantly from appropriate fetal

tissue research, I am also extremely hopeful about its promise.

Because of the extraordinary promise this science holds for millions of people, I

want to ensure, and I know my colleagues on this Committee, and in this body,

want to ensure, that this research is conducted ethically.

It is vital that scientists follow all of the proper protocols that Congress has put

in place. Let me be perfectly clear. Any illegal activity with respect to fetal tissue

research must not be tolerated. The allegations that brought about today’s hearing

taint the promise of this research, and, if they are true, must be investigated. And

any perpetrators must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

If allegations that businesses are profiting from fetal tissue procurement are true,

the law is clear. The 1993 NIH Revitalization Act, which established the conditions

under which federally funded fetal tissue research can occur provides that it is unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any

human fetal tissue for valuable consideration. Specifically, it prohibits the purchase

of human fetal tissue. Additionally, a GAO report issued in 1997 determined that

these requirements were being met and no further complaints have been issued or

detected, according to the NIH. Again, if this law has been violated, those who have

conducted illegal activity must be prosecuted immediately.

8

As I said before, the House Majority has been investigating these allegations since

November of last year, yet to my knowledge, no criminal investigation has been initiated. The Majority’s ‘‘investigators’’ have not even performed the basic act of subpoenaing the financial records of the companies that purportedly violated the federal

statute that prohibits profiting from the sale of fetal tissue. Instead, the Majority

appears to favor ‘‘oversight by privatization,’’ shirking its duties by relying solely on

the investigations of private entities. There are only two investigations of which I

am aware. The first was conducted by Life Dynamics, an organization that has identified as its mission the elimination of abortion and fetal tissue research at any cost.

The ABC News program 20/20 conducted the second investigation, which, as I said,

aired last night. Neither of these organizations has turned over any evidence to the

proper authorities, or reported wrongdoing to the proper oversight bodies. If there

is evidence of wrongdoing, now is the time to lay it on the table so we can address

it, and take steps to prevent it from happening again.

I ask that the Department of Justice begin its investigation immediately so we

may determine if the allegations we are evaluating today are substantiated. Thus

far, I have yet to see any foundation or authentication for the accusations that resulted in this hearing. In fact, the only legal authentication of which I am aware

is an affidavit, which invalidates the aforementioned charges.

Again, if this hearing, or any subsequent investigations uncover evidence of

wrongdoing or abuse, it is imperative that violators must be prosecuted and punished to the fullest extent of the law. I cannot repeat this enough. We must preserve

the integrity of this lifesaving research.

Unfortunately, I do not believe it is the intent of this hearing to preserve the integrity of this research. Rather, the intent is to inflame. There are some that wish

to halt potentially lifesaving fetal tissue research by any means necessary. It saddens me to report that threats have been made to scientists involved in fetal tissue.

Some of the allegations made today are affiliated with organizations that publish

threats to doctors who perform abortions and the zealots who carry out these

threats.

We cannot allow unsubstantiated allegations, or isolated instances of wrongdoing

to jeopardize the advance of medical research that holds extraordinary potential for

16 million diabetics, 4 million Americans with Alzheimer’s, 1.5 million people suffering from Parkinson’s and millions of other Americans who could benefit from this

research. Mr. Chairman, I sincerely hope we can work in a bipartisan manner to

ensure that if criminal activity has occurred, it is prosecuted. I also hope we can

work together to protect the integrity of fetal tissue research.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I thank the gentlelady.

The Chair now will provide his opening statement.

As has already been said, for several months the majority oversight staff of the full Commerce Committee has been investigating

whether fetal tissue is being bought and sold in violation of Federal

law. Today’s hearing will allow the committee to receive statements

from two witnesses who were subpoenaed by full committee Chairman Bliley to provide testimony about this issue.

When Congress overturned the ban of federally funded fetal tissue transplantation research in 1993, certain protections were

placed in the law. These provisions were designed to avoid influencing a woman’s decision on whether or not to terminate her pregnancy by the knowledge that donating her fetal tissue could prove

useful to others.

Specifically, that 1993 law requires that consent for abortion precede consent for tissue donation.

The law also requires physicians performing abortions to certify

that they did not alter the timing, methods, or procedures of abortion solely for purposes of obtaining fetal tissue. These prohibitions

apply only when the tissue is obtained for use for federally funded

fetal tissue transplantation research.

However, Congress also enacted provisions making it unlawful

for any person to acquire, receive, or transfer human fetal tissue

for valuable consideration.

9

While the term ‘‘valuable consideration’’ is not specifically defined, the law does allow reasonable payments for costs incurred in

acquiring and providing the tissue.

Congressional intent was clearly expressed by our colleague, Mr.

Waxman, who managed the bill in the floor of the House. When

asked whether it would prohibit the buying and selling of fetal tissue, Mr. Waxman responded, ‘‘It would be abhorrent to allow for

sale of fetal tissue and a market to be created for that sale.’’ I think

every member of this subcommittee would agree. And I also believe, as the gentlelady has already said, that full and vigorous enforcement of the law against the sale of fetal tissue is essential to

prevent a negative impact on legitimate research.

The committee has received information indicating that a market

for fetal tissue exists and that Federal law is being violated. When

the majority committee staff contacted the Justice Department,

however, they were told that no credible evidence of potential violations has been presented and no investigation has been initiated,

and we have a letter to that effect. Ms. DeGette referred to it.

Clearly, the Justice Department has the responsibility to actively

enforce these protections and an obligation to investigate any potential violations, and I hope that we will all join together in urging the Justice Department to commence an investigation on this

matter.

I looked for Mr. Waxman after the votes earlier today and

couldn’t find him. When I am not looking for you, Henry, you are

always there; when I am looking for you, I can never find you.

Well, I do want to shorten this up.

Dr. Miles Jones is a pathologist who founded and runs Opening

Lines, a group which acquires human fetal tissue and provides it

to the research community for a fee. He has refused to respond to

numerous written and verbal requests for information from the

committee, and we trust and hope that he will be here today. He

has been subpoenaed.

Mr. Dean Alberty is a former employee of Opening Lines and the

Anatomic Gift Foundation, another company which acquired fetal

tissue and provided it to the research community for a fee. He has

been prevented from speaking with the committee staff by a confidentiality agreement he signed with the Anatomic Gift Foundation, which includes an exception for statements made under subpoena, and that is the reason for the subpoena.

The focus of our hearing, as Mr. Bliley has already said, is

whether the 1993 law is being followed. We are not here to debate

the many issues associated with fetal tissue transplantation research. While I respect the sincere and strongly held views of each

member on that subject, it is not the topic of our hearing.

I also want to acknowledge in advance the delay in providing

written letters of invitation to three of our witnesses, Dr. Cohen,

Dr. Kinney, and Ms. Samuelson. While these witnesses were previously contacted about the possibility of testifying, they did not receive formal confirmation until yesterday, for which I do apologize.

As a result, their written statements were not received 2 days prior

to the hearing, as required under our committee rules. I would like

to assure them, however, that this delay in no way reflects on the

merit of their testimony. I appreciate their understanding and, of

10

course, the understanding of the members of the minority, and

their particular effort to join us on such short notice.

It is important to note that Messrs. Dingell and Brown contacted

me last week to raise concern about the safety of individuals who

could be identified by witnesses at today’s hearing. They wrote that

if witnesses were allowed to mention the names of clinics where

abortions are performed or identify where the clinics are located,

such disclosure could lead to harassment, injury, or death.

While much of what we will discuss has already been reported

in the media, I agree that it is important to err on the side of caution; therefore, the committee staff has informed the witnesses not

to mention the names or disclose the location of any facilities which

perform abortions, the employees of such facilities, or the researchers who receive tissue in their testimony or in response to questions.

I want to request the same forbearance from each member of the

subcommittee.

I will recognize Mr. Waxman for an opening statement.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

In 1993, the Congress passed important legislation authorizing

Federal support of fetal tissue transplantation research. That legislation contained conditions for the collection of fetal tissue used in

federally supported projects involving fetal tissue transplantation.

It also established strong criminal penalties for the transfer of any

fetal tissue for valuable consideration, whether that tissue was

used in either the public or the private sector. In other words, we

established clearly that it would be a crime to profit from the sale

of fetal tissue.

It is important to review exactly why this legislation was passed.

We did it because of the tremendous promise of fetal tissue transplantation for the cure and treatment of diseases, particularly Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis, and many

others. We cannot lose sight of that.

We know that fetal tissue research opened a world of possibilities

and that transplantation of fetal tissue was an important part of

that research. We also recognize the delicate ethical issues involved

in this area of research. It was important to establish clearly in

Federal law standards to protect against abuses, and, indeed, to extend some of those protections beyond federally funded research

projects.

We used as our model for those standards the recommendations

of the Human Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research Panel that

was appointed by the Reagan/Bush Administration to provide us

advice on this issue. Those are the standards we have in law today.

This hearing is examining whether there are instances where

those standards have been violated. Where that has occurred, we

are all in agreement that the abuses should be stopped and the law

should be enforced. We stand ready to join with our colleagues to

ask Federal and State authorities to do their job.

Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of you and Mr. Bliley in your

quotations of my statements on the House floor. We do not want

to tolerate violations of the law.

The appropriate response to incidents where the law has been

broken is to enforce the law and prosecute the violators, and we

11

have an absolute obligation to ensure that violations are isolated

instances and not widespread practices that would undermine the

fetal tissue program.

It is also important to remember how valuable fetal tissue research is. We now have a diagnostic test for hepatitis-C, a test that

was developed using liver fetal tissue.

We are making progress in the development of an HIV vaccine,

again using fetal tissue.

Recently, we had indications of a cure of diabetes in mice, again

with research involving fetal tissue.

We cannot turn our backs on these lifesaving advances.

Finally, let me make one last point. The law establishes safeguards to separate the decision to have an abortion from the use

of the fetal tissue for transplantation research in federally supported projects. There was no intent to increase the number of

abortions so that tissue could be obtained.

When this law was passed in 1993, it was supported by Republicans and Democrats. Senator Dole supported it. Senator Thurman

supported it. Members who were pro choice and those who were

pro life supported it.

I continue to believe that instances where the law is being broken are rare. There has been no indication in the information

shared with us that this hearing will indicate otherwise. But any

instance where the law is broken should be pursued. If people are

breaking the law, let us prosecute them. If State and Federal laws

are not being enforced, let us do better. But let us not sensationalize this issue and generalize, from one or two possible cases,

in order to undermine the efforts of those who do comply with the

law and who seek medical progress. If we do that, we do a disservice to those whose very lives may depend on the medical advances that fetal tissue research can bring.

Thank you very much for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman. I

yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Upton for an opening statement?

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Section 498(b), subsection A, ‘‘It shall be unlawful for any person

to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human

fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce.’’ It is real clear. That is the law. That is the law

that I helped craft with my colleague from California, Henry Waxman, nearly a decade ago. Our bond was our desire to ensure that

promising research was not hamstrung by politics.

We did it for moms and dads, we did it for sisters and brothers,

spouses and friends, those who, unfortunately, know the heartache

associated with diseases like Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, diabetes,

and cancer.

We share a common goal of putting substance over politics in

finding a cure. Equally important, we passed this law because of

our conviction that profiteering and coercion in the procurement of

fetal tissue is morally wrong and has to be prevented.

Today, we will hear of horrifying activities—activities which are

reprehensible, inexcusable, and certainly highly illegal in the public and private sector, based on the provisions that I helped craft.

12

No one in this room is more anxious to go after the culprits and

right any wrongs than I am. Those breaking the law must be pursued, prosecuted, and severely punished.

I pledge to work to close any gaps that exist, whether it be a

matter of more oversight, more inspections and audits, heavier

fines, tougher licensing. In fact, based on the horror stories that

have been divulged in the past couple of weeks, I personally spoke

this morning on the phone with Deputy Attorney General Eric

Holder, requesting the full cooperation of the Justice Department

in pursuing any and all violations of the law. A number of my colleagues sent a letter to Attorney General Reno in this regard, as

well.

In the letter that I received back about an hour ago from Robert

Rabin, the Assistant Attorney General, he indicated, ‘‘We are currently reviewing the information obtained by 1920/20’ to determine

whether specific allegations raised by 1920/20’ warrant the opening

of an investigation by the Department or a referral to another

agency for investigation.

‘‘In the event that the department receives specific information

that a violation of Federal law has occurred, we will investigate the

matter to determine if there is sufficient evidence to support a

prosecution.’’

We need to have a constructive dialog addressing abuses of this

research and the possible remedies. Unfortunately, in any society,

despite our most diligent efforts, there are reckless, renegade lawbreakers, and, sadly, in terms of today’s hearing, we have heard accounts of respect for the law and the dignity of human life taking

a back seat to greed. If these allegations are true, I have not ever

witnessed a clearer case of money as the root of incredible evil and

the enemy of what the vast majority of God-fearing Americans recognize is flat-out wrong.

In that regard, I wholeheartedly support the subpoena of Miles

Jones, who was shown last night on ‘‘20/20’’ smirking and bragging

about his seedy scheme to evade the law and to profit from the sale

of fetal tissue. By all accounts, he is a monster whose nightmarish

activities are an offense to all of us. As Churchill once said, ‘‘The

only guide to a man is his conscience.’’ If what we have heard

about Miles Jones is true, he does not have one. His only guide,

sadly, has been his greed.

The first question I would have asked him at this panel this

afternoon, had he had the courage to show up, was, ‘‘How do you

sleep? How do you possibly sleep at night?’’ No, Miles Jones is not

here. He is on the run and he is hiding. But I, for one, intend to

ensure that he is brought in for full questioning and that justice

is served.

I value life-saving research, the nature of which will be detailed

later on today, and I value human life, the alleged degradation and

desecration of which will also be detailed today.

Every one of us needs to set and follow our own moral compass.

I deplore the actions of those who seek to profit from the sale of

fetal tissue. It is wrong, it is illegal, and it has to be stopped.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton follows:]

13

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Good afternoon.

Over a decade ago, as a new member of this Committee, I faced one of my very

first votes on a highly controversial issue—a vote to overturn the ban on fetal tissue

transplantation research. I was told that this was a very complicated issue—as it

obviously remains today—and I was told by fellow Republicans that this issue was

so potentially politically explosive that I should just vote to keep the ban intact . . . it

was the right thing to do. After all, didn’t I want to be assured of reelection? Did

I want to cause trouble? Was it worth it?

Well, after much soul searching and really looking at the FACTS of the issue, I

decided, YES, it WAS worth it. Absolutely.

At that time, I joined forces with my colleague across the aisle—Henry Waxman.

A man, with whom, frankly, before that time I had very little in common. He was

from California. I was from Michigan. On the only other issue with which I had

really come to know him, we had differed greatly on our approach: Clean Air. And

yet, we both realized the tremendous life saving potential of fetal tissue research.

Our bond was our desire to ensure that incredibly promising research was not hampered and hamstrung by politics. As I delved into this issue, I met extraordinary

people... real heros... Joan Samuelson, herself a victim of Parkinson’s who will testify later today about the merits of the research in terms of a potential cure for Parkinson’s Disease... Guy Waldron, a pro-life Baptist Minister who, after losing 2 children to genetic birth defects and facing the loss of their third, agreed to fetal tissue

transplantation—much to the dismay of his own congregation... Dr. Otis Bowen, the

Secretary of Health and Human Services at the time the Reagan Administration

ban went into effect who would not sign the executive order overturning the ban

because he recognized its error... and Ruth Katz, a former Congressional staffer

who served this very Committee and Congressman Waxman so well.

These individuals and the many others who worked with us on this effort came

from very different backgrounds, professions and political orientations. What we all

shared was the common goal of putting substance OVER politics and finding a cure

to ease and hopefully end the suffering of so many millions of Americans.

I will leave it to the groups represented here today to speak further of the promise

this research holds. I am not an expert in this area.

What I did, when recognizing the promise of this research, and feeling disheartened about the politics surrounding this issue, was to reach across the aisle to my

colleague and craft an amendment that would allow the research to go forward, but

only with strict safeguards that were not then in place.

Had our amendment not been incorporated into the NIH reauthorization bill, we

would not be having this hearing today. Because there would not be a federal statute so stringently prohibiting the very abhorrent practices that we outlawed in public AND private activities involving this research. The scope of our law was broad;

the penalties severe.

Here is what the law says:

‘‘IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO KNOWINGLY ACQUIRE, RECEIVE, OR OTHERWISE TRANSFER ANY HUMAN FETAL TISSUE FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION . . .’’

‘‘IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO SOLICIT OR KNOWINGLY ACCEPT A DONATION OF HUMAN FETAL TISSUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSPLANTATION IF THE TISSUE IS OBTAINED PURSUANT

TO AN INDUCED ABORTION AND

IF THE DONATION WILL BE OR IS MADE PURSUANT TO A PROMISE

TO THE DONATION INDIVIDUAL THAT THE DONATION WILL BE

TRANSPLANTED INTO A RECIPIENT SPECIFIED BY SUCH INDIVIDUAL.’’

Violators of this law are subject to stringent civil and criminal penalties, including

jail time.

Today we will hear of horrifying activities. Activities, which, if true, are not only

reprehensible, inexcusable and unimaginable. They are illegal because of the

amendment I helped craft. And no one is more anxious to go after the culprits and

right any wrongs than I am. Those breaking this federal law should be pursued and

prosecuted, and I hope, punished, to the fullest extent of the law. There is no excuse

for this type of gross violation of the law, and sickening disrespect for the value of

human life.

I pledge to work to close any gaps that may exist in the law. Whether it be a

matter of more oversight, more inspections and audits, tighter restrictions, heavier

fines, tougher licensing. I have spoken with the Department of Justice about fully

pursuing any and all violations of this law. And I am in the process of discussing

14

with pharmaceutical companies and research institutions various ways to ensure

that the spirit and letter of law are strictly abided by.

I do not have a reputation for merely talking about problems. Especially in this

matter, addressing any cracks in the system and finding a solution, while at the

same time protecting the continuation of legitimate, legal medical research is an imperative I take most seriously. It is a matter life or death matter.

I hope that at some point we can have a constructive dialogue on how to address

abuses of this research, short comings in the law and ways to remedy it. I think

the American people are tired of the accusatory, either/or, us versus them politics

that really end up meaning: nothing gets done, people keep bickering—the problem

persists. There are no winners.

There must be common ground.

I truly believe that no one—no one—in this room today would condone the type

of activities as those detailed on a prominent news show last night.

Unfortunately, in any society, there are those who abuse the law...those who put

profit ahead of civility; basic respect for the dignity of human life takes a back seat

to greed. Money becomes the root of incredible evil. It becomes the enemy of the

common good.

I wholeheartedly supported the subpoena of Miles Jones. From what many of us

have heard alleged, there are many questions we would like to ask him. He has run.

And he is hiding. But, I for one intend to join the effort to ensure he is brought

in for full questioning and that justice is served.

I value life saving research, the nature of which will be detailed later today. And

I value human life, the degradation and desecration of which, sadly, purportedly

will also be detailed today. To say that the two are mutually exclusive as some

groups have done in the past few days just as they did a decade ago, is unfair and

insulting.

Let me close by saying that when Congress first looked at this issue back in 1991,

as a new member of this committee, I set out to find Members of Congress who

would join me in truly studying the issue, leaving labels, and fears, and political

expediency aside. Very close to home I found someone who was known to relish complicated details, thorny issues and complex challenges. He was widely respected and

known as one of the most civil, truly decent individuals in this institution. He was

my colleague and very good friend, Paul Henry, of Grand Rapids, Michigan. Paul

took the report of the Reagan Commission on Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research—as well as reams and reams of issue briefs from interest groups on all sides

of the spectruirn—home to study. And those of you who remember Paul know he

took his studying very seriously. A few days later Paul joined me on the floor of

the House of Representatives urging members to adopt the NIH report ending the

ban on fetal tissue transplantation—but only with the strict safeguards of our

amendment in place.

It was a tremendous act of courage.

We all need to set and follow our own moral compasses. I deplore the actions of

those that make a profit from the sale of fetal tissue. It is wrong. It is illegal. It

must be stopped.

I believe we can take aggressive action to crack down on any illegal activity while

at the same time ensuring the progress of vital life saving research.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Stupak, opening statement?

Mr. STUPAK. Yes, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for holding this

hearing on the extremely serious issue of whether fetal tissue is

being bought and sold for profit in violation of Federal law. I believe that it is critical that we examine these allegations.

It is important to point out that, whether you are pro life or pro

choice, it is impossible to condone the conduct of any health care

provider or anyone else who would sell fetal tissue for profit or perform medical procedures that increase the risk to the patient.

These actions are illegal and reprehensible.

I join a number of my colleagues today, both Democrats and Republicans, in a referral to the Justice Department urging the Attorney General and FBI Director Freeh to investigate the alleged violations of Federal law.

15

In addition, Mr. Alberty has made statements that, if true, could

be serious crimes under Kansas State law.

I would urge local authorities to conduct a vigorous investigation

of these allegations.

Mr. Chairman, it is important to note that the subcommittee has

not conducted a whole or proper investigation on this matter. We

should be able to easily determine whether companies have made

a profit on these transactions. One should be able to acquire their

financial records and compare their cost to the amounts that they

received for the tissue and determine whether or not they made a

profit.

It is my understanding that the subcommittee has not received

any information about the financial status of Opening Lines or the

Anatomic Gift Foundation. I believe we have an obligation to investigate and examine these questions.

The buying and selling of fetal tissue for profit is immoral and

illegal. The failure to gain proper consent for donation of fetal tissue is immoral and illegal. The alteration of the medical procedure

to increase the quality of fetal tissue is immoral and illegal.

Our responsibility is to investigate these wrongdoings and bring

them to the public’s attention. I believe this subcommittee should

perform a thorough and extensive examination of these issues.

It is my hope that we can do the necessary work to investigate

these allegations and bring the wrongdoers to justice and end this

deplorable practice.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back the balance of my

time.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Stearns for an opening statement?

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think, like many members, it is very, very disturbing that in

this wonderful country of ours we see the trafficking of body parts

has become a business enterprise. This macabre practice certainly

has implications that go even further beyond this hearing today or

whether any Federal laws have been broken. There is a moral and

spiritual question involved, but the purpose today is not that. We

are not here to conduct a witch hunt.

The purpose of this hearing is very clear. It is simply to determine whether or not Federal laws have been broken, whether the

allegations that organs and body parts were sold for profit—that is

true—and Congress has in place laws that can allow men and

women to disguise their operation under existing provisions of the

law to allow them to continue their operation. Why has not the Administration started an investigation?

These are the kind of questions that are most appropriate, and

ultimately Congress and this committee should consider whether

existing legal protection at the Federal and State levels against

non-therapeutic experimentation on infants and fetuses is adequate.

So, Mr. Chairman, I applaud you for having this hearing and I

hope to hear from the witnesses.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I thank the gentleman.

Ms. Eshoo for an opening statement?

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

16

I think that all of us here today would agree that profiting from

the sale of fetal tissue is morally repugnant. That is why in 1993

the Congress made it a criminal offense. Anyone found guilty of

profiting from the sale of fetal tissue is subject to criminal fines

and/or imprisonment for up to 10 years. That is a very, very stiff

penalty.

We also included protections to ensure that women who donate

their fetal tissue for federally funded transplantation research do

so willing—not forcibly, but willingly—and that the procedure is

done ethically.

First, she must give her written consent to have an abortion.

Only after consent to have the abortion can she provide the necessary written consent to donate the fetus. She cannot be paid for

the donation and she cannot know the recipient.

Second, the physician performing the abortion must certify in

writing that the procedure was not altered in any way to produce

more usable tissue.

I fully support these laws and their vigorous enforcement, and I

believe that we here in the Congress must work to ensure that

these laws are being properly enforced. In fact, that is, I believe,

the intent of this hearing today.

Along these lines, Mr. Chairman, at least two of today’s witnesses have admitted to actions which are in clear violation of the

law. It is my understanding that the committee has known of this

for several months and has not referred this matter to the proper

authorities, and I think we need to know why, if, in fact, this is

the case.

Notwithstanding the abhorrent practices of the two brokers represented here today, all evidence points to the conclusion that the

laws are working. In 1997, the GAO issued a report in which it

found that the Federal laws are being complied with.

I strongly question the veracity of some of the outrageous stories

told by Mr. Alberty, who has made numerous false and conflicting

statements. In fact, he recently gave a sworn, signed affidavit in

which he recanted much of what he told Life Dynamics in a taped

interview. Moreover, when interviewed by ABC’s ‘‘20/20,’’ Mr.

Alberty omitted the most inflammatory parts of his story to Life

Dynamics, for which the group paid him $15,000.

However, if what Mr. Alberty has said is true, there are laws already in place to punish those involved. We cannot and should not

use the crimes of these bad actors as an excuse to severely restrict

or ban lifesaving medical research that utilizes medical tissue.

Medical research using fetal tissue is bringing us closer to cures

for diseases like Parkinson’s and diabetes than we ever thought

possible. Due to its regenerative properties, fetal tissue provides

hope that diseases that were once death sentences will some day

be non-existent.

In fact, we have already witnessed the miracles that can come

from research on fetal tissue. It played an integral role in development of vaccines for polio and rubella, and, thanks to that research, these diseases have been virtually wiped out.

Much of this lifesaving research is being done in my Congressional District, and the leading biotechnology company in stem cell

17

research makes its home in California’s 14th Congressional District.

We will hear from several medical experts today who will tell us

that the type of research that this company does poses the next big

breakthrough in medicine, and we cannot stifle this progress.

In 1992, former majority leader Bob Dole said supporting fetal

tissue is, ‘‘The true pro life position.’’

At this time, I ask, Mr. Chairman, unanimous consent to include

in the record an editorial by the San Jose ‘‘Mercury News.’’ It provides a very enlightened and instructive look at this issue.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Without objection.

[The information referred to follows:]

[Published Monday, March 6, 2000—San Jose Mercury]

EDITORIAL

The opinion of the Mercury News

Science vs. Suffering

The anti-abortion movement must not be allowed to stop stem cell research

It would be a shame if anti-abortion hysteria whipped up by extremist groups

were allowed to delay cures for childhood leukemia, diabetes and other killer diseases.

But that’s what could happen if House and Senate committees don’t hear from

Americans this month about the importance of federal support for stem cell research, a promising area of scientific investigation that unfortunately is clouded by

abortion politics.

Stem cells—the undifferentiated cells at the earliest stages of human life—can develop into any part of the body. Researchers expect some day to use them to generate cells and tissue for transplantation, repair of nerves, treatment of burns and

many other uses. They might also revolutionize the way new drugs are tested.

Stem cells are sometimes obtained from embryos grown in the lab but not used

for in vitro fertilization, as well as from aborted fetuses. Stem cells can also be obtained from umbilical cord blood and placentas.

Opponents of stem cell research say it is tainted by the use of material from abortions, and they are desperate that nothing beneficial ever come from a woman’s

choice to end a pregnancy. They also claim embryos will be grown just for spare

parts, which is already prohibited.

Two factors seem to be prompting members of Congress to call for hearings this

month:

First, the National Institutes of Health recently drafted guidelines that would

allow stem cell research at federally funded sites (all universities, basically). Research is now done by private companies.

Allowing such research in federally funded sites would accomplish a number of

good things; It would bring ethical guidelines and public accountability to stem cell

research, just as it has to fetal tissue research, which uses material from elective

abortions; it would increase the amount of research; and it would prevent private,

for-profit companies from having a monopoly on how research results are put to use.

Second, a small faction of the anti-abortion movement is stirring up concern over

tissue procurement firms, the middlemen who obtain fetal tissue and market it to

universities and biotechnology firms. If there is indeed illegal trafficking in fetal tissue, then the research should be brought under stricter government oversight, not

driven underground.

The embryos that yield stem cells are the left-overs from in vitro fertilization, and

would be destroyed anyway. Allowing or disallowing stem cell research in federally

funded labs has no effect on how many abortions are performed. While fertility labs

and abortion clinics are now the most reliable source of fetal tissue, biotechnology

companies are developing stem cells that will reproduce indefinitely, eventually

making this debate moot.

NIH’s suggested guidelines allow stem cell research as long as the embryos were

created for other purposes. Guidelines already in place for other kinds of fetal tissue

research have prevented improper profiting from fetal tissue donations.

18

Banning stem cell research because the material comes from aborted fetuses or

surplus embryos would make as much sense as banning organ transplants because

some of the donors were crime victims.

Stem cell and fetal tissue research hold out the best hope yet for people suffering

from Parkinson’s disease, spinal cord injuries and Alzheimer’s disease. This research

also shows promise of alleviating the terrible suffering caused by strokes, cancer,

cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy and many other ailments. Anti-abortion conservatives such as John McCain, Bob Dole and Strom Thurmond have supported fetal

tissue research in the past. Today’s members of Congress should follow their lead

and protect stem cell research from the depredations of an ideological minority. As

Dole put it in 1992, supporting life-saving, fetal tissue research is the ‘‘true pro-life

position.’’

Ms. ESHOO. I want to thank you for holding this hearing. Thank

you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I thank the gentlelady.

Mr. Greenwood for an opening statement.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the United States, we have the option to donate our bodies to

science, and, because we do and because of the fact that we have

this option, it is impossible to calculate the number of lives of men

and women and children who have been saved, prolonged, and the

amount of human suffering that has been relieved because of these

donations.

We also have a statute called the ‘‘Uniform Anatomic Act’’ that

creates very clear guidelines as to how the donations of our bodies

to science are to be handled.

If someone violates those laws, they should be punished. There

should be stiff punishments. But we would never think that the

idea of donating our bodies to science should be rethought. We

know how important those donations are.

Similarly, we can donate our organs to relieve others of our fellow human beings. Again, you cannot calculate the suffering that

has been relieved and the joy that has been brought to the lives

of the loved ones of those people because their lives have been extended.

If someone violated the Uniform Anatomic Gift Act and sold and

profited from the donation of organs, we should and we would punish those individuals, but we would not rethink the value of the donation of our organs.

In this country, women can also make the choice to donate fetal

tissue. Again, it is impossible—probably more impossible than the

other two instances—to calculate the amount of human suffering

that will be relieved, the lives saved, lives prolonged because of the

research that is and will be done using fetal research.

In the instances that we will hear about today, those individuals

who violated that law—and it is the unanimous opinion of those in

this panel that they should be tracked down and punished, and

punished severely. And if, in fact, there are loopholes in the law

that would, for instance, allow women to be put at greater risk because of the procedures used to extract that tissue, perhaps we

should look at that. But we should not and would not, I hope, question the value of fetal tissue research because of the enormous

blessing that it brings to our society now and into the future.

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Green?

19

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for

scheduling this important hearing on fetal tissue research.

It is important we address this issue. The trafficking of body

parts is illegal, and it is a felony. If it happens, we need to address

the proper authorities and actively prosecute the offenders. Those

selling fetal tissue for profit should be in jail and not testifying before a Congressional committee.

We cannot forget the benefits of fetal tissue research. Fetal tissue has helped develop vaccines for polio and rubella. Every year,

an estimated 8,600 new cases of cancer occur among children between birth and age 14. Cancer is the chief cause of death by children under the age of 15. Fetal tissue research can help researchers and those afflicted understand more clearly what is happening

and why.

We must not underestimate how crucial and beneficial fetal tissue research is to the disease research such as Parkinson’s and

Alzheimer’s.

I want to thank you again for scheduling this hearing. Hopefully,

we will not let politics get in the way of what the issue is here

today.

I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Deal for an opening statement.

Mr. DEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for holding

this hearing today.

I think there is one thing we need to keep in mind as we go

through this hearing, and that is the context in which the law is

written, and that is that we cannot simply point to one person or

one group and say that they are the bad actors, because, as the law

is written, it implies the obligation and responsibility on everyone

in the chain to ensure that the law is adhered to.

If, in fact, this is one bad actor or a few bad actors who are violating the law to make a profit in the sale and the trafficking in

fetal tissue, it would seem to me that there is something that runs

against common sense in the way this operates.

First of all, how does someone have an exaggerated price for fetal

tissue and sell it at an exaggerated price to make a profit? Normally, those who violate the law do so by being able to sell their

contraband at less than the market rate. So one of the things I

think we need to ask is: if this is someone whose profit factor is

built into the sale of fetal tissue, how does that, in itself, not cause

them to stand out and, therefore, immediately raise a red flag to

those who are doing business with them?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I thank the gentleman.

I would announce to the subcommittee and to the audience that

we have two votes on the floor, a 15-minute and a 5-minute vote,

so I am sure that is going to probably take us pretty close to 3:30.

It is probably a good idea to just go ahead and recess for that period of time. We will start as soon as they have that second vote.

[Brief recess.]

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Let us have order, please.

Mr. Whitfield for an opening statement.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

20

President Clinton, on his first day in office, signed an executive

order that ended Federal curbs on fetal tissue research. Soon thereafter, Congress passed public law 103-43, the National Institutes of

Health Revitalization Act of 1993, which governed the sale of fetal

tissue.

During the Congressional debates on that legislation, supporters

of fetal tissue research argued that the ethics provisions in the bill

would curb the emergence of a marketplace for fetal body parts.

The idea of such a market is barbaric, said Senator John McCain

in a May, 1992, letter to constituents in which he announced that,

because of the ethical safeguards added to the law, that he had

dropped his opposition to fetal organ research.

As a result of the ‘‘20/20’’ program and other evidence that has

become available, despite a Congressional prohibition against a

money-making marketplace for fetal tissue, there is strong evidence that such a marketplace has developed and that companies

are selling fetal parts for profit.

The purpose of this hearing is to send a message loud and clear

that we will not, as a Nation, tolerate for one moment the selling

of fetal parts for profit. Although we may live in a world of increasingly lax ethical standards, we will not tolerate a deviation from

the highest ethical standards in the area of fetal tissue research.

So I think what we are looking for in this hearing is: one, have

Federal laws been violated; two, how widespread is the practice;

and, three, what legal or Congressional action is necessary to stop

it.

So, Mr. Chairman, I am delighted that you are having the hearings on this important issue, and I look forward to hearing from

the witnesses and the additional evidence that may be presented.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. Strickland for an opening statement?

Mr. STRICKLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to begin my statement by reflecting upon the words

of my colleague, Mr. Upton from Michigan. I was very moved by

his statement. I think he said exactly what I feel in my heart regarding this matter.

We are here today to hear testimony that at least one unscrupulous physician is flagrantly violating the criminal statute by making profits from the sale of fetal tissues. This is a crime of the lowest order, with disastrous consequences to donors who place their

trust in medical professionals, for researchers who depend upon

this tissue to do lifesaving work, and for the victims of the many

diseases that could potentially be eradicated by this research.

I hope that the Justice Department begins an immediate, fullscale investigation into these allegations to uncover criminal

wrongdoing and to severely punish those who have perpetrated

crimes.

I am extremely disappointed, Mr. Chairman, that officials from

the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and

Human Services are not included among our witnesses today, since

they have the authority to investigate allegations in pursuit of a

conviction. I urge this subcommittee to hold additional hearings

with the appropriate Federal officials at the earliest convenience.

21

Furthermore, I note that one of today’s witnesses will testify to

the fact that he contacted the FBI to report wrongdoing by his employer, but that the FBI did not respond. If the FBI was informed

and did not respond, I think the FBI should be before this committee to explain that.

I will be interested in asking this witness who he talked with at

the FBI, when he talked with that person, and what response he

was given.

I believe that the real heroes among us today are the medical researchers who spend month after month and year after year working to find answers to the dread diseases which plague us and our

loved ones. I hope today that, as we condemn those that have violated the law and who have acted in this egregious manner, that

we also pay homage to those men and women who, day after day,

work selflessly to find a cure for the diseases that we are all concerned about.

I thank you for having this hearing. I want to say that I appreciate the tone of the statements that have been given thus far. I

think they reflect a serious bipartisan concern, and I hope they can

lead to a serious bipartisan solution to the problem that we are addressing today.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I thank the gentleman.

The Chair recognizes Mr. Bilbray for an opening statement.

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot help but sit here and think that 200

years ago the Federal Government of the United States decided to

locate and start operating on Jenkins Hill, which later was called

Capitol Hill. And I only say that because I can just imagine our

founding fathers who developed this institution just thinking of us

sitting here today talking about this situation. I think they would

be astonished. I think they would be very encouraged [sic]. And I

think they would be very disgusted.

The issue before us I think is: how do we take this institution

that has been operating for the people of the United States for over

200 years and apply it to this problem?

The problem is that science is moving so quickly and miracles

are coming at us so fast and people are using and abusing these

technologies and these great breakthroughs to a point where it is

hard for government to manage the situation in a reasonable manner.

Now, fetal tissue research is hardly new. In fact, Jonas Salk used

fetal tissue in the development of the polio vaccine. The huge, huge

benefits that we received in the far past, the near past, but, most

importantly, in the future justifies us taking very seriously this opportunity that we call ‘‘fetal tissue research.’’

But it also means those of us who strongly support this research,

as I do, also bear the responsibility to make sure that less-thanappropriate activities are not allowed to occur around this issue.

Those of us that want to defend this great potential also have the

obligation to get rid of this hideous problem that seems to have

grown up around it.

I would have to say, Mr. Chairman, that, as both my colleagues

from the Democrat and the Republican side said, you guys were

22

here when you passed this law, you saw a great opportunity. In all

fairness, I think we all, in the back of our minds, had to recognize

there was great potential for abuse.

Let us concentrate on why those abuses occurred. Let us concentrate on why the prosecution and the issue has not been addressed before now. But let us talk about what can be done, not

just by this Congress but by the Administration and by the community, at large, to make sure that the potential of tissue research is

one of hope and of help, not one that we will have to hide from our

children and grandchildren and say that, yes, we should have done

more, we should have cared more.

Thank you very much for giving us that chance to participate in

the process of making sure this dream does not turn into a nightmare.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Ms. Capps for an opening statement.

Ms. CAPPS. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much

for holding this hearing.

The parameters of the 1993 NIH Revitalization Act have been

outlined in other opening statements. We are here today to discuss

the possible abuses in the area of fetal tissue donation and sale.

We have learned that one or more groups may be inappropriately

profiting from sale of this tissue, which is a serious charge raising

many ethical and legal questions.

If third-party fetal tissue procurement businesses are making a

profit from their transactions in clear violation of the law, they

must be held accountable and they must be punished. No one on

this committee would disagree with that. I would say compelling

opening statements attest to our bipartisan and unanimous conviction in this area.

Additionally, this hearing provides a good opportunity to look at

ways that the Federal Government can eliminate these abuses. For

a start, NIH must formulate safeguards to ensure that federally

funded researchers avoid these illegal vendors of tissue.

Mr. Chairman, I have several concerns with this hearing. First,

I am concerned that the charges being leveled today, while very serious and troubling, are also being used by pro life groups to inflame the abortion debate. Second, we must not threaten the legal,

ethical practice of fetal tissue research.

My strongest concern is that today’s debate will put the very research that we are discussing in jeopardy. I am concerned that our

testimony may not include many good examples of tissue procurement because of the very real fear of harassment that such witnesses may experience.

As a health care professional, I am a strong supporter of fetal tissue research. Doctors and scientists around the world have attested

to the amazing potential in this area of science. In my own District,

I represent several groups who have a personal understanding of

just how important the work is. Members of the Parkinson’s Association of Santa Barbara have again and again indicated their

strong support of this research to me.

Doctor Lois Jovanovich, a nationally known expert and director

and chief scientific officer of the Santa Barbara Diabetes Project

and the Samson Clinics, told me of the following case in which fetal

23

tissue research was an invaluable tool. She was studying children’s

diabetes, where certain cells in the child’s pancreas die for no

known reason. Children suffering from this disease will die if they

do not take insulin, which currently can only be administered by

injection. These injections make children’s lives very difficult.

Dr. Jovanovich’s group decided to attempt to transplant cells that

make insulin so that injections would no longer be necessary, but

childhood diabetics often develop autoimmune disease and become

allergic to their own cells. Fetal tissue does not promote this allergic reaction.

They decided to undertake a study to transplant fetal pancreas

cells. Working with the clinic, women signed informed consent

forms and were asked if they would like their fetal tissue destroyed, buried, or donated to research. Of the women, 100 percent

chose to donate their tissue to research. Forty-seven children underwent transplants, and, although none of them were cured, their

diabetes improved dramatically, as did the quality of their lives.

So you see, Mr. Chairman, this research is opening new doors

every day.

Additionally, California bioscience innovators are conducting

ground-breaking stem cell research, a closely related procedure to

fetal tissue research. These critically important research projects

are likely to produce breakthrough treatments for many diseases,

including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, breast cancer, cardiovascular

disease, and rare blood disorders.

This research could also yield more-effective antibiotics and

transform the fields of organ transplantation, orthopedic surgery,

and wound care.

Mr. Chairman, medical research is one of the greatest efforts we

in Congress can and do support. Increased funding for NIH is often

championed by members from both sides of the aisle. Let us not

seek to weaken the extraordinary potential of fetal tissue research

with potentially sensational proceedings.

If abuses are taking place, let Congress treat them in a measured and thoughtful manner.

Yesterday, I heard from a 52-year-old woman who is my constituent and who is living with Parkinson’s disease. Diagnosed 6

years ago, she is hopeful that medical research breakthroughs,

seemingly so close, will help her to extend her life expectancy and

dramatically improve her day-to-day health. In her words, ‘‘Fetal

tissue research could be the answer to my problem. Those who oppose it are taking away my chance at a productive future, and I

just do not think it is fair.’’

Mr. Chairman, let us tread carefully on this most serious topic.

The health and the hope of millions of Americans depend upon it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I thank the gentlelady.

Dr. Ganske for an opening statement.

Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I think it is good to have this hearing. I think there have been many thoughtful statements, but, in

an effort to start moving to testimony, I will submit a statement,

and I yield back.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I appreciate that.

Mr. Barrett for an opening statement?

24

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today.

Section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act states that it is

a felony to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any

human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if this transfer affects

interstate commerce.

This law makes it clear that the allegations that have been made

concerning some of the people who have been subpoenaed here

today may have, in fact, violated Federal law. And I join with the

other members of this committee urging us to take every action

necessary to make sure that individuals who may have violated

Federal law be investigated, and if it is found that they have, in

fact, violated the law, that they be convicted and punished.

There is no place in this society for people to benefit from the

sale of these fetal parts. But, at the same time, I join with Ms.

Capps and the others who understand and appreciate and support

the tremendous advances in medicine and science that have arisen

as a result of fetal tissue research and stem cell research, and I

think it would be a mistake for us to allow what appears to be a

violation of Federal law to turn into an attempt to undercut this

valuable research.

So, again, I join with those on this committee who urge us to

move forward cautiously, so that when we make a decision as to

what to do, that we do so, not based on emotions, but based on

some research that we have done by ourselves.

I also would urge the committee, and you, Mr. Chairman—and

I do not know if it is appropriate to make a motion at some point,

but you and perhaps the ranking member, on behalf of all committee members, to again contact that Justice Department following this hearing if we hear evidence today or if we hear testimony today that leads us to conclude that Federal law has been

violated.

I see no place in this hearing for politics. I think that this is a

serious matter, and if we do find there have been violations of the

law, I think we should work hand-in-hand with the Justice Department to make sure the individuals should be prosecuted.

I would make a request, Mr. Chairman. I do have an affidavit

from Lawrence Dean Alberty, Jr., who I believe is going to be one

of our witnesses today, that he executed on January 20, 2000. I

would ask at this time that that be made a part of the record.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Is there objection to that?

[No response.]

Mr. BILIRAKIS. There being none, so be it.

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The information referred to follows:]

25

26

27

Mr. BILIRAKIS. And I would say to the gentleman I appreciate the

suggestion. Apparently, a letter has either gone out or is going out

which has been strictly from your side, with the exception of Mr.

Upton, and I think it ought to be a bipartisan letter, so hopefully

we all can——

Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, as a point of inquiry, would a motion at some point be in order to do that, or how would we proceed

as a committee?

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I do not know. No, I would rather we did not try

to determine what is in order or what is not in order, but we will

prepare a letter, and we will coordinate with Ms. DeGette, and

hopefully we can do it on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. BARRETT. Again, I——

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I plan to do this, anyhow.

Mr. BARRETT. Good. I believe there are many members on both

sides of the aisle that would like to be part of that.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Yes. Thank you.

Mr. BARRETT. I would ask you to consider that, as well.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you.

All right. That being the case, Dr. Norwood for an opening statement.

Mr. NORWOOD. Chairman Bilirakis, I thank you for holding this

hearing today. I know that is not an easy thing to do. We have difficulty staying on the subject, which is not about research—I think

there is a lot of agreement there—but about selling body parts of

children and babies. If we can stay on that as the topic of this

hearing, I think it would help us.

Though it was not easy for you to have this hearing, I believe it

was the right thing to do and I commend you greatly for doing the

right thing.

My colleagues, like many of you, I come at this issue with a

heavy heart. I spent most of my adult life in the health care professions, and I support and want to see medical research go forward—

research that has been so helpful to so many people. It has brought

hope and joy to thousands of people. I am very glad about that.

But, Mr. Chairman, I cannot help but wonder what we have been

reading about and are going to hear about today. Is it really medical research, or have we crossed over into that gray, shadowy land

where we create wonderful-sounding excuses to rationalize using

others for our own purposes?

My heart is heavy and conflicted, because I have concluded that

we are in real danger of crossing over into that gray land where

no one is safe because anything we want to do can be rationalized.

We are in danger of blurring a line that, in my opinion, needs

to remain very bright.

Despite a clear Congressional prohibition against a money-making marketplace for aborted human tissue, it seems clear that just

such a marketplace has developed. It seems clear that companies

are selling aborted baby parts for a profit.

Now, we cannot sit back and allow this to happen, and I think

everybody on this committee agrees with that, for to do so would

be to say to all the world that we have no problem with the notion

that buying and selling of baby parts and organs is an acceptable

form of commerce.

28

What we are talking about here is selling another person’s organs, parts of their body, a person who, by definition, cannot give

their consent, even if they wanted to.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I need to ask a simple question. I

thought there was a consensus in this country that at least we

agreed that abortions should be rare. I mean, the President often

says that abortions should be safe, legal, and rare. I do not agree

with him on the legal part, but I would not mind seeing abortions

a whole lot more rare in this country. But I do not see how abortions will be rare if we are allowing abortioners to make a profit

by engaging in the gruesome business of harvesting the organs of

the poor babies who are about to be aborted.

Mr. Chairman, my heart is heavy because these are defenseless

babies we are talking about, and yet, in some parts of the country

and in some areas they are being treated like some animal being

led off to the slaughter and their organs harvested. That is wrong,

and we should do everything that is in our power—every Member

of Congress—to not let this stand.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I thank the gentleman.

Dr. Coburn for an opening statement.

Mr. COBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to use one of the words that Mr. Dingell uses often, and

that is ‘‘peculiar.’’ I think it is peculiar that the gentlelady from

Colorado would raise an issue of whether or not this was reported,

when the Congressional Record shows that she was involved in a

colloquy about this very same issue on November 9th. I think she

doth protest too much.

I also think it is very important for us to understand the protections that were put into the law in 1993, and that not all the recommendations of the NIH panel were accepted. I want to give you

three examples of how they weren’t accepted and one of the reasons

why we are in this problem.

No. 1, the procedure could not be changed solely for the purpose

of collecting fetal tissue when it comes to abortion. Well, that word

‘‘solely’’ totally eliminates and obviates that protection for women

undergoing an abortion for fetal transplantation.

No. 2 is the language was changed from ‘‘fetal tissue’’ to ‘‘fetal

tissue for transplantation,’’ which means fetal tissue used for other

purposes, those prohibitions do not apply.

Finally, there was a recommendation by the NIH consensus

panel that the father of the child that was going to be used for fetal

tissue research should also have the opportunity to give consent on

his offspring, which that was ignored, as well.

The third thing that I think is important as we talk to this, as

Mr. Barrett pointed out, there is a Federal law that says not only

is it wrong and against the law to market and sell this product at

a profit, it is wrong to buy it. I want to tell you, there are hundreds

of companies out there in this country, there are hundreds of universities that have received NIH money who have bought this product, based on what it looks like we see, at a price far in excess of

the cost of collecting it, and under that definition, and what I have

been told by legal counsel, is a violation of the very same law.

29

So I think it is important that we look. There has to be a buyer

that is willing to ignore the law for there to be a seller who is willing to ignore the law.

Finally, I think that the way to solve this problem is for the

members of this committee to support a bill I am going to introduce

on Monday, and it is the Fetal Tissue Reporting Act. The best way

to make sure the law is followed is to mandate that it is reported

and what it is sold for and who it is shipped to so that we will all

know, every citizen of this country will know that if fetal tissue is

to be used in research, that it is done in a proper, legal, efficacious,

and a manner in which there is good directed research.

I would remind you that NIH had only approved fetal

transplantational research for Parkinson’s disease because they

had felt, at this time when this was passed, that none of the other

diseases yet met the standard to apply that.

So I am not against the research. I have severe questions about

destroying a life to save a life, even though I have been involved

in doing that as a doctor who has performed abortions on women

who were obviously going to die if they continued to carry their

pregnancy. That decision, each and every time I made it, I questioned whether or not it was the right decision as I eliminated the

life that was growing inside of that woman.

So I do not want this to be about abortion. I do not want it to

even be about fetal research. I think we have to make sure that

this is not happening.

I am worried that we know of two instances, it would seem,

where people are violating the law. I think it is implicit upon us,

as the committee that has jurisdiction over this, to make sure no

one else is and not to just say, ‘‘Oh, this is happening.’’ So I would

agree with Mr. Barrett and my friend from Ohio that I believe the

Justice Department ought to be before this committee. I believe the

FBI ought to be before this committee. And I believe the companies

who bought this tissue ought to be before this committee.

The point that Mr. Deal made that, in fact, if this was higherpriced material, why were they buying it? And did they not have

knowledge that this was higher-priced material?

So there would seem to me to be more than one or two guilty

parties, in terms of the violation of this law. I am hopeful that we

can conduct the hearing in such a way that we stay on the issues

at hand.

I would yield back at this time.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I thank the gentleman.

Ms. Cubin for an opening statement?

Ms. CUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We are here to talk about the buying and selling of human tissue, fetal tissue—arms, legs, eyes, ears, and so on—which, in and

of itself, is a very serious action. But if that is not enough, if that

is not solemn enough, what about the possibility that people are

profiting financially from the sale of these body parts, just as if

they were any other commodity like oil or cows or potatoes? This

is unconscionable to anyone.

Whatever personal belief any of us have about this issue, I would

hope that no one would underestimate the gravity of this hearing

today. I think to suggest that to investigate these potential abuses

30

is to sensationalize the issue is truly putting politics above policy,

and I think the it is truly politics at its worst.

This hearing needs to take place because the Department of Justice has not been paying attention. Laws governing fetal tissue declare that it is unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any fetal tissue for valuable consideration. Well, at this time we do not know for sure that laws are

being broken, but that is precisely why we are holding this hearing.

We are hoping that the witnesses today can shed some light on the

extent to which this profiteering may be occurring.

We are all aware of terrible stories that have been in the media.

The possibility that potentially harmful abortive procedures are

being performed on women, with the primary purpose being to harness as much fetal tissue as possible; the notion that women are

being advised to abort because of so-called abnormalities, when

what really is being sought is the fetal tissue, itself—if these abhorrent practices are going on, then I think we had better be prepared to roll up our sleeves and do what is necessary to bring it

to an end. But where in the world, as I said before, has the Department of Justice been? Why did it take an expose by a TV network

to get the attention of this Administration about these abuses?

Because this is an area where there is such potential for abuse,

that is another reason why the Department of Justice should have

been watching all along.

This is a very difficult issue to face. It is a difficult issue for all

of us. But I implore my colleagues and I implore everyone involved

in it not to politicize the issue. Find out what the facts are.

This does not have to be the last hearing that we have. We do

need to get more information. We do need to hear from the people

who are using the tissue from the Department of Justice why they

have not been coming forward.

So, Mr. Chairman, I am glad you are having this hearing, and

regret only that it took an investigative report by ABC to get attention brought to it, get the attention of the Administration.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I thank the gentlelady.

Mr. Bryant, the gentleman from Tennessee, for an opening statement.

Mr. BRYANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a written statement that I will submit for the record.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Without objection, the written statement of all

members of the subcommittee are part of the record.

Mr. BRYANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do have just a few comments, and I will not use up all my time.

I do want to thank you for this hearing. I want to thank especially, though, people like Congressman Tom Tancredo and Congressman Joe Pitts, who is here with us right now, Congressman

Chris Smith, who have kind of forced this issue somewhat and I

think have done excellent jobs in bringing this information out in

this committee.

Again, I thank you for holding this hearing. I think this hearing

is good because it will, I believe, bring some sunlight, sunshine to

this issue that apparently has been quietly working out there since

this law was enacted some 10 years ago. I think it is time that we

had that kind of sunshine.

31

I hope we do not find more as this story unfolds. I know someone

said today from the other side that this bill opened a world of opportunities, and I think they were viewing it from the standpoint

of wonderful opportunities for research and those kinds of things,

but certainly any time you open something like this up you are

going to have people out there who are going to be dishonest about

this and take advantage of the situation. Clearly, I do not think

there is any question about this. Clearly, we have got three examples before this committee today. I think that world of opportunity

has to be explored more.

Again, coming from a background of law enforcement, there is

usually more out there, with the idea of where there is smoke there

is fire.

I had the same question so many of my colleagues have had,

which is: where has law enforcement been? I know this Dr. Jones—

and I use the term ‘‘doctor’’ very loosely—has addresses in Missouri

and Illinois, I believe, and I see both of those States have State

laws that would, I think, have some effect on this, as well as the

Federal officials we have talked about today—the FBI. As my colleague from Ohio said, one of the witnesses attempted to call the

FBI. Where is the Justice Department? Where has Janet Reno

been on this issue?

This is so much so that on this TV show last night the TV reporter made this astonishing revelation in that program. He said,

‘‘We cannot find anyone in the Federal Government enforcing those

laws, which is why tomorrow’s hearing is such an important first

step.’’

Anyone that would attempt to politicize this and talk about this

is a pro life effort or this is a disguised agenda here I think misses

the point here.

When a national investigative show cannot find anybody in the

Federal Government enforcing these laws, yes, it is time for Congress to have this hearing, and I commend our chairman for doing

that.

With that said, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back my time.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. The gentleman’s time has expired.

I think that all opening statements now have been disposed of.

Mr. Largent is not a member of this subcommittee, but he has

submitted a statement. I appreciate your understanding, Steve.

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE LARGENT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your willingness to bring this issue before this subcommittee. I hope that this committee will continue its strong commitment to protecting the smallest, most defenseless, most innocent Americans.

One of President Clinton’s first acts as president was to lift the moratorium on

federal funding of fetal tissue transplantation research. This act was later codified

by Congress. While this legislation lifted the federal funding ban, it also purported

to establish certain rules about the trafficking of baby body parts.

We are here today to determine the extent to which these rules have been

breached.

As the Members of this committee are aware, one company even offers a menu,

listing prices for body parts such as eyes, livers, brains, and even skin, and provides

discounts under certain conditions.

In discussing this issue, many supporters of the abortion lobby have claimed that

baby body parts are not being sold and that this issue should not be examined.

32

But, if it is not happening, they would have no reason to be concerned about an

investigation. If the abortion-industrial complex is not profiteering by selling pieces

of small humans, they have nothing to fear and should welcome the light of honest

inquiry. As Shakespeare wrote in Hamlet, ‘‘the lady doth protest too much.’’

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. VITO FOSSELLA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Today’s hearing exposes the heinous, cruel and vile business of selling baby body

parts for cash. What we have learned today leaves little doubt about the authenticity of this despicable practice. Congress has spoken forcefully on the matter of

selling aborted baby parts before. I helped raise the issue last November, even as

some questioned whether this practice was occurring. Today we have shined a

bright light and exposed the corruption and greed of those who sell body parts as

casually as a pair of sunglasses or pack of gum. I have seen with my own eyes documents advertising the sale of whatever part of a dead baby may be desired: $50 for

ears, $150 for lungs and hearts and $325 for a spinal column. It even offered a ‘‘40%

discount for single eye... prices in effect through December 31, 1999.’’ It is shocking

to believe that people are profiting at the expense of human life.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ELIOT L. ENGEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman, I want to first express outrage concerning the alleged sale of fetal

tissue for profit. The law Congress passed in 1993 to permit federal funding of fetal

tissue transplantation research explicitly prohibits a person from knowingly acquiring, receiving, or transferring human fetal tissue for ‘‘valuable consideration.’’ The

law is applicable regardless of whether or not the fetal tissue is used for research

and regardless of whether the research is federally funded. Furthermore, the law

specifically details that a woman seeking an abortion must not be coerced into having the procedure in order to obtain the fetal tissue for research. Also, the law mandates that the physician performing the abortion must make a statement that the

timing, method, or procedure of the abortion was not altered in any way for the purposes of obtaining the tissue.

While I am concerned with violations of this law, Congress enacted the measure

because of the immense potential for finding cures or treatments to a variety of

chronic and even deadly diseases. I would like to talk about some of these diseases

and the need for continuing fetal tissue research.

Fetal tissue research may hold the key to lifesaving treatments for diseases such

as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, diabetes, and AIDS. We have seen the debilitating affect that Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s has had on so many people. Just think of how

the lives of so many could have been changed if there were a cure for these terrible

diseases. One of our most renowned statesmen, President Ronald Reagan, is suffering the late stages of Alzheimer’s. Our entire country has felt the pain of this

affliction as we watched a great man struggle with such a debilitating illness. What

a different world we would be in if we were able to cure this terrible disease. Diabetes afflicts the young, the middle aged, and the old. Parents of children with diabetes know that a cure means that their child would no longer be burdened with daily

insulin injections, frequent blood sugar tests, and a future filled with the possibility

of early blindness, kidney failure, amputations, heart attack, or stroke. We owe it

to those suffering to continue striving to reach a cure for the afflictions that ail

them.

Mr. Chairman, we must not confuse the issue before us today. Fetal tissue research must not be compromised because of those who seek to abuse the system.

We have laws that need to be enforced, and we have research that needs to be done.

Those in violation of the law must be prosecuted, and those conducting research

must have access to the tools that allow them to combat the illnesses that afflict

so many. I want to commend this Committee for its investigation into the

wrongdoings of those seeking to profit from the need for fetal tissue research and

reiterate the importance that this research be continued.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Today, we will hear from several individuals who have been involved in the transfer of fetal tissue to the medical community. Based on what aired on the ABC News

33

20/20 story last night, there is credible information that at least one person may

have profited illegally from the sale of fetal tissue. I want to express my personal

dismay and outrage that anyone would seek to profit from fetal tissue needed for

research, and thereby undermine that research. That is why I have joined my colleagues in referring this matter to the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

I do note that most members of Congress, as well as the majority of the American

public, firmly support fetal tissue research in light of its critical importance, including development of breakthrough medical treatments involving fetal tissue transplantation. Today, we will hear from several medical experts who will tell us that

fetal tissue research shows great promise in treating very serious diseases such as

Parkinson’s, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, and AIDS. So, I hope that we will all bear in

mind the vital medical research that is at stake here.

Finally, I urge that this matter be investigated in a manner that takes into account the credible threat of violence, including death, to fetal tissue researchers,

abortion clinic personnel, bystanders, and others. These threats emanate from extremists who condone violent unlawful behavior as a means of advocating their opposition to elective abortions. This has been a matter of considerable discussion in

the days leading up to this hearing, and I am pleased that the Chairman has taken

steps to assure the safety of witnesses and other members of the public.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. That being the case, I will ask all of the witnesses

to come forward. As they do so, I would enter, with unanimous consent, into the record three letters, all of which, as I understand it,

have been cleared with the minority—a January 31 letter from the

committee to Dr. Miles Jones, a February 8 letter from the committee to Mr. Brent Bardsley, executive director of the Anatomic

Gift Foundation, and a February 16 letter from the committee to

Dr. Miles Jones.

Without objection, those will be a part of the record.

[The information referred to follows:]

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

Mr. BILIRAKIS. The witnesses are Dr. Miles Jones, Ms. Lynn

Fredericks, Dr. Samuel L. Cohen, Dr. Hannah C. Kinney, Mr. Dean

Alberty, Mr. James Bardsley, and Ms. Joan I. Samuelson.

Is Dr. Jones in the room? Is he coming forward? Mr. Bardsley is

not here. And the Chair would note that Dr. Jones is not here, nor

is Mr. Bardsley.

Chairman BLILEY. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. BILIRAKIS. The gentleman from Virginia? For what purpose

does he seek recognition?

Chairman BLILEY. To offer a unanimous consent request, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. The gentleman will state his request.

Chairman BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that,

pursuant to the authority granted by rule 5 of the rules of the

Committee on Commerce, the subcommittee waive the requirements of rule 4(a)(2) regarding the notice requirements for subcommittee meetings and proceed immediately to a subcommittee

meeting to consider a contempt resolution against Dr. Miles Jones.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Is there an objection to the request from the gentleman?

[No response.]

Mr. BILIRAKIS. There being no objection, the Chair notes the

presence of a quorum.

Without objection, the unanimous consent request is agreed to

and this subcommittee hearing is recessed so that the subcommittee may meet to consider a contempt resolution against Dr.

Miles Jones.

The Chair again notes the presence of a quorum, and the subcommittee hearing stands in recess until the completion of the subcommittee hearing.

[Whereupon, at 4:12 p.m., the subcommittee proceeded in Executive Session.]

[Whereupon, at 4:21 p.m., the subcommittee returned to open

session.]

Ms. DEGETTE. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. BILIRAKIS. The gentlelady from Colorado?

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you.

I have a unanimous consent request. There is one letter we did

not enter into the record, and it is a letter dated March 9, 2000,

from Robert Michaels to Chairman Bliley that I think would shed

light, so I would ask unanimous consent——

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Any objection to that?

Mr. COHEN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. The gentleman has reserved right to object.

Mr. COHEN. I would just like to see it.

Ms. DEGETTE. I believe everyone has a copy, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Would the gentleman please take a look at it so

we can get rolling?

Mr. COHEN. I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I appreciate that. The letter is entered and made

a part of the record.

[The information referred to follows:]

47

48

49

50

51

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Addressing the witnesses, you are aware, I think,

that this subcommittee is holding an investigative hearing, and

when doing so has had the practice of taking testimony under oath.

Do you have any objection, any of you, to testifying under oath?

[No response.]

Mr. BILIRAKIS. The Chair then advises each of you that, under

the rules of the House and the rules of the committee, you are entitled to be advised by counsel. Do any of you desire to be advised

by counsel during your testimony today?

[Witnesses respond in the negative.]

Mr. BILIRAKIS. In that case, if you will please rise and raise your

right hand, I will swear you in.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Each of you is now under oath. Your written

statement has been submitted, and it is a part of the record, and,

of course, you can give your testimony as you wish, but I hope you

would supplement and complement your written statement.

Ordinarily, you are asked to take 5 minutes for your testimony,

but I am going to extend that, use the prerogative of the Chair and

give you 10 minutes to do so, each of you. Please stay within that

period of time, though, if you would.

Dr. Miles Jones, of course, is not here, and Mr. Bardsley is not

here.

Ms. Lynn Fredericks, please proceed.

TESTIMONY OF LYNN FREDERICKS; DEAN ALBERTY; SAMUEL

L. COHEN, PATHOLOGY/MICROBIOLOGY DEPARTMENT, UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA; JOAN I. SAMUELSON, PRESIDENT,

PARKINSON’S ACTION NETWORK; AND HANNAH C. KINNEY,

DIVISION OF NEUROSCIENCE, JOHN F. ENDERS PEDIATRIC

RESEARCH LABORATORIES

Ms. FREDERICKS. My name is Lynn Fredericks, and I was formerly the manager of a facility from which Anatomic Gift Foundation and Opening Lines procured post-voluntary pregnancy termination fetal tissue.

I went to work for the clinic in October 1997. Shortly thereafter,

I started receiving very rude, inappropriate phone calls from staff

of Anatomic Gift Foundation demanding that I meet with them. I

will hereafter refer to them as AGF.

Because of the nature of our interaction, I became suspicious in

trying to ascertain what they were doing in the clinic and why they

were treating me so badly.

Their employee, Dean Alberty, told me about their operation and

how the tissue was used in various research projects. I was fascinated by the research taking place using this tissue and started

doing Internet research about the subject.

The clinic was also experiencing serious financial difficulties at

that time, so I momentarily explored the possibility of the clinic,

itself, providing the tissue directly to researchers as a source of

revenue.

We rather quickly determined that would be inappropriate, and

from the guidelines that I had read, for the clinic to engage in this

practice.

52

After studying these guidelines, I wanted to make sure that our

agreement with AGF was appropriate. I requested a copy of any

contracts between AGF and the clinic, and I was unable to find one

in our files, and AGF did not provide one upon my request. Long-time clinic staff told me that AGF was to pay $600 per month plus $10 an hour. I reconstructed the previous months payments made by AGF to the clinic from clinic financial documents

and produced a small spreadsheet, which I think you have all seen,

in an attempt to figure out how this worked, how we were getting

paid and where this money was coming from.

The checks I saw that we received from AGF had no supporting

documentation with them which would indicate how the amount

was calculated.

After I saw how widely the amounts varied, I became concerned

and I expressed that to the CEO, who is now deceased. I was experiencing serious health problems that spring and was not able to

exert the effort necessary to proceed further with my allegations at

that time, and, because of the serious financial problems the clinic

was having, which all management was focusing on trying to correct, the time I had to focus on this issue was limited.

Because of the volatile nature of my interaction with AGF, the

CEO was concerned that they might sue us if we terminated the

agreement at that time. Meanwhile, some time that spring one of

the physicians met Dr. Jones and said that he wanted to get into

procuring fetal tissue for research—that’s Dr. Jones—and that he

was a pathologist with laboratory services who could also help us

out with a problem we were having with getting our pathology

analysis done for the various other laboratory tests the clinic performed, like pap smears and cryotherapies and other type biopsies.

The AGF employee—who was not Dean—had left that spring

and, to the best of my recollection, they didn’t have an employee

onsite for over a month.

During the time that AGF did not have an employee onsite, we

decided to bring Dr. Jones in, as we felt it was important to continue with the program, due to the important research being done

with the tissue, and we were not satisfied with the agreement with

AGF. We informed AGF of the decision to terminate the agreement,

and entered into an agreement with Dr. Jones.

Dr. Jones needed a technician who had the knowledge to procure

the tissue, and I knew Dean Alberty had been unable to find a job,

so I gave Dr. Jones Dean’s phone number.

Almost a month after we signed the agreement, to the best of my

recollection, Dr. Jones came on premises. The agreement with Dr.

Jones was a flat rent amount of $700 per month. Dr. Jones had

considerably more space he used in the clinic than AGF had. The

agreement also spelled out that he would charge us to provide pathology reports based on the current volumes of the laboratory

tests we were ordering. The reference to changes in rates due to

volume on the agreement applied only to laboratory tests.

Dr. Jones was always pleasant in our interactions and responded

to any of my concerns I might express to him.

On September 15 or 16—I’m sorry I don’t remember the exact

date—one of the physicians and I were leaving late one afternoon

for the day and we caught a former AGF employee removing items

53

from the back door of the clinic. We instructed her to stop and

leave immediately. She appeared to only have AGF’s property in

her possession, which she had packed up and stored in our storage

area before she had left their employ. We did not call the police

about this incident.

In October, I received a letter from AGF’s attorney which I felt

was very threatening to me personally with legal action. I immediately turned the letter over to the CEO and to the clinic attorney.

After they reviewed all of my documentation and interrogated me

extensively, it was a clinic attorney opinion that we were not going

to respond to the letter, as the agreement with them was in question.

My relationship with the former CEO deteriorated dramatically

after we received that October letter from AGF. I was terminated

from the clinic in late November, 1998, for telling my staff of impending lay-offs. Several of the other vice presidents had informed

their staff of the possible lay-offs and advised me to do the same.

I felt this was just an excuse to get rid of me, and it was really

because of the AGF letter.

Because of the nature of my interactions with AGF, I have been

very careful to document all correspondence carefully that I had

with them, and I was very dismayed to find significant items missing from my files when we reviewed the file upon receipt of the letter from their attorney.

We were so concerned about the relationship between AGF and

the clinic that the CEO reviewed many of the letters I sent to AGF

prior to sending them. I made copies of the letters in my files to

keep at home, just in case they ever did bring suit against me,

after I received the October letter. That’s the letters that I provided

to you all, and that’s why I have them.

I want to thank you for this opportunity for allowing me to offer

my recollection of the events surrounding this investigation, and I

wanted to let everybody know I have not received any payment in

exchange for my appearance here today and I paid my own travel

expenses to be here.

[The prepared statement of Lynn Fredericks follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LYNN FREDERICKS

My name is Lynn Fredericks, and I was formerly the manager of a facility from

which Anatomical Gift Foundation and Opening Lines procured post voluntary pregnancy termination fetal tissue.

I went to work for the clinic in October of 1997. Shortly thereafter I started receiving very rude, inappropriate phone calls from Anatomical Gift Foundation demanding that I meet with them. (I will hereafter refer to them as AGF) Because

of the nature of our interaction, I became suspicious and started trying to ascertain

what they were doing in the clinic and why they were treating me so badly. Their

employee, Dean Alberty, told me about their operation and how the tissue was used

in various research projects. I was fascinated by the research taking place using this

tissue, and started reading about it on the internet. The clinic was also experiencing

serious financial difficulties so I also explored the possibilities of the clinic itself providing the tissue directly to researchers as a source of revenue. We rather quickly

determined that it would not be appropriate, from the guidelines I had read for the

clinic to engage in this practice. After studying these guidelines, I wanted to make

sure that our agreement with AGF was appropriate. I requested a copy of any contracts between AGF and the clinic, as I was unable to find one in our files, and AGF

did not provide one. Long time clinic staff had told me that AGF was to pay $600

per month rent and $10 per hour. I reconstructed the previous months payments

made by AGF to the clinic, from clinic financial documents and produced a small

54

spreadsheet in an attempt to figure out how this worked. The checks I saw that we

received from AGF had no supporting documentation with them, which would indicate how the amount was calculated. After I saw how widely the amounts varied,

I became concerned, and expressed that to the CEO. (Who is now deceased.) I was

experiencing some serious health problems that spring, and was not able to exert

the effort necessary to proceed further with my allegations at that time. The clinic

was also experiencing very severe financial problems, which all of management was

focused on trying to correct, therefore, the time I had to focus on this issue was limited. Because of the volatile nature of my interaction with AGF, the CEO was concerned that they might sue us if we terminated the agreement at that time. Meanwhile, sometime that spring, one of the physicians met Dr. Jones and said that he

wanted to get into procuring fetal tissue for researchers, and that he was a pathologist with a laboratory service who could also help out with a problem we were having with getting our pathology analysis done. The AGF employee left that spring,

and to the best of my recollection they did not have an employee onsite for over a

month before we terminated the arrangement. During that time, we decided to

bring Dr. Jones in as we felt it was important to continue with the program due

to the important research being done with the tissue and we were not satisfied with

the agreement with AGF. We informed AGF of the decision to terminate the agreement and entered into an agreement with Dr. Jones. Dr Jones needed a technician

who had the knowledge to procure the tissue, and I knew that Dean Alberty had

been unable to find a job, so I gave Dr. Jones Dean’s phone number. It was almost

a month after we signed the agreement, to the best of my recollection, before Dr.

Jones came on premises. The agreement with Dr. Jones was a flat rent amount of

$700. The agreement also spelled out what he would charge us to provide pathology

reports, based on the current volume of those test we were ordering. The reference

to changes in rates due to volume on the agreement, apply only to the lab tests.

Dr. Jones was always pleasant in our interactions, and responded to any concerns

I might express to him. On September 15th or 16th, one of the physicians and I

were leaving late one afternoon, and we caught the former AGF employee removing

items from the back door of the clinic. We instructed her to stop and leave immediately. She appeared to only have in her possession AGF’s property, which she had

packed up and stored in our storage area before she left their employ. We did not

call the police. In October I received a letter from AGF’s attorneys, which I felt was

threatening me personally with legal action. I immediately turned it over to the

CEO and the clinic attorney. After they reviewed all my documentation and interrogated me extensively, it was the clinic’s attorney’s opinion that we not respond to

the letter, as the arrangement with them was in question. My relationship with the

CEO deteriorated dramatically after we received the October letter from AGF. I was

then terminated from the clinic in late November 1998, for telling my staff of impending layoffs. Several of the other vice presidents had informed their staffs of the

possible layoffs, and advised me to do the same. I felt this was just an excuse to

get rid of me, and that it was really because of the AGF letter. Because of the nature of my interaction with AGF, I had been very careful to document all correspondence carefully, and was dismayed to find significant items missing from my

files when we reviewed the file upon receipt of the letter from their attorney. We

were so concerned about the relationship between AGF and the clinic that the CEO

reviewed many of the letters I sent to AGF prior to my sending them. I made copies

of the letters in my file to keep at home to in case they ever did bring suit against

me after I received the October letter.

Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to offer my recollection of the events

surrounding this investigation. I have not received any payment in exchange for my

appearance here today, and have even paid my own travel expenses to appear.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you so much, Ms. Fredericks.

Mr. Alberty, you are on, sir.

TESTIMONY OF DEAN ALBERTY

Mr. ALBERTY. Can you hear me? Is this good?

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Yes.

Mr. ALBERTY. Okay.

My name is Lawrence Dean Alberty, Jr. I started out in the medical field with the knowledge that medicine is a wonderful tool to

help people expand their lives through the use of modern technology wonders.

55

Upon taking the job as a fetal tissue procurement tech, I was

under the impression that what I was going to do would make life

better for Parkinson’s patients, Alzheimer’s, and cancer patients.

Never was I led to believe that the tissue would be anything but

helpful for those in need.

What changed my mind was watching late-term abortions, seeing

their eyes looking at me as I cut through their skull to extract their

brain for Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s patients, cutting open their

chest cavity, only to see a beating heart moving ever so slowly until

it stopped, all while I was drawing blood from their heart, or

watching two twins in a metal pan covered with blood, moving and

breathing, only to find myself in a place with no doors, no exits,

thinking all the time, ‘‘My God, what have I done to see this?’’

Night after night in my sleep, the twins always were there.

Hearts were beating, the screams of the mothers as the babies

were pulled out of their bodies.

These dreams turned into nightmares of the ends of the world—

nukes, apocalyptic nightmares would wake me in a cold sweat. I

felt sick every day, never wanting to leave the comfort of my home.

I would eventually leave with only one thought: how would God

judge me? Will I make it to heaven, when the whole time I knew

I was in hell?

As my life was passing me by and my soul was being drained

each and every day, I looked back to the doctors I once admired

when I was 14 years old, who some day I wanted to be like. Those

dreams are dead. The respect for myself was gone. How could the

heroes of my life understand what I witnessed?

For months I went on, day in and day out, with no one but family to tell what I had seen, but I never fully explained to them in

details.

The moment of truth is being tired every day and sick with myself, not able to express myself to anyone. I looked for redemption

of my soul.

Taking a chance 1 day, I called the FBI, with no help. I called

a pro life group, never trusting them because I was led to believe

that all pro life people were bad. I was led to believe that they

would take your life in a moment or protest at your house. When

the call finally reached a group, there was no hate, there was no

death threats, but a soft voice with comfort.

They were a group that supported my new direction, to show the

world what I had been a witness to, and to help them understand,

in my own eyes, what it felt like to be involved in this.

I only want the American public to understand that I am not

against research, I am not against the rights of a woman to choose

which path they may take, but let the American people listen up

and hear the truth. The truth is not evil, it’s not hate, it is not punishing, and it’s not a dark tunnel. The truth is pure, respectful, and

a true bright light which all should not be afraid, for the truth

shall set you free. So please do not use ‘‘pro life,’’ ‘‘pro choice,’’ but

use the word ‘‘truth.’’

I pray that the Democrats, the Republicans, and, yes, the Independents can work together, for it is the people like me and our

society that pay your salaries. Please listen to your supporters back

home. Put down your hatred for one another. You are bleeding they

56

very soul of our country. The truth should be what you are after.

Do not cover up the mistakes, but correct them before it is too late.

Thank you all very much for listening.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Alberty.

Dr. Samuel Cohen is with the Pathology/Microbiology Department of the University of Nebraska Medical Center.

Welcome, Doctor. Please proceed.

TESTIMONY OF SAMUEL L. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee.

I am Dr. Samuel Cohen. I am chairman of the Department of Pathology and Microbiology at the University of Nebraska Medical

Center in Omaha, where I have been on the faculty for the past

nearly 20 years. I am also a professor in the Eppley Institute for

Research and Cancer at the medical school.

My own research work is primarily in cancer, especially chemical

carcinogenesis. However, I am here today to express my strong

support for fetal tissue research, which is being actively pursued in

my department, and the potential future benefits of this research

for treating human disease.

I speak today concerning the need to ensure the advancement of

this critical medical research in an environment that respects the

ethical and moral concerns of the American people. Fetal tissue is

used in a variety of medical research studies and is vital to the biomedical research enterprise. Guidelines and laws governing the use

of this tissue ensure its safe and ethical use. I believe that the

great majority of those who use fetal tissue in the research are

scrupulous in following the letter and spirit of the law, among

other reasons, because they are aware of the great sensitivity

around its use.

Certainly, anyone in willful violation of the law should be prosecuted, as allowed by the law. The continuing challenge to Congress is to assure the public that new knowledge will not be misused, and that the ethics of work enabled by this miraculous line

of research is carefully considered, while protecting the advancement of science.

I am concerned that, in attempting to enforce the laws governing

fetal tissue research and the distribution of such tissue, Congress

may unnecessarily over-restrict fetal tissue research. This would be

a grave mistake.

In my home State of Nebraska, such an effort is underway, but,

as many of our State legislators have come to understand the remarkable potential of this work, they have come to support it.

Why do I and other researchers like me believe fetal tissue research is important and necessary? The study of fetal tissue has already led to major discoveries in human health and has the potential to continue to benefit mankind. For example, the vaccines for

rubella and varicella were made from human cell-line cultures.

These vaccines have effectively eradicated a major source of child

mortality and mental retardation in the United States.

Research utilizing fetal cells was critical to the ultimate development of the polio vaccine, a scourge that is about to be eliminated

from the face of the earth.

57

Researchers use fetal tissue to investigate questions of normal

fetal development, as you’ll hear shortly. Fetal tissue has become

a mainstay in the human genome project and in the revolutionary

developments in molecular genetics that offer promise for the development of new therapies.

Due to their capacity to rapidly divide, grow, and adapt to new

environments, fetal cells hold unique promise for medical research

into a variety of diseases and medical conditions. In particular,

there is exciting potential to use fetal tissue to transplant into

other humans to treat disease. There is hope that fetal tissue

transplanted into patients with illnesses such as Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, or heart disease may be effective in mitigating or

even treating these diseases.

Fetal cells elicit less of an immune response than adult cells and

are, therefore, less susceptible to rejection to the human body.

Fetal cells are not as developed as adult cells, and are, therefore,

more able to accommodate to the donor. In experiments with fetal

cell transplantation in Parkinson’s patients, we are seeing great

promise that such treatments will be effective.

Research using fetal cells at the University of Nebraska Medical

Center involves basic laboratory investigations into the development of a variety of neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease and AIDS dementia. Our hope is to better understand these disease processes, with the ultimate goal of developing

new therapeutic interventions and even prevention strategies.

Recently, some of my colleagues working in this area at the

UNMC discovered a new gene which may be involved in the process of the development of Alzheimer’s disease, and it has been

named NEBR 1.

This and other research projects using fetal cells will be essential

to ultimately conquer many terrible diseases.

Research provides the opportunity to develop new models that

have the potential to ultimately substitute for fetal tissue for study

of basic neuronal function. Only additional time and research will

be able to determine if alternative models will be viable replacements for the use of fetal tissue as a source of cells for this research. Right now, we must use fetal cells.

A cell line derived from an aborted fetus more than 30 years ago

is right now routinely used worldwide in clinical practice for viral

cultures, particularly for viruses such as cytomegalo virus and herpes viruses.

Fetal tissue studies play a vital role in many areas of biomedical

research. It is critical that Congress protect the ability of scientists

to use this valuable research as a means for studying human disease. We in the scientific community are aware of the ethical sensitivities that have been expressed regarding the use of fetal tissue,

but surely obtaining cells from legally obtained abortions for potentially life-saving purposes is ethically permissible and, indeed, ethically necessary.

I am confident that we can protect against abuses in the fetal tissue supply arena, while also protecting promising, life-saving research.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present my

thoughts today. I would be happy to answer any questions.

58

[The prepared statement of Samuel M. Cohen follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SAMUEL COHEN, UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA MEDICAL

CENTER

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: I am Dr. Samuel Cohen. I am

Chairman of the Department of Pathology and Microbiology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha where I have been on the faculty for the past

nearly 20 years. I am also a professor in the Eppley Institute for Research in Cancer

at the Medical School. My own research work is in cancer, especially chemical carcinogenesis. However, I am here today to express my strong support for fetal tissue

research, which is being actively pursued in my department, and the potential future benefits of this research for treating human disease.

I speak today concerning the need to ensure the advancement of critical medical

research while protecting the ethical and moral concerns of the American people.

Fetal tissue is used in a variety of medical researchstudies and is vital to the biomedical research enterprise. Guidelines and laws governing the use of this tissue

ensure its safe and ethical use. I believe that the great majority of those who use

fetal tissue in their research are scrupulous in following the letter and spirit of the

law, among other reasons because they are aware of the great sensitivity around

its use. Certainly anyone in willful violation of the law should be prosecuted as allowed by law. The continuing challenge to Congress is to assure the public that new

knowledge will not be misused and that the ethics of work enabled by this miraculous line of research is carefully considered while protecting the advancement of

science.

I am concerned that in attempting to enforce the laws governing fetal tissue research and the distribution of such tissue, Congress may unnecessarily over-restrict

fetal tissue research. This would be a grave mistake. In my home state of Nebraska,

such an effort is underway, but as our state legislators have come to understand

the remarkable potential of this work, they have come to defend it.

Why do I, and other researchers like me, believe fetal tissue research is important?

• The study of fetal tissue has already led to major discoveries in human health

and has the potential to continue to benefit mankind. For example, the vaccines

for rubella and varicella were made from human cell-line cultures. These vaccines have effectively eradicated a major source of child mortality and mental

retardation in the U.S. Research utilizing fetal cells was critical to the ultimate

development of the polio vaccine, a scourge that is about to be eliminated from

the face of the earth. • Researchers use fetal tissue to investigate questions of normal fetal development. • Fetal tissue has become a mainstay in the human genome project and in the revolutionary developments in molecular genetics that offer promise for the development of new therapies. • Due to their capacity to rapidly divide, grow and adapt to new environments, fetal

cells hold unique promise for medical research into a variety of diseases and

medical conditions. In particular, there is exciting potential to use fetal tissue

to transplant into other humans to treat disease. There is hope that fetal tissue

transplanted into patients with illnesses such as Parkinson’s, diabetes or heart

disease may be effective in mitigating or even treating these diseases. Fetal

cells elicit less of an immune response than adult cells and are therefore less

susceptible to rejection by the human body. Fetal cells are not as developed as

adult cells and are therefore more able to accommodate to the donor. In experiments with fetal cell transplantation in Parkinson’s patients, we are seeing

great promise that such treatments will be effective.

• Research using fetal cells at UNMC involves basic laboratory investigations into

the development of a variety of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s

disease and AIDS dementia. Our hope is to better understand these disease

processes, with the ultimate goal of developing new therapeutic interventions

and even prevention strategies.

• Research provides the opportunity to develop new models that have the potential

to ultimately substitute for fetal tissue for study of basic neuronal function.

Only additional time and research will be able to determine if alternative models will be viable replacements for the use of fetal tissue as a source of cells

for this research. Recently some of my colleagues working in this area at the

University of Nebraska Medical Center discovered a new gene which may be involved in the process of the development of Alzheimer’s disease—NEBR 1. This

and other research projects using fetal cells will be essential to ultimately conquer many terrible diseases.

59

• A cell line (MRC-5) derived from an aborted fetus is routinely used worldwide in

clinical practice for viral cultures.

Fetal tissue studies play a vital role in many areas of biomedical research. It is

critical that Congress protect the ability of scientists to use this valuable resource

as a means for studying human disease. We in thescientific community are aware

of the ethical sensitivities that have been expressed regarding the use of fetal tissue.

But, surely, obtaining cells from legally obtained abortions for potentially life-saving

purposes isethically permissible and indeed ethically necessary. I am confident that

we can protect against abuses in the fetal tissue supply arena while also protecting

promising life-saving research.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present my thoughts today. I

would be pleased to answer any questions.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you so much, Dr. Cohen.

Ms. Joan Samuelson is the president of the Parkinson’s Action

Network.

Ms. Samuelson, please proceed.

TESTIMONY OF JOAN I. SAMUELSON

Ms. SAMUELSON. Thank you, Chairman Bliley—excuse me,

Chairman Bilirakis.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Starts with the same letter. That is probably the

only similarity.

Ms. SAMUELSON. It has been a long time.

I am the president of the Parkinson’s Action Network, which is

a nationwide organization to educate the country and do advocacy

in search of the swiftest possible effective therapies and cure of

Parkinson’s disease.

My statement is submitted, and I will be pretty brief and make

just a few comments, because I see us as—my community and I,

who have had Parkinson’s for 14 years, as bystanders in this discussion that is at issue today, in many respects, but I do think it’s

important that I was here to represent us, because, of course, this

has an enormous impact on us.

First of all, let me just say how gratified I am to hear from so

very many members of this committee on both sides, and especially

the leadership—Chairman Bilirakis and Chairman Bliley—to describe what this hearing is about and what it is not about. It is so

very important that this issue not be confused for the American

public and that it focus very precisely and aggressively on this apparent wrongdoing and not get into the issue of the merits and ethics of this important research, and I greatly appreciate that.

This issue and the questions that were raised in the ‘‘20/20’’ piece

last night, which I saw and I found abhorrent, should be investigated swiftly and aggressively, and anyone who did any wrongdoing should be prosecuted and punished to the fullest extent of

the law.

The reason I say that, aside from just as a citizen I found it repellant, is that I feel that the real victims are the scientists and

the patients like myself and the million people with Parkinson’s

disease.

The scientists that I know—and I know many of them, because

we’ve gotten to know Parkinson’s researchers very well in watching

what they’re doing and watching their tremendous progress—they

are true heroes. And I must say there are several avenues that are

being looked at for Parkinson’s disease to develop therapies and a

cure, and they’re all important, but fetal tissue transplantation reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:43 Sep 14, 2000 Jkt 065720 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\63102 pfrm07 PsN: 63102
60

search appears to be the first true rescue, and so this is terribly

important.

The research is showing—which Dr. Cohen referred to briefly—

that it is quite likely that those implanted cells, when they can finally develop the remaining—get over the remaining hurdles and

develop a full source of supply so they don’t have to rely on aborted

fetal tissue, when they solve those problems—and they believe absolutely that they will do so—this is going to be a therapy that will

allow people like me to not look forward, as we do, to this future,

which is to spend every day to the day of our death frozen stiff,

unable to participate in society.

Many of you served with Congressman Mo Udall and watched

his decline. He retired reluctantly from the Congress at about the

same time post-diagnosis that I am now, and I met him after he

left the Congress for the first time and I watched his deterioration

at the veteran’s center.

So I have to speak personally, because I appreciate exactly what

he went through and have to convey that to you and convey the

urgency of prosecuting these people, if they have done anything

wrong, and then allowing the scientists to continue to work on

their research, which is so essential to us.

I must tell you something which I think probably all of you

know. This controversy has slowed the research terribly. The 6-

year ban on support of fetal tissue transplantation research without question slowed the progress in developing that as a therapy

for Parkinson’s disease.

This hearing is somewhat surreal, and I think that is, in part,

why I misnamed you, Mr. Chairman, at the beginning. I felt a

sense of surrealness from the first moment, because it happens

that I first became involved 10 years ago when the question of lifting the ban on Federal support of the research was raised in this

committee, and at that time, obviously, I was doing much better

physically than I am now. Today is a good day for me, but I have

to tell you that yesterday I spent 6 hours in my hotel room when

I needed to finish my testimony in what I call my ‘‘tremor attacks,’’

where I was stiff and shaky, and it was next to impossible to leave

the room, much less really work and focus my attention on what

I had to do to get my testimony done.

Those are the moments when I know that, as much as I can be

in denial, and as much as I cling to the hope and the strong belief

that this therapy is going to be available for me, that there is a

strong possibility it won’t.

If this apparent wrongdoing leads to another ban of the research

being done by legitimate scientists, true heroes, it is most likely

that I will be out of luck, and I have to tell you that, because it

is essential that this investigation and then prosecution, if necessary, be swift and aggressive and focused.

We have no time to waste. I’m sure that’s true of people with

many other disorders who also will benefit from this research.

And so I thank you for your determination to focus and pursue

this aggressively, and I beg you to do that.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Joan I. Samuelson follows:]

61

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOAN I. SAMUELSON, PRESIDENT, PARKINSON’S ACTION

NETWORK

The Parkinson’s Action Network was created in 1991 to give voice to a community

that has been largely invisible, and to increase funding for Parkinson’s research in

an effort to speed research, deliver breakthroughs and cure this dreadful disease.

I want to express my profound concern about the potential impact of today’s hearing on medical research. Research using fetal tissue has produced lifesaving results.

Medical science has used fetal tissue for decades, producing such breakthroughs as

the polio vaccine. I am concerned that today’s hearing will have a chilling effect that

will slow, if not stop, vital medical research.

I worry that the real impact of today’s hearing will be to deter medical research

using fetal tissue —research that can increase our understanding, improve treatments and help identify cures for diseases such as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, cancer,

HIV, diabetes, SIDS, and other life threatening and disabling diseases.

Why should I care? I care because research—and in particular, research that uses

tissue from elective abortions— is my best hope for the future. I have Parkinson’s

disease and, at 15 years post-diagnosis, time is running out for me. When I wake

up in the morning, I must wait an hour or more for my medication to work. Until

it does—if it does—I am unable to get out of bed, get dressed, or do any of the myriad things required to allow me to be an active, productive, and independent citizen.

Some days it takes hours. Some day—perhaps very soon—it will not work at all.

I know I’ve already given up so much already—my law practice, running, hiking,

and dreams too difficult to talk about. I know what waits for me if medical science

doesn’t find a cure—the same slow death that robbed your colleague Mo Udall of

his life.

Let me be clear. If laws are being violated, then the full weight of the law should

be brought to bear on those individuals or companies. But the history suggests that

effective safeguards are in place and working.

In lifting the ban on fetal tissue transplantation research in 1993, Congress

adopted stringent safeguards to separate a woman’s decision to have an abortion

from the decision to donate the resulting tissue for medical research. This was done

to protect against any potential inducement of women to have abortions. The law

also established safeguards governing the sale of fetal tissue, and the solicitation

or acceptance of fetal tissue for use in transplantation.

The NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. §§ 289g-1 and 289g-2) (hereafter

known as ‘‘the Act’’) states clearly that it is:

‘‘unlawful for a person to ‘‘knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any

human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate

commerce.’’

The Act also prohibits a person from soliciting or accepting a donation of fetal tissue for transplantation under certain circumstances—specifically, it is prohibited if

a person who solicits or acquires the tissue pays ‘‘valuable consideration’’ for the

costs associated with the abortion.

Violation of the Act is a federal crime, punishable by fines, imprisonment up to

10 years, or both. The law does permit reimbursement for ‘‘reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.’’

As a way to ensure oversight, the Act also required the General Accounting Office

(GAO) to carry out a review of the research on fetal tissue transplantation conducted or supported by NIH to ‘‘(1) determine compliance with informed consent and

other documentation and (2) report on any violations occurring in the acquisition of

human fetal tissue for use in transplantation.’’

In 1997, the GAO reported to this Committee that ‘‘the requirements of the act

were being complied with.’’ The GAO found that the ongoing fetal tissue transplantation research projects met the eight requirements in the Act, including informed

consent of the donor, requiring statements from the attending physician and from

the principal researcher, informed consent of the recipient, availability of statements for audit, compliance with state law, annual HHS review, and tissue purchase and donation restrictions.

With regard to the sale of human tissue, the report concluded unequivocally that

‘‘there have been no reported violations in the acquisition of human fetal tissue for

use in transplantation,’’

But I worry that the discussion of unproven allegations that have not been properly investigated will imperil one of my best hopes for a cure. In the case of Parkinson’s, fetal tissue transplantation research is beginning to show positive results and

scientists are confident an effective treatment using transplanted cells will emerge.

62

I strongly support the safeguards in the Act that prohibit payments associated

with the receipt of fetal tissue from elective abortion except for reasonable expenses

occasioned by the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality

control, or storage of the tissue.

If the laws governing fetal tissue research are being violated, the individuals or

companies involved should and must be properly investigated and charged.

Cell implantation is one of the most promising approaches to brain repair for people like me who have Parkinson’s disease. Early results from trials of tissue transplantation have shown this to be a therapeutic strategy with great promise. Two

NIH-funded, placebo-controlled, surgical trials on fetal tissue transplants in patients

with advanced Parkinson’s are now underway. One of these studies has completed

its double-blind phase, and results will be submitted for publication soon. The other

should be completed in a year. More research in this area, not less, needs to be

done.

Congress has already debated and decided—overwhelmingly—to allow the use of

fetal tissue for transplantation and medical research. Each time it has done so with

a greater and greater majority of members—voting to lift the ban on fetal tissue

transplantation research and establish clear safeguards for the use of fetal tissue

for research in 1991, 1992, and in 1993 when the Congress finally adopted the provisions. In 1997, the Senate successfully defeated another effort to reimpose a ban

on fetal tissue transplantation.

I think it is important to remember what the debate was really about. It was not

a debate to settle the issue of abortion. What Congress had to decide was whether

it was acceptable public policy to use tissue obtained from legal abortion that would

otherwise be discarded to achieve significant medical goals. That is exactly what the

102nd and the 103rd Congress decided. Members like Majority Leader Bob Dole put

it most memorably: supporting fetal tissue transplantation research was the ‘‘true

‘pro-life’ position.’’

It is the responsibility of this Subcommittee to carry out the will of Congress

which has repeatedly demonstrated its support for fetal tissue research. The legislative history is clear on this point. Congress supports the collection of fetal tissue

under strict guidelines for medical research.

I am here today to plead with you to be cautious about the use of inflammatory

rhetoric that may confuse or distort the issues involved. The consequences could be

devastating to the million of Americans who suffer with Parkinson’s. Please do not

deprive us of our hope for a healthy future.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Ms. Samuelson.

Dr. Hannah C. Kinney is with the Division of Neuroscience with

John F. Enders Pediatric Research Laboratories, Boston, Massachusetts.

Dr. Kinney, please proceed.

TESTIMONY OF HANNAH C. KINNEY

Ms. KINNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Dr. Hannah Kinney. I am a pediatric neuropathologist at the Children’s Hospital in Boston and associate professor of neuropathology at Harvard Medical School. I am a committed investigator of diseases that affect human fetuses, premature babies, and infants. I am here today on behalf of the American Society for Cell Biology, which represents 10,000 basic biomedical researchers.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify in support of the use

of human fetal tissue in research.

For 10 years, I have used human fetal tissue in my research to

help decipher disease mechanisms in various perinatal brain disorders. This research is both funded by the National Institutes of

Health and approved by the Children’s Hospital’s Human Protection Committee. I and the researchers I work with strictly follow

Federal guidelines and laws governing fetal tissue research.

If there are those who are violating the law with regard to supplying fetal tissue, I support their prosecution, as provided by law.

63

At the same time, I hope my testimony shows that human fetal tissue research conducted within Federal guidelines can benefit public

health.

The main focus of my research is the sudden infant death syndrome, or SIDS. I would like to use the story of SIDS brain research in my laboratory to illustrate the importance of human fetal

tissue research.

SIDS is a major public health problem. It is the leading cause

of death of infants between 1 and 12 months of age in the United

States today, with an incidence of nearly one out of nearly every

thousand births.

A seemingly healthy baby is found dead after sleep period, an almost inexplicable tragedy for parents and families, yet the autopsy

reveals no answers.

While 90 percent of SIDS deaths occur in the first 6 months after

birth, the origins of SIDS are thought to begin in fetal life, and

thus, the study of the fetal period becomes critical in determining

the abnormal pathway that begins in the fetus and results in sudden death in the infant.

Evidence that SIDS begins in fetal life includes the association

of SIDS with maternal risk factors during pregnancy, such as anemia, cigarette smoking, late prenatal care, and short inter-pregnancy interval. All these factors suggest a suboptimal interuterine

environment may contribute to the development of SIDS.

In my laboratory, we are testing the hypothesis that SIDS is due

to developmental abnormality in brain stem regions that control

breathing and/or cardiac function during sleep.

We have learned in our laboratory that, at least in a portion of

SIDS victims, there are neurotransmitter deficiencies in regions of

the brain stem related to breathing, blood pressure, and sensing

carbon dioxide. Neurotransmitters are the chemical messengers

that send signals between brain cells within—between nerve cells

within the brain.

We have also learned that some of these regions may share a

common developmental origin in fetal life.

Now we need to know how do these brain regions develop abnormality in SIDS victims—develop abnormally in SIDS victims. The

answer is critical so that we can find ways to prevent these regions

from developing abnormally and we can, therefore, prevent SIDS,

and it is here that we turn to research in human fetal tissue.

We have now studied in human fetal tissue, one, how different

regions of the brain stem that we think are involved in SIDS are

inter-connected with one another in a network to transmit information; two, the time table over which synapses, the site of communication between nerve cells, form in fetal life; three, the time table

over which different neurotransmitter systems develop in fetal

brain stems related to networks at risk in SIDS; and, four, where

the relevant regions for SIDS originate in the fetal brain stem.

These developmental studies are relevant not only to understanding how brain cell development may go awry in SIDS, but

also to understanding multiple other brain disorders, such as cerebral palsy.

Recently, we have seen a decline in the incidence of SIDS due

to the back-to-sleep campaign with a reduction in SIDS deaths by

64

38 percent since 1994, the onset of the campaign in the United

States. My research in SIDS brain stems and in relevant human

fetal brain stem development was cited as a major contributing factor to the medical and scientific consensus that led to this campaign, as it provided solid biological evidence to support the theory

that babies are safer sleeping on their back.

The relevant human fetal research gave further insight into possible ways in which brain stem abnormalities could form during

fetal development in future SIDS victims and provided further validity of the abnormality in SIDS victims.

The SIDS story I have told you today illustrates how human fetal

research can have an impact on public health policy and saving

lives.

As you delve into the issue of how fetal tissue is supplied, I urge

you to proceed in such a way that you do no harm to the vital biomedical research that is enabled by this precious tissue.

Thank you for inviting my testimony. I will be glad to answer

questions. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Hannah C. Kinney follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HANNAH C. KINNEY, CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL OF BOSTON, ON

BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR CELL BIOLOGY

My name is Dr. Hannah Kinney. I am a pediatric neuropathologist at the Children’s Hospital in Boston, and an Associate Professor of Neuropathology, at the

Harvard Medical School. I am a committed investigator of diseases that affect

human fetuses, premature babies and infants. I am here today on behalf of the

American Society for Cell Biology, which represents 10,000 basic biomedical researchers. Thank you for this opportunity to testify in support of the use of human

fetal tissue in research.

For 10 years I have used human fetal tissue in my research to help decipher disease mechanisms in various perinatal brain disorders. This research is both funded

by the National Institutes of Health and approved by the Children’s Hospital

Human Protection Committee. I, and the researchers I work with strictly follow federal guidelines and laws governing fetal tissue research. If there are those who are

violating the law with regard to supplying fetal tissue, I support their prosecution

as provided by law. At the same time, I hope my testimony shows that human fetal

tissue research conducted within federal guidelines can benefit public health.

The main focus of my research is Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, or SIDS. I

would like to use the story of SIDS brain research in my laboratory to illustrate

the importance of human fetal tissue research.

SIDS is a major public health problem; it is the leading cause of death of infants

between one and twelve months of age in the United States today, with an incidence

of nearly one out of every 1000 births. A seemingly healthy baby is found dead after

a period of sleep, an almost unspeakable tragedy for parents and families. Yet the

autopsy reveals no answers. While 90% of SIDS deaths occur in the first six months

after birth, the origins of SIDS are thought to begin in fetal life, and thus the study

of the fetal period becomes critical to determining the abnormal pathway that begins in the fetus and results in sudden death after birth. Evidence that SIDS begins

in fetal life includes the association of SIDS with maternal risk factors during pregnancy, such as anemia, cigarette smoking, late prenatal care, and short interpregnancy interval. All these factors suggest a suboptimal intrauterine environment may

contribute to the development of SIDS.

In my laboratory, we are testing the hypothesis that SIDS, or a subset of SIDS,

is due to a developmental abnormality in brainstem regions that control breathing

and/or cardiac function during sleep. We have learned that in at least a portion of

SIDS victims, there are neurotransmitter deficiencies in regions of the brainstem related to breathing, blood pressure control, and sensing carbon dioxide.

Neurotransmitters are the chemical messengers that send signals between nerve

cells within the brain. We also learned that some of these regions may share a common developmental origin in fetal life.

Now we need to know: How do these brain regions develop abnormally in SIDS

victims? The answer is critical so that we can find ways to prevent these regions

65

from developing abnormally, and we can therefore prevent SIDS. And it is here that

we turn to research in human fetal tissue. We have now studied in human fetal tissue: 1) how different regions of the brainstem that we think are involved in SIDS

are interconnected with one another in a network to transmit information; 2) the

time-table over which synapses, the site of communication between nerve cells, form

in fetal life; 3) the time-table over which different neurotransmitter systems develop

in fetal brainstems related to networks at risk in SIDS; and 4) where the relevant

regions for SIDS originate in the fetal brainstem. These developmental studies are

relevant not only to understanding how brainstem development may go awry in

SIDS, but also to understanding multiple other fetal brain disorders, such as cerebral palsy.

Recently we have seen a decline in the incidence of SIDS due to the Back to Sleep

campaign, with a reduction in infant deaths by 38% since 1994, the onset of the

campaign in the United States. My research in SIDS brainstems and relevant

human fetal brainstem development was cited as a major contributing factor to the

medical and scientific consensus that led to this campaign as it provided solid biologic evidence to support the theory that babies are safer sleeping on their back. The

relevant human fetal research gave further insight into possible ways in which

brainstem abnormalities could form during fetal development in future SIDS victims, and provided further validity of the abnormality in SIDS victims. The SIDS

story I have told you today illustrates how human fetal research can have an impact

on public health policy and saving lives.

As you delve into the issue of how fetal tissue is supplied, I urge you to proceed

in such a way that you do not harm the vital biomedical research that is enabled

by this precious tissue.

Thank you for inviting my testimony. I will be glad to answer questions.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Dr. Kinney.

I will start the questioning. The rules provide for 5 minutes of

inquiries on the part of the members of this subcommittee, and we

are going to follow that rule. After we have gone through once, I

am amenable to a second round. I think it is probably very significant that we do that, because 5 minutes goes by pretty fast. But

I would ask the members to please try to adhere to that 5-minute

rule.

Dr. Cohen, Ms. Samuelson, Dr. Kinney, you have basically focused all of your comments on research, and we cannot belittle

that. There is no question about it, and we appreciate those comments.

I might add, Ms. Samuelson, that you are right. There is no

question that what has been happening here, whether it be just a

single instance, which I think all of us doubt, or more, will hurt

research. But I would like to suggest that, along with the research,

that the unborn little babies are also victims, and I think you

would agree with that.

Ms. Samuelson, I also am not sure whether you are aware of it.

I know you are from California, but my youngest brother died with

Parkinson’s, so I have lived with it, too, and I have seen what it

can do. I guess he lived for the cure, and he was convinced that

fetal tissue was very significant in that cure.

But I would ask you, do you any of you have any knowledge

about whether fetal tissue is being bought and sold in violation of

the law? Because, you know, that is the focus—not to belittle your

remarks. Please do not take it that way, but the focus of this hearing is whether it is being bought and sold in violation of Federal

law.

In addition to what you have shared with us, you’re in a position

to give us your opinions in that regard.

Dr. Cohen?

66

Mr. COHEN. Certainly, with regard to the experience at Nebraska, we do not pay for any of the tissue that we obtained. Also,

I can only speak for those that I have spoken with directly that are

involved with such research at other institutions, and I’m not

aware of any examples where they are buying tissue, or, if they

are, they are paying a minimal processing fee. So I’m not aware of

any examples such as have been talked about today.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Did you see the ‘‘20/20’’ report last night?

Mr. COHEN. Yes, I did.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Were you shocked?

Mr. COHEN. Yes.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Was that something that you——

Mr. COHEN. I would not support that and I can’t imagine any scientist supporting that kind of behavior.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. But you haven’t experienced it or know of any

other scientists or researchers who——

Mr. COHEN. No.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. [continuing] have talked about it or experienced

it?

Mr. COHEN. Not at all.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Ms. Samuelson?

Ms. SAMUELSON. Obviously, I’m not a scientist, and so my understanding is, necessarily, second-hand, but—and I’m glad I’m under

oath, frankly.

I spend a lot of time talking to scientists, and I have never heard

of anything that sounded like anything that would ever have violated any of the restrictions of any of the laws, and I can’t imagine

that going on among the scientists that I have had any acquaintance with.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. So you saw the ‘‘20/20’’——

Ms. SAMUELSON. Yes.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. [continuing] piece last night. But you don’t believe

it?

Ms. SAMUELSON. I can’t imagine the scientists that I have come

to know engaging in anything like that. It seems light years away

from anything that is—that they would be able to imagine participating in. It seemed like it was just a totally different sort of person.

The scientists I know would not do that.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Dr. Kinney?

Ms. KINNEY. I have no knowledge of any scientists that I am involved with that have ever participated in this kind of thing, never

seen brochures for this kind of selling of tissue.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. You haven’t seen any brochures that were featured in the report on ‘‘20/20’’ last night?

Ms. KINNEY. No.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. You haven’t seen them?

Ms. KINNEY. I saw the ‘‘20/20’’ expose. I thought it was despicable. And I’ve never seen anything of that nature or know of any

colleagues who have been involved in this.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Now, in just the few minutes, few seconds that I

have left, Mr. Alberty, any reaction to their comments regarding

the fact that they’re not aware that any of this has taken place?

Mr. ALBERTY. No comments, sir.

67

Mr. BILIRAKIS. No comments. But you reiterate that it does take

place. You reiterate that there is a market out there, because you

have seen it, and so somebody is paying for this tissue above and

beyond what the law allows.

Mr. ALBERTY. That is totally correct, sir.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Okay. My time has expired.

Mr. Brown, for those of you who are not aware, he was in a pretty bad accident driving in the snow of Cleveland. For that to happen to me, it could be understandable, because I’m a Floridian, but

for that to happen to him, being a Clevelander—but, in any case,

he has been out for quite a while and showing a whole lot of courage to be here today.

Mr. BROWN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. You are recognized sir.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you for all those condolences, both on my father and on my injury, from so many of you, and your kind words

and thoughts. It meant an awful lot to my whole family. Thank you

for that.

I would like to yield my 5 minutes to Ms. DeGette, my friend.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you.

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.

Brown. It is good to have you back, really good.

Let me ask a couple of questions.

First of all, Ms. Fredericks, are you personally familiar with the

buying or selling—the illegal buying or selling of fetal tissue?

Ms. FREDERICKS. I have seen the price list. I don’t know what—

what do you mean by——

Ms. DEGETTE. You mean you’ve seen the price list that was on

‘‘20/20’’ last night?

Ms. FREDERICKS. Yes.

Ms. DEGETTE. Are you familiar with anybody who has actually

bought fetal tissue at those prices, or what the extent would be?

Ms. FREDERICKS. No.

Ms. DEGETTE. Okay. Thank you. I’m trying to figure out what

the scope of this is, because, as I say, you know, if that is happening, we’ve got to put a stop to it. We’ve got to put a stop to it

right now. I’m just trying to figure out the scope.

Now, Ms. Fredericks, to also get this chronology a little clearer,

as far as I have been told, Dr. Jones, who is not here today, he

worked for the Anatomical Gift Foundation for a period of time; is

that correct?

Ms. FREDERICKS. Not to my knowledge. He is a separate business.

Ms. DEGETTE. Okay. But before he started his own business,

were you aware he worked for them?

Ms. FREDERICKS. No.

Ms. DEGETTE. Mr. Alberty, did you know that?

Mr. ALBERTY. No, ma’am. I was not aware of that. As far as I

know, he never did work for AGF.

Ms. DEGETTE. They were—in your view, they were totally separate?

Mr. ALBERTY. They were totally separate, ma’am.

Ms. DEGETTE. I see. Okay.

68

Mr. Alberty, I’d like to ask you just a couple of things.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I know we have the affidavit that Mr.

Alberty signed on January 20, 2000. To complete the record, I’d ask

unanimous consent to also put in for the record the videotape, the

Life Dynamics videotape which this affidavit was a response to. I’d

also like unanimous consent to put into the record Mr. Alberty’s

deposition of January 5, 2000. As I’ve said, we’ve already got——

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Any objection to that?

Mr. BILBRAY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. The gentleman is recognized.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I don’t believe the deposition has

been made available fully to this side, and I would reserve the

right to object until I had an opportunity to see the deposition.

Ms. DEGETTE. Well, we——

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Could we maybe circulate the affidavit and the

deposition and possibly you may withhold your motion.

Ms. DEGETTE. Sure. I intend to refer to them in the questions.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, can I ask questions of the minority

on this request?

Mr. BILIRAKIS. No. I don’t know——

Ms. DEGETTE. On his own time, I’d be happy to——

Mr. BILBRAY. I’d be happy to do it on my own time.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I don’t know that we should do that at this point

in time. I should think you can refer to the affidavit, even though

it is not a part of it.

Ms. DEGETTE. But the affidavit has been accepted, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. That has been accepted. All right. It’s the deposition that we’re trying to get in?

Ms. DEGETTE. That’s correct. Yes.

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman——

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Have you withdrawn, then, your motion?

Ms. DEGETTE. I’ll reserve mine.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. You’ll reserve your motion. All right.

Ms. DEGETTE. All right.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. So you’ll withdraw your reservations at this

point?

Ms. DEGETTE. Mr. Alberty, just a couple of things. Let me ask

you the same thing I asked Ms. Fredericks. I know you’ve seen that

price list. I know you have been involved with fetal tissue retrieval

for some number of years. I understand you’re not doing that now;

is that right?

Mr. ALBERTY. That is correct, ma’am.

Ms. DEGETTE. And my question to you is: are you aware of people buying this fetal tissue for profit, or paying profit-type prices

for it?

Mr. ALBERTY. Am I aware that people were buying the tissue?

Ms. DEGETTE. Yes.

Mr. ALBERTY. I’m not sure if this is in your question, but I

was——

Ms. DEGETTE. Well, please try to answer my question. I only

have 5 minutes.

Mr. ALBERTY. Okay. Yes. I’ll try.

Ms. DEGETTE. Thanks.

69

Mr. ALBERTY. I was not—I do not know the people that were

buying it, on a personal level. When I was a technician, researchers

would call me and ask me what type of tissue was available for the

day. They wouldn’t go through the Bardsleys, because sometimes

they couldn’t be reached, so they would call me and I would talk

to them and tell them what we had.

Ms. DEGETTE. Did you discuss prices with them?

Mr. ALBERTY. No, ma’am.

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you. Now, let me ask you a couple of questions. Do you have a copy of your affidavit there, sir?

Mr. ALBERTY. No, ma’am, I sure do not.

Ms. DEGETTE. Okay. If we can have that given to him—now, you

are under oath today. You understand that.

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. DEGETTE. And this affidavit, it was signed January 20th.

Was that your affidavit that you signed?

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. DEGETTE. And you were under oath when you signed that

affidavit; is that correct?

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. DEGETTE. Okay. Thanks. Let me just ask you—and is everything in this affidavit truthful?

Mr. ALBERTY. Can I have a moment to look over?

Ms. DEGETTE. Sure.

Mr. Chairman, I see my time has officially expired, even though

some was taken up by the majority. I ask unanimous consent he

be allowed to read this affidavit, then I’ll ask him my questions

on——

Mr. BILIRAKIS. On your own time. All right. That being the case,

we’ll switch back over to this side, then.

Mr. Upton, I believe?

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I don’t know. I’ve not seen this affidavit until just now. I don’t

know that anybody on our side has seen it. I don’t know if I’m taking your time, but I just see one statement, Mr. Alberty, that you

write, ‘‘I have no personal knowledge of any instances in which an

employer of mine charged any fees or received compensation for retrieving fetal tissue in violation of any of these laws.’’ Does that not

contradict what you just said a few minutes ago?

Mr. ALBERTY. I don’t believe it does. What number are you reading?

Mr. UPTON. Point No. 4.

Mr. ALBERTY. ‘‘I am generally familiar with the State and Federal laws. I have no personal knowledge of any instance in which

an employer of mine charged any fees or received compensation.’’

When I—I don’t know the laws.

Mr. UPTON. But you called the FBI, though, right? Is that not

right?

Mr. ALBERTY. I called the FBI in because I could not call the

local law enforcement because the local law enforcement at that

time and the city works very closely with the clinic. And if you

have the whole thing about what really happened in this situation,

the reason why I called the FBI, it wasn’t that I knew that there

70

was any laws governing the for-sale or not-for-sale of tissue. It

dealt with a different matter.

Mr. UPTON. I had the sense when you testified, when you called

the FBI that you were aware of the illegality of selling fetal tissue

for profit, which is what this hearing was designed to focus on, and

that you were called—I had the impression, maybe a mistaken impression, that you were, in essence, reporting the sale of tissue, as

you did last night on ‘‘20/20,’’ and you wanted some involvement.

Is that not—was that not——

Mr. ALBERTY. That wasn’t the case, the reason why I called the

FBI.

Mr. UPTON. Why—can you tell us why you called the FBI?

Mr. ALBERTY. Chairman, may I speak freely?

Mr. BILIRAKIS. He has the time. Yes, you can certainly.

Mr. ALBERTY. The reason why I called the FBI was 1 day that

I did see two twin fetuses at 24-plus gestational weeks born out

alive and brought back to me in a metal pan. Upon the person removing the drape and showed me what it was, it very much disturbed me to the point where I did not know what to do.

In my eyes, seeing two twin fetuses moving and kicking and

breathing in a pan really upset me. I’m not a doctor. I’ve never,

ever claimed to be a doctor, and I couldn’t tell you if these twins

had any genetic problems. All I saw was they were untouched,

meaning there was no clamp marks on them, they weren’t bleeding, they were two twins cuddling each other in front of me. And

I walked out the door.

Mr. UPTON. I appreciate your answer.

Mr. ALBERTY. And that’s the reason why I contacted the FBI. I’m

sorry if the things weren’t too clear.

Mr. UPTON. So did you know at any point during your practice

that, in fact, it was illegal to sell the tissue for profit?

Mr. ALBERTY. No, sir. I was led to believe everything was on the

up and up. If I would have known that there was anything illegal,

I would not have worked this job. And, frankly, I wish to God I

never would have.

Mr. UPTON. I understand.

Dr. Cohen, you said a little bit earlier, in questioning from Chairman Bilirakis, that you are not aware of any other institution or

scientist that purchased the material or paid a profit for this material; is that right?

Mr. COHEN. Correct.

Mr. UPTON. I was—I know all of us that watched the report last

night were deeply shocked and that’s one of the reasons we voted

unanimously to subpoena and hold in contempt Dr. Jones. Do you

think that there is—as you deal with the University of Nebraska,

that is, obviously, a public institution. Do you think that there is

a difference, perhaps, in the scientific community between public

and private institutions, in terms of the way that they might deal

with this issue?

Mr. COHEN. Not that I’m aware of. Obviously, I don’t know all

of the institutions, but, as an example, Dr. Kinney here is from a

private institution.

Mr. UPTON. And, Dr. Kinney, you had the same answer as Dr.

Cohen, that you were not aware?

71

Ms. KINNEY. That’s right.

Mr. UPTON. I see my time is up.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Waxman to inquire?

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Nobody on this panel would support in any way the idea of profiting from the sale of fetal tissue. Let’s just make that very, very

clear. But three witnesses, or at least the two researchers, don’t

know of any evidence of it. The General Accounting Office reported

to Congress in 1997 that there had been no reported violations in

the acquisition of human fetal tissue for use in transplantation.

So the evidence that we have is from Mr. Alberty and Dr. Jones.

Dr. Jones is not here. If Dr. Jones’ statements were correct, then

I hope that he will be prosecuted.

Mr. Alberty, you seem so disturbed at this whole process. Do you

feel that we ought to stop fetal tissue transplant research completely? Do you think it is immoral?

Mr. ALBERTY. I do not think it is immoral, but you need to understand that people who own companies like this need to be held

accountable for it. You need to locate the consent. You need to control the consent. You need to control the surrounding environment

that you are working in.

Mr. WAXMAN. If we make sure that everybody is following the

law, which means they cannot sell fetal tissue and they cannot

have an abortion for the purpose of directing fetal tissue for a

transplant, and if they do all the consents that are required by the

law, do you have a moral objection? Do you feel it is improper?

Mr. ALBERTY. I have a moral objection when you deliver lateterm abortion fetuses out alive and you destroy them, outright

alive, for the sole purpose of research.

Mr. WAXMAN. Let me ask Dr. Cohen, because NIH has told us

that the research involves early tissue, not late-term tissue, because that’s the best tissue for transplantation. Is that your understanding?

Mr. COHEN. That’s my understanding also. In fact, the research

at our institution is in first or second trimester abortions only, does

not include anything beyond 20 weeks.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Alberty, you did a videotape, as I understand

it, and you were paid by an anti-abortion organization. Is that

true?

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes.

Mr. WAXMAN. And you stated in that videotape your belief that

fetal research groups are engaging in illegal profiteering. But then

in your sworn affidavit you stated, ‘‘I’m generally familiar with the

State and Federal laws that limit the ability to charge fees for tissue procurement. I have no personal knowledge of any instances in

which an employer of mine charged any fees or received compensation for retrieving fetal tissue in violation of any of these laws.’’

That was your statement under oath.

Mr. ALBERTY. Right.

Mr. WAXMAN. But your statement on the tape was different.

Your statement for which you received compensation to do this

video was, ‘‘Clinic doctors would alter the types of abortion procedures that they performed in order to deliver certain types of fetal

72

tissue.’’ But then, when you were under oath in your deposition

and your sworn affadavit, you told a different story. You said, ‘‘I

know of no instances in which a doctor was asked or otherwise decided to perform a different type of abortion procedure solely for

the purposes of obtaining fetal tissue.’’

On this videotape, you alleged you witnessed several incidents in

which women changed their minds about whether to have an abortion and then were pressured by the clinic staff to go through with

the abortion. Yet in your sworn affidavit you stated you only knew

of one such incident in which a woman changed her mind, and with

regard to that incident, you had ‘‘No knowledge of whether she had

changed her mind after the point at which the procedure could not

be reversed for medical or other reasons.’’

And then in the videotape you said that you were knowledgeable

about how abortion procedures are performed, but in your sworn

deposition you conceded you’ve never even seen an abortion being

performed.

These are a lot of contradictory statements.

Mr. ALBERTY. Right.

Mr. WAXMAN. You said in your opening——

Mr. ALBERTY. I would go by my——

Mr. WAXMAN. We want to go by truth. What is the truth?

Mr. ALBERTY. I would go by my deposition.

Mr. WAXMAN. So your statements under oath seem to contradict

your statements that you gave for purposes of a propaganda piece

in which you appeared and were paid for appearing by an antiabortion organization. Is that an accurate statement?

Mr. ALBERTY. That is an accurate statement. When I was under

oath I told the truth. Anything I said on the video when I’m not

under oath, that is a different story.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. The gentleman’s time has expired. I think we

could probably get some clarification later.

Mr. Greenwood to inquire?

Mr. GREENWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me try to follow

up on that line of—I watched—my staff provided me with the videotape by Life Dynamics yesterday. I witnessed what I thought—

appeared to be a woman in a green dress with long brown hair.

Was that you?

Mr. ALBERTY. I had the hair. I don’t remember having a dress.

Mr. GREENWOOD. I think I would remember.

Mr. ALBERTY. I was a little under stress for the first time of

going——

Mr. GREENWOOD. So you’re not sure whether you were wearing

a dress or not during this tape?

Mr. ALBERTY. No. But I did wear a wig.

Mr. GREENWOOD. You did wear a wig.

Mr. ALBERTY. I did wear a wig, and it was a red wig.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Okay. In your affidavit you say, ‘‘Life Dynamics

may have changed some of my answers, and it is possible that Life

Dynamics substituted another person in my place during portions

of the videotape, as it has been circulated.’’

I don’t—you say, ‘‘I do not know if the videotape is reliable or

correct.’’ Why did you feel compelled to make that statement in

73

your affidavit? Do you have reason to believe that, in fact, Life Dynamics changed your answers and substituted another person in

your place? And do you have reason to believe that the videotape

is not reliable or correct?

Mr. ALBERTY. I have never seen the videotape until today. When

I was sworn in to give my testimony, they only showed me basically 14 minutes of it, and they asked me, under oath, ‘‘Is that

you?’’ And I said, ‘‘Well, I don’t know.’’ And they said, ‘‘Well, can

you prove that you don’t know that it’s not you?’’ Basically, my response is that Life Dynamics was trying to keep me so well-hidden

from everybody, my identity, that they may have gone back and

put someone else in their spot and dubbed my voice. So I could not

be 100 percent sure. Was that me? Was that my voice? But the

thing I saw today was me.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Was you?

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes.

Mr. GREENWOOD. There’s a portion of the videotape that says

that you witnessed 30 to 40 third trimester abortions a week; is

that true or false?

Mr. ALBERTY. Sir, that is based on—it’s true, but that’s not every

single week. Weeks differ. I mean, that would be the high end. Low

end could be 12.

Mr. GREENWOOD. I’m sorry. I thought you just testified to the

fact that you had not witnessed any abortions.

Mr. ALBERTY. No. I’m going by what—the specimens come back

into the room.

Mr. GREENWOOD. The question I asked you is: in the portion of

the videotape, is the portion of the videotape false that says that

the doctors—excuse me, is the portion of the videotape false that

says you witnessed 30 to 40 third trimester abortions a week.

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes, sir. I’m sorry. I misunderstood.

Mr. GREENWOOD. That’s false?

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes. That’s false.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Is the portion of the videotape false that says

that doctors would either break the necks of a fetus of gestational

age from 16 to 30 weeks or beat it with a pair of tongs? Is that

true or false?

Mr. ALBERTY. I did not witness that, so that would be false. I

only heard of that.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Did you say that on the videotape?

Mr. ALBERTY. I believe so. Yes.

Mr. GREENWOOD. How much were you paid to make this videotape?

Mr. ALBERTY. I believe $400.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Four hundred dollars?

Mr. ALBERTY. I believe.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Why did you take a payment to make the videotape?

Mr. ALBERTY. I didn’t know how long I would be around to even

bring this to a committee or how it would turn out. When I went

down there, that was the sole purpose. It was, like, you know, they

would promise to disguise me. I was disguised. I would go down

there, and payment——

74

Mr. GREENWOOD. I’m asking you why—did you ask for $400? Did

you ask for payment in order to make this video, or was it offered

to you by the makers of the video? How did that happen?

Mr. ALBERTY. It was offered.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Okay. And why did you accept payment to

make this video?

Mr. ALBERTY. I needed the money.

Mr. GREENWOOD. You needed the money.

Is it false when the videotape alleges that doctors modified abortion procedures solely for the purpose of obtaining fetal tissue?

Mr. ALBERTY. No, that is not false.

Mr. GREENWOOD. That’s a true statement?

Mr. ALBERTY. That is a true statement.

Mr. GREENWOOD. How do you know that?

Mr. ALBERTY. How I know that that is true is that AGF supplied

syringes to the clinic. You normally have a jar which is used, or,

as in the ‘‘20/20’’ thing, where Ross Capps clarifies a syringe, is

that the syringe is used in the more lengthy procedure to draw out

the fetus at an early trimester, and that way you get more of an

intact fetus. It is a better specimen for the researchers.

Mr. GREENWOOD. You said in your statement that you were a

fetal tissue procurement tech.

Mr. ALBERTY. That’s correct.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Were you ever trained to do that?

Mr. ALBERTY. I was trained by Ross Capps.

Mr. GREENWOOD. And what did that training consist of? Did it

consist of any training in the law?

Mr. ALBERTY. No. Nothing in the law.

Mr. GREENWOOD. What did the training consist of?

Mr. ALBERTY. The training consisted of——

Mr. BILIRAKIS. The gentleman may respond, and then the time

is up.

Mr. ALBERTY. I’m sorry.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Go ahead. No, please respond to that question.

Mr. ALBERTY. The training consisted of on the job, when I was

there, of them bringing back a huge plate—a placenta, blood clot—

and showing me how to shift through all the stuff that was in there

in order to find limbs, liver, pancreas, kidneys—what to look for,

what the identification markers were in all that mess.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Thank you.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Ms. Eshoo to inquire.

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

How long did you spend making this tape?

Mr. ALBERTY. I don’t really realize the timeframe that it took to

make the tape. From the time I got in the car to go to the airport

to the time that we were there, I——

Ms. ESHOO. Actual taping of the tape.

Mr. ALBERTY. I’m not totally sure, ma’am.

Ms. ESHOO. You’re not totally sure.

Mr. ALBERTY. I didn’t look at my watch.

Ms. ESHOO. Approximately? Do you know approximately?

Mr. ALBERTY. Approximately——

Ms. ESHOO. Was it 45 minutes? Was it 2 hours? What was it

around? You don’t know?

75

Mr. ALBERTY. I’m sorry, ma’am. I don’t.

Ms. ESHOO. And the only amount of money that you earned was $400?

Mr. ALBERTY. I believe that is correct, ma’am.

Ms. ESHOO. And you are the Kelly on the tape?

Mr. ALBERTY. That is correct, ma’am.

Ms. ESHOO. Even though you don’t remember what you wore?

Mr. ALBERTY. That is correct.

Ms. ESHOO. Does that tape that you listened to contain any false

information?

Mr. ALBERTY. That is correct.

Ms. ESHOO. What is correct?

Mr. ALBERTY. That the tape——

Ms. ESHOO. It does?

Mr. ALBERTY. That your other people discussed, it did contain

false information.

Ms. ESHOO. It does contain false information—and have you notified Life Dynamics of the inconsistencies?

Mr. ALBERTY. No, ma’am, I did not.

Ms. ESHOO. You have not. Are you willing to contact ‘‘20/20’’ to

tell them that there are inconsistencies in the story that tore across

the country?

Mr. ALBERTY. The ‘‘20/20’’ episode did not take anything from the

Kelly interview, so there was no inconsistencies with that.

Ms. ESHOO. What’s your relationship with Life Dynamics today?

Mr. ALBERTY. There is no relationship with Life Dynamics today.

They were people that helped me through this process. I was never

in this for the money, but the money was offered for compensation

to help bring this story forward. I mean, it wasn’t a great amount

of money. I’m not rich. I’m so poor it’s pathetic.

Ms. ESHOO. Do you know anything about the organization? Did

you research anything about the organization——

Mr. ALBERTY. No, ma’am, I did not——

Ms. ESHOO. [continuing] before accepting their invitation to tape

for $400?

Mr. ALBERTY. I did not research their corporation.

Ms. ESHOO. Are you aware of anything about the organization

whatsoever?

Mr. ALBERTY. No, ma’am. All I know is they are pro life.

Ms. ESHOO. May I ask you what your occupation is today?

Mr. ALBERTY. My occupation today is I work for an organization

that procures organ and tissue retrieval for transplants.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I don’t think the committee is in

order. I think that this is a very important point.

The gentleman testified earlier that he was so repulsed by what

he experienced, and I just asked him what his occupation is today.

Would you restate that, please?

Mr. ALBERTY. My occupation today is I work for a tissue transplant service. That is not fetal tissue. It is adult tissue. If you died

and you donated your organs for transplant, we——

Ms. ESHOO. How long did you work in the setting that you have

spoken of previous to this position?

Mr. ALBERTY. The fetal tissue?

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. How many years?

76

Mr. ALBERTY. I would guess probably about 3 years.

Ms. ESHOO. Three years?

Mr. ALBERTY. I’m guessing.

Ms. ESHOO. I thought there was one that said from 1995 to 1999.

Mr. ALBERTY. That is not a total consistency, like, where I

worked.

Ms. ESHOO. Do you have, Mr. Alberty, any knowledge or recollec- tion of a check made out to you, Dean Alberty, for $1,250 from Life

Dynamics dated January 11, 2000? Do you have any recollection of

that?

Mr. ALBERTY. Ma’am, there were checks that were written out to

me. If there is a check, then yes, I do recollect that, but I don’t——

Ms. ESHOO. You do recollect it?

Mr. ALBERTY. I don’t know exactly what all the checks right now

were for.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Alberty, you’re under oath.

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes, ma’am. I realize that.

Ms. ESHOO. All right. Now, you said under oath that you had re- ceived $400 to do this so-called ‘‘Kelly tape.’’ There is a check here

from December 23, 1999, from Life Dynamics, Incorporated, in the

amount of $600 made out to you, another one, as I said, January

11 of this year. Do you have any recollection, or you just get checks

and you don’t remember the amounts?

Mr. ALBERTY. I don’t remember the amounts, what the checks

were for.

Ms. ESHOO. Another check from Life Dynamics, Incorporated, for $300, November 8, 1999. Do you have any recollection of that?

Mr. ALBERTY. I don’t have a recollection of what the check was

for.

Ms. ESHOO. Do you have any recollection of a check dated De- cember 15, 1999, for $500 made out to Dean Alberty?

Mr. ALBERTY. I do not. I mean, I know that these checks were

made to me——

Ms. ESHOO. Do you have any recollection of a check from December 16 for $500 from the same organization made out to you?

Mr. ALBERTY. No, ma’am, I do not have recollection.

Ms. ESHOO. May 3, $2,607.83 from Life Dynamics, Incorporated,

made out to you. It seems to me that you’ve been doing an awful

lot of work for Life Dynamics.

Another check from Life Dynamics for $250, July 28, 1999, made

out to you. Do you recollect that check?

Mr. ALBERTY. I do not.

Ms. ESHOO. Well——

Mr. ALBERTY. I know all these checks—if you have them

there——

Ms. ESHOO. These are all copies.

Mr. ALBERTY. Right. I believe that you are right.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. The gentlelady’s time has expired. Are we at the

point where maybe you can yield back, and we’ll go back another

round.

Ms. ESHOO. Well, if my time has expired, I’ll wait for——

Mr. BILIRAKIS. All right. That being the case——

Ms. ESHOO. What were these for?

Just one more question, Mr. Chairman.

77

What are all these checks for?

Mr. ALBERTY. Those checks could be for numerous things.

Ms. ESHOO. What have you done for——

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Brief response, please.

Mr. ALBERTY. Response?

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Brief response. Yes.

Mr. ALBERTY. The checks could be for numerous things. It could

be either for me going to conventions, it could be for——

Ms. ESHOO. Are you on their payroll?

Mr. ALBERTY. You have the checks there. I was—I didn’t have

taxes taken out.

Ms. ESHOO. I’m the Member of the Congress.

Mr. ALBERTY. Right.

Ms. ESHOO. And you’re supposed to answer my questions.

Mr. ALBERTY. Right. I’m sorry.

Ms. ESHOO. So it’s not the other way around.

Mr. ALBERTY. I’m sorry.

Ms. ESHOO. All right. You have no recollection why you received

all of these checks?

Mr. ALBERTY. For work that I did for them.

Ms. ESHOO. Work that you have done for them?

Mr. BILIRAKIS. The gentlelady’s time has expired.

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Deal?

Mr. DEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would, first of all, like to ask that the Opening Lines’ fee schedule of services and two brochures, the advertisement in ‘‘Science

Magazine’’ by Opening Lines, and the draft promotional material

from Opening Lines be made a part of the record. I ask unanimous

consent.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Is there objection?

Ms. DEGETTE. I certainly want a complete record, and, therefore,

I will not object.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. That being the case, then so be it.

[The information referred to follows:]

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

Mr. DEAL. Thank you.

Dr. Kinney and Dr. Cohen, have you had an opportunity to examine the fee schedules that were in this published material from

Opening Lines?

Mr. COHEN. I’m not aware of them.

Ms. KINNEY. No, I have not.

Mr. DEAL. Do either of you hold positions in your institutions

that are in charge and responsible for procuring fetal tissue? Do either of you, in effect, have hands-on, personal responsibility for or

knowledge of the procurement process?

Mr. COHEN. I do not.

Ms. KINNEY. No.

Mr. DEAL. So when you answered before the questions about

whether or not institutes or abortion clinics or others would pay for

this material, you have no personal knowledge because you’re not

involved in that; is that correct?

Mr. COHEN. I’m certainly familiar with the documentation from

the university, and I’ve spoken with all of the individuals involved,

including the investigators and those in administration.

Mr. DEAL. Okay. And you’ve spoken to them about what?

Mr. COHEN. About the issue of the—whether anything has been

paid to the clinic for these tissues. They’ve also made public statements about this, as well, those that are involved with us.

Mr. DEAL. Is anything being paid?

Mr. COHEN. No.

Mr. DEAL. So all of the material that you get is donated material?

Mr. COHEN. Yes.

Mr. DEAL. No fees, whatsoever?

Mr. COHEN. Correct.

Mr. DEAL. How about that, Dr. Kinney?

Ms. KINNEY. That’s the same in my situation. I mean, I’m a researcher that uses fetal research—I mean, fetal tissue, so I get the

fetal tissue through the pathology department from tissues that

come through the obstetrical department, and I do not pay for it,

and it has been approved by the Human Protection Committee.

Mr. DEAL. Does your institution pay for it, though?

Ms. KINNEY. No, it does not.

Mr. DEAL. And it does not receive any from outside sources; is

that correct?

Ms. KINNEY. That’s my understanding. Yes, that’s correct.

Mr. DEAL. Dr. Cohen, yours does receive from outside sources,

but no payment is made; is that correct?

Mr. COHEN. Correct.

Ms. KINNEY. And let me just make one clarification. I also get

fetal tissue from the University of Washington, which has a fetal

tissue source that’s funded by the NICHD and has a fee for procurement, which is $100.

Mr. DEAL. A set fee in every instance?

Ms. KINNEY. A set fee in every instance.

Mr. DEAL. All right. So when we see a fee schedule that delineates different fees for different body parts, you are not familiar

with that approach to the——

Ms. KINNEY. No.

87

Mr. DEAL. [continuing] collection of fetal tissue? Is that what

you’re saying?

Ms. KINNEY. Yes.

Mr. DEAL. Yes.

Ms. KINNEY. Not at all.

Mr. DEAL. Have you ever been aware that, within the research

community, that these kind of fee schedules are being used by people providing fetal tissue?

Ms. KINNEY. No.

Mr. COHEN. No. The only awareness that I have is situations like

Dr. Kinney just spoke of with the University of Washington, where

there is a set fee for processing and procurement. We don’t happen

to take advantage of that, but that’s the only fee schedule that I’ve

ever seen.

Mr. DEAL. So neither of you are familiar with any fetal tissue

that is coming from abortion clinics? Is that what I understand?

Ms. KINNEY. That’s right.

Mr. COHEN. Not being paid for, at least.

Ms. KINNEY. Not being paid for in this way.

Mr. DEAL. So—well, are you aware if any are coming from abortion clinics?

Mr. COHEN. Our tissue comes from an abortion clinic.

Mr. DEAL. Okay. Let me ask Mr. Alberty, you have been asked

about this affidavit. As I understand, you were sued by your employer—what was the name of the employer?

Mr. ALBERTY. Anatomic Gift Foundation.

Mr. DEAL. Yes. They sued you after you left their employment;

is that correct?

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes. Months after I left.

Mr. DEAL. They sued you for breach of contract, which I assume

related to a contract of employment not to divulge information relating to your employment with them; is that correct?

Mr. ALBERTY. That is correct, and the other part was that I

would not operate my own business——

Mr. DEAL. In competition with them.

Mr. ALBERTY. [continuing] in competition. We were doing umbilical cord and foreskins and they had found out, and plus they had

leaked that information knowing that I was working with Life Dynamics, and that’s when they put a lawsuit over on me.

Mr. DEAL. And the affidavit that has been introduced here and

that you’ve been questioned about and the deposition that has been

alluded to were all a product of the settlement of that civil action;

is that correct?

Mr. ALBERTY. That is correct, sir.

Mr. DEAL. And was this affidavit prepared by your attorney or

by their attorney?

Mr. ALBERTY. I believe it was put together by their attorney.

Mr. DEAL. Thank you.

Mr. ALBERTY. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. Stupak?

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We’re here, the issue being fetal tissue being bought and sold for

profit in violation of Federal law, so I’d like to try to put my questions along those lines to the witnesses here.

88

As a technician, Mr. Alberty, for Opening Lines or AGF, did you

set prices?

Mr. ALBERTY. Not for AGF. When I was with Dr. Miles Jones,

we sat down for dinner and he asked me did I have any recollection

of prices that AGF had, and I explained to him what I saw on a

fax that came over to me, and I could not quote him honestly on

the fax, so over dinner, over Mexican food, he set the prices.

Mr. STUPAK. Did he set the prices based upon what AGF had

under——

Mr. ALBERTY. No. He set the prices on his own standard. He said

that——

Mr. STUPAK. Is it fair to say his prices were higher than AGF’s?

Mr. ALBERTY. I never saw AGF’s. All I saw was that fax, and I

couldn’t actually tell you what all was on that fax.

Mr. STUPAK. All right. But you helped to set the price schedule

for Opening Lines?

Mr. ALBERTY. I helped Dr. Jones—make him understand how

hard it is to achieve these tissues, and he set the prices.

Mr. STUPAK. Is it your understanding—is there a common fee

charged throughout the industry for certain parts of fetal tissue or

certain specimens of it?

Mr. ALBERTY. I’m not sure.

Mr. STUPAK. Well, is there a fee for service, a schedule that is

used throughout fetal tissue research? Do you have any idea?

Mr. ALBERTY. I have no idea, sir.

Mr. STUPAK. Dr. Cohen, would you have any idea, or Dr. Kinney? Is there a set fee—$50, $100—depending on what we’re talking

about?

Mr. COHEN. I’m not aware of these kinds of fee schedules, since

we don’t deal with them.

Ms. KINNEY. We don’t either.

Mr. STUPAK. The reason why I’m asking, we had the part that

was shown on ‘‘20/20’’ last night that had some very high prices,

then we had some other documents here from AGF which has other

prices. I guess I’m trying to establish what is the basis, what is

the—if I can use the word, what’s the going rate? If we establish

a going rate, then it if someone is charging much more than there’s

assumed there is a profit. I mean, NIH gives, what, $20 million a

year for this research. Someone has to have some kind of a price

as to a basis of what we go from. Is that fair to say?

Mr. COHEN. There should be a set price that is standard throughout the whole United States.

Mr. STUPAK. And no one knows what that set price is?

Mr. COHEN. No. I mean, there should be. I don’t think there is

a set price.

Mr. STUPAK. Okay. All right. When did you work, exactly, at

AGF? Do you know what timeframe?

Mr. ALBERTY. No, I sure don’t, sir. I don’t have the exact——

Mr. STUPAK. Was it 1995, 1996, 1997?

Mr. ALBERTY. Let me look right here. It says 1993 I worked for

AGF.

Mr. STUPAK. Okay.

Mr. ALBERTY. I started my employment with them.

Mr. STUPAK. How long did you work there?

89

Mr. ALBERTY. Looks like 1995.

Mr. STUPAK. Two years?

Mr. ALBERTY. Basically, yes.

Mr. STUPAK. And then you were out of the business, and then

you went with Opening Lines?

Mr. ALBERTY. I was gone for about 6 months.

Mr. STUPAK. Okay.

Mr. ALBERTY. And that’s when Dr. Miles—sorry.

Mr. STUPAK. Dr. Miles?

Mr. ALBERTY. Dr. Miles Jones——

Mr. STUPAK. Right.

Mr. ALBERTY. [continuing] met with a doctor on an airplane, and

those two discussed the possibility of re-establishing the——

Mr. STUPAK. Did they hire you then after you were out for about

6 months, and you went to work for Opening Lines?

Mr. ALBERTY. Right.

Mr. STUPAK. Okay.

Mr. ALBERTY. He called me up on the phone, talked to me about

it, said, ‘‘Would you be willing to come back?’’ Mr. STUPAK. Okay.

Mr. ALBERTY. And at that time I was basically unemployed.

Mr. STUPAK. This piece I think most of us saw last night on ‘‘20/

20,’’ where there was an individual who was supposedly a vendor

talking to Dr. Jones, did you help set up that meeting?

Mr. ALBERTY. The vendor?

Mr. STUPAK. Yes.

Mr. ALBERTY. You mean like the investment people?

Mr. STUPAK. Right.

Mr. ALBERTY. I did not help set up that meeting. I talked to Dr.

Jones. Well, let me re-clarify. I’m sorry.

Yes, I did. I told Dr. Jones there would be someone that would

give him a call, would he accept the phone call. He said, ‘‘Why

not?’’ And then I backed out after that.

Mr. STUPAK. You weren’t at that dinner or anything?

Mr. ALBERTY. No, sir.

Mr. STUPAK. Okay.

Mr. ALBERTY. I was totally out of the picture then.

Mr. STUPAK. All right. And this vendor that we saw last night,

that was, obviously, investigators from ‘‘20/20’’?

Mr. ALBERTY. I believe so.

Mr. STUPAK. You knew that they were going to call the doctor,

you helped them sort of set this up, to get a hold of Dr. Jones?

Mr. ALBERTY. I did not know when they were going to call him.

Mr. STUPAK. I know you didn’t know exactly, but you were the

go-between, you were the one to help set that up, if you will? Without your information, ‘‘20/20’’ never would have called Dr. Jones,

right?

Mr. ALBERTY. No. They were looking for him. They didn’t have

a way to contact him. They were going to do different routes, and

they asked me, ‘‘How can we get in contact with him?’’ I said——

Mr. STUPAK. If they couldn’t find Dr. Jones, how did they get a

hold of you?

Mr. ALBERTY. Right.

Mr. STUPAK. How did ‘‘20/20’’ get a hold of you, then, if they

couldn’t find Dr. Jones?

90

Mr. ALBERTY. Because ‘‘20/20’’ did the story with me first.

Mr. STUPAK. All right.

Mr. ALBERTY. And we sat down at Life Dynamics, and I talked

to ‘‘20/20’’——

Mr. STUPAK. Sure.

Mr. ALBERTY. [continuing] about the whole thing, about all the

people that were involved, from——

Mr. STUPAK. And after you did that at Life Dynamics, then is it

your understanding ‘‘20/20’’ tried to get a hold of Dr. Jones but

could not, and asked you to maybe the intermediary here to get

this set up?

Mr. ALBERTY. That is correct, sir.

Mr. COBURN [presiding]. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you.

Mr. COBURN. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Burr.

Mr. BURR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Alberty, let me say at the beginning, the reason that you are

included in this panel is because your participation in videotapes,

your affidavits, even your deposition—and I will say that the deposition was shared with the majority at 9:30 this morning, after

weeks of trying to access that so that we could figure out the credibility of your story or which one was correct——

Mr. ALBERTY. Right.

Mr. BURR. I found there to be so many inconsistencies in your

testimony between that and tapes and testimonies prior to this,

whether they were under oath or not under oath, your credibility,

as far as this member is concerned, is shot.

Let me turn to Ms. Fredericks.

As the head of a clinic, were you ever aware of any fee schedule?

Ms. FREDERICKS. I saw Dr. Miles Jones’ fee schedule. He did mail

me a copy of his marketing brochure.

Mr. BURR. And did that fee schedule, from a standpoint of a clinic director, reflect what you thought to be the cost of their procurement of these tissues?

Ms. FREDERICKS. I am not a medical person. I did not know what

was involved in the process.

Mr. BURR. Did your clinic at any point ever consider the possibility of procuring these tissues, themselves?

Ms. FREDERICKS. Yes, sir.

Mr. BURR. What was the reason?

Ms. FREDERICKS. We needed the revenue, additional revenue.

Mr. BURR. And you saw an unbelievable amount of revenue collected in this process?

Ms. FREDERICKS. I saw a lot. I don’t know ‘‘unbelievable.’’ I don’t

have a recollection for an exact amount.

Mr. BURR. Dr. Cohen, let me go to your testimony real quick. I

just want you to clarify one thing.

In your testimony, you said, ‘‘I’m concerned that, in attempting

to enforce the laws governing fetal tissue research and the distribution of such tissue, Congress may unnecessarily over-restrict fetal

tissue research.’’

What do you mean there?

Mr. COHEN. I think that’s related to the point that was mentioned by virtually everyone during their preliminary address here,

91

is that this research is very important, and we are just worried, especially given our recent experience in Nebraska, where there is an

active attempt to try to ban this research——

Mr. BURR. But you’re not suggesting——

Mr. COHEN. [continuing] that Congress will do that also.

Mr. BURR. You’re not suggesting to the committee that we

shouldn’t enforce the laws that are on the books now?

Mr. COHEN. Certainly not. Absolutely not. Those laws should be

enforced.

Mr. BURR. I appreciate that.

Ms. Samuelson, you were nice enough to refer in your testimony

to the law, and I want to quote that. ‘‘It is unlawful for a person

to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human

fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce.’’

Now, let me ask you, Dr. Cohen and Dr. Kinney, from the standpoint of researchers, is it commonly known in the research world

that as a researcher, to excessively pay for fetal tissue would be a

violation of the law?

Mr. COHEN. I can only speak for our institution. Our investigators are aware of that. I can’t speak for other institutions. I’ve

never inquired about it.

Mr. BURR. So it has been covered at your facility that to pay

some amount that would exceed the cost to acquire those tissues

would be a violation of the law on the part of the researchers having received them?

Mr. COHEN. Yes.

Mr. BURR. Dr. Kinney?

Ms. KINNEY. I don’t know how common it is. I think there could

be more education about it.

Mr. BURR. Would it surprise you if it was, in fact, truthful that

these price fee schedules had been circulated through other institutions?

Ms. KINNEY. I can’t speak to—I don’t have firsthand knowledge.

I can’t speak to that.

Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to

enter into the record some documents that describe protocols for

tissue recovery. I will give the minority whatever time they need.

It is my understanding that these are guidelines for the recovery

of tissue at the clinics that was drawn up by one of the two companies that we have discussed, either AGF or Opening Lines.

Let me ask Ms. Fredericks, were you aware of any guidelines

that those companies had for the procurement or for the recovery

of these tissues?

Ms. FREDERICKS. I don’t believe I was.

Mr. BURR. Let me just read you one section and ask you if you

have any recollection.

Mr. COBURN. The gentleman will need to make this quick.

Mr. BURR. I’d be happy to.

It says, ‘‘Documentation and procurement records: it is imperative that accurate records be maintained, particularly for billing

purposes, but also for problems which may arise later concerning

a particular procurement. Recordkeeping also enables us to evaluate productivity.’’

92

Was it common at any clinic to get an end-of-the-year bonus or

any type of additional payment because of the number of items

supplied out of that clinic?

Ms. FREDERICKS. No, sir. Not that I ever saw.

Mr. COBURN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

We do have a unanimous consent request.

Ms. DEGETTE. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I

have a couple of foundational questions, seeing as foundation

seems to be a big issue with documents here.

Do we know where this document came from?

Mr. BURR. I would ask Mr. Alberty if he was, in fact, the source

of the guidelines.

Mr. ALBERTY. No, sir.

Mr. BURR. Then the gentleman would not know the source of

these documents.

Ms. DEGETTE. Mr. Chairman, on that basis, I’m going to have to

object on foundational grounds. We don’t know who produced this

document, where it came from, what it means. It was represented

as being a procedure, but we don’t—there’s handwritten notes here.

Mr. COBURN. Would the gentlelady suspend for a minute?

Ms. DEGETTE. Sure.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Alberty—would the staff give Mr. Alberty a

copy of this? There’s some question as to whether or not this is

your handwriting.

Mr. ALBERTY. Well, I can’t see from here.

Ms. DEGETTE. Where did it come from?

Mr. COBURN. Look at the back few pages, Mr. Alberty.

Mr. ALBERTY. Back few pages? Yes, the protocol for recovery of

lung, that looks like my handwriting.

Mr. COBURN. Have you ever seen these other—these materials

before?

Mr. ALBERTY. Since I wrote them?

Mr. COBURN. Did you write all these?

Mr. ALBERTY. I wrote the protocol for lung, looks like the liver

fragment, protocol for the recovery of that, protocol for recovery of

fetus intact, protocol for recovery of bone marrow.

Mr. COBURN. So these are, in fact——

Mr. ALBERTY. Specimen rejection criteria.

Mr. COBURN. These are, in fact—the typewritten pages in front

of that—have you ever seen these protocols before—protocol for recovery of eyes, tissue recovery procedures, fetal?

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes.

Mr. COBURN. You have seen these?

Mr. ALBERTY. I have seen them.

Mr. COBURN. Where were these used?

Mr. ALBERTY. The first one, protocol for recovery of eyes, it looks

like it is probably AGF. Tissue recovery procedures for fetal tissue

is an AGF document. But when it goes back to the handwriting,

those are my handwritings that I did for Dr. Miles Jones.

Ms. DEGETTE. Reclaiming my time, if I may, Mr. Chairman——

Mr. COBURN. I believe the gentlelady has already objected.

Ms. DEGETTE. No, I was acting under a reservation.

Mr. COBURN. Okay. The lady is, in fact, recognized.

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you.

93

Mr. Alberty, do you know these are—these typewritten pages are

AGF’s protocols?

Mr. ALBERTY. Those are what were at the clinic when AGF was

there, and I gave those—everything that I had over to Life Dynamics.

Ms. DEGETTE. And these handwritten pages that are, according

to your sworn testimony, in your handwriting, whose criteria were

those? Were those your criteria?

Mr. ALBERTY. Those would be the criteria that I, when I read

from AGF’s, I duplicated.

Ms. DEGETTE. So these——

Mr. ALBERTY. And whether they were in my own words or their

words, you know, I read what they had before——

Ms. DEGETTE. So these are criteria you came up with for yourself? Is that your testimony today?

Mr. ALBERTY. Along with Dr. Miles Jones, yes.

Ms. DEGETTE. Okay. And what I am told by my committee staff

here is that this document was provided to our committee by Life

Dynamics, the group that you made the paid videotape for. Would

that be accurate?

Mr. ALBERTY. That would be 100 percent accurate.

Ms. DEGETTE. Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, given that caveat that

that’s where it came from, Life Dynamics, and that basis, I’ll withdraw my reservation.

Mr. COBURN. Any other objections?

[No response.]

Mr. COBURN. So agreed.

[The information referred to follows:]

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

Mr. COBURN. The next person to be recognized is Ms. Cubin from

Wyoming.

Ms. CUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. COBURN. I’m sorry, Mr. Burr was the last questioner.

Mr. Green is recognized.

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Alberty, have you received any compensation, reimbursement, or remuneration since January 11?

Mr. ALBERTY. Since January——

Mr. GREEN. From Life Dynamics? That’s the last item. I understood, from earlier questioning, there was a check for $1,250.

Mr. ALBERTY. Whatever the last check was.

Mr. GREEN. And that was—you’ve received no money since then

from Life Dynamics?

Mr. ALBERTY. That is part of my agreement with my lawsuit settlement.

Mr. GREEN. Okay. Under earlier questioning, you said that if you

knew Dr. Jones was setting prices, and in your affidavit you say

that you generally—you’re familiar with Federal and State laws

limiting the ability of charging fees, why didn’t you report it to either Federal or State authorities?

Mr. ALBERTY. Because no one really had a true—no one could

show me a true law, you know, what said what. Am I answering

the right question that you’re asking?

Mr. GREEN. Well, people don’t typically make complaints based

on looking at the law books.

Mr. ALBERTY. Right. Well, when I made my complaint to the

FBI, it was about the live births.

Mr. GREEN. I’m sorry? It was about the live births?

Mr. ALBERTY. Right.

Mr. GREEN. Okay. But you didn’t complain to the FBI or any

other law enforcement agency about Dr. Jones setting these prices

that we’ve seen?

Mr. ALBERTY. No, sir.

Mr. GREEN. Okay. I just wanted to make sure that our law enforcement wasn’t notified and didn’t prosecute. That’s what bothered me.

Mr. ALBERTY. Okay.

Mr. GREEN. Let me ask some questions of our researchers.

When the tissue sample is received in your laboratory, does it

come in with information on where it is from or if it was from an

abortion or how the abortion was performed, in either of your examples?

Mr. COHEN. As far as I know, the only information is the approximate gestational age of the fetus, which is then verified using a

variety of biochemical and molecular markers.

Mr. GREEN. Okay. Dr. Kinney?

Ms. KINNEY. The gestational age and the sex is the only information we have.

Mr. GREEN. Okay. So there’s no information on how the

procedure——

Ms. KINNEY. There is no link to the mother.

109

Mr. GREEN. Do you ever specify with your order which abortion

techniques should be used to retrieve specimens from your two

labs?

Mr. COHEN. No. We have an explicit understanding to begin with

that procedures would not be modified in any way to provide the

tissue.

Mr. GREEN. Is that true also with your lab, Doctor?

Ms. KINNEY. Yes. Yes, sir, it is.

Mr. GREEN. Is it very difficult for you to obtain tissue for your

research?

Mr. COHEN. Yes.

Ms. KINNEY. Yes, it can be.

Mr. GREEN. At times, when you have problems or fetal tissue research is in short supply, have you ever considered going to someone like Dr. Miles Jones?

Ms. KINNEY. No.

Mr. COHEN. No.

Mr. GREEN. One of the concerns I have—and you heard in the

opening statements, obviously, if someone is violating Federal law

they should be prosecuted. You typically don’t come to Congress for

prosecution. You go to the executive branch. But the other concern

is the loss of the research and the potential from what you are—

each of you are seeing.

What would happen to your research if Congress decided to prohibit fetal tissue from being available?

Mr. COHEN. The research of our institution would come to a halt.

Ms. KINNEY. And the same in my case. In my particular case, the

sudden infant death syndrome, there is no animal model of SIDS,

and so it would be particularly harmful, because we couldn’t use

an animal model.

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, what time I have left—and I was trying to see how much of Mr. Alberty’s affidavit had been submitted

for the record. If it is possible, we have an affidavit that I’d like

to have submitted to the record, Mr. Chairman, and we can go

through the whole——

Mr. COBURN. This is Mr. Alberty’s affidavit? It’s already in the

record.

Mr. GREEN. It’s already in the record?

Mr. COBURN. Yes.

Mr. GREEN. Okay. Good.

Mr. COBURN. And your time is about to expire, by the way. I just

thought I would verify.

Mr. GREEN. Okay. I’ll talk as fast as I can, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Alberty, you made this affidavit after the ‘‘20/20’’ taping?

Mr. ALBERTY. I made that affidavit right before the ‘‘20/20’’ taping, because we felt there was going to be—how do you put this—

a gag order on me so I would not be able to talk, because basically

it wasn’t that I had a breach of contract. Basically, we figured it

was by AGF to shut me up. That’s the main reason behind the lawsuit. It wasn’t a breach of contract. They didn’t want anyone to

know what I knew.

Mr. COBURN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. GREEN. Let me, Mr. Chairman——

Mr. COBURN. Well, the time has expired. Let’s do it quickly.

110

Mr. GREEN. Okay. This was submitted information based on Life

Dynamics that was admitted earlier.

In your affidavit, on item three—and I’ll quote you, and all you

need to do is say yes if it is true—‘‘I have seen part of the edited

14-minute excerpt from the tape, which I understand that Life Dynamics is circulating, and I believe that they may have changed

some of my answers and possibly substituted another person in my

place during portions of the videotape, as it has been circulated.’’

Is that correct?

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes.

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Dr. Coburn to inquire.

Mr. COBURN. Thank you.

Dr. Kinney, just one quick note. Have we not seen a remarkable

decline in SIDS in this country based on fetal positioning of newborn infants?

Ms. KINNEY. In the sleep position——

Mr. COBURN. Yes or no?

Ms. KINNEY. Yes.

Mr. COBURN. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Alberty, it is your testimony that doctors, prior to performing

abortions, would come and look at what the orders were for that

day?

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COBURN. And you stand by that testimony?

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COBURN. Were you, in fact, the person that collected the tissue, packaged the tissue, and shipped the tissue?

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COBURN. Without naming names, did you ship tissue to

major, well-known universities throughout this country?

Mr. ALBERTY. Absolutely, sir.

Mr. COBURN. Did you ship tissue to well-known major pharmaceutical companies with——

Mr. ALBERTY. Absolutely, sir.

Mr. COBURN. Did you ship tissue to specific universities that had

labeled NIH grant numbers?

Mr. ALBERTY. I don’t remember seeing NIH. I’m sorry, sir.

Mr. COBURN. I want to go to one other issue. Mr. Alberty, you

may be able to answer this and you may not. Does AGF and Opening Lines have competitors in this business?

Mr. ALBERTY. I believe they do, but I do not know their names.

Mr. COBURN. Is that they may have competitors, they don’t have

competitors?

Mr. ALBERTY. I believe they do have.

Mr. COBURN. Did you ever have any discussions with any of the

principals of either of those two businesses about other competition

in this area?

Mr. ALBERTY. No.

Mr. COBURN. So you would not have any knowledge about that?

Mr. ALBERTY. The only knowledge is from researchers who would

talk to me on the phone. ‘‘Well, if we can’t get it from you, we’ll

get it from someone else.’’

Mr. COBURN. And you don’t recall these ‘‘someone elses’’?

111

Mr. ALBERTY. The researchers or the——

Mr. COBURN. No. I’m not asking you to name researchers. I’m

asking you: do you recall the names of any of the ‘‘someone elses’’

under which they might have gotten——

Mr. ALBERTY. No, sir.

Mr. COBURN. All right. Thank you.

Ms. Fredericks, I have a couple of questions for you that I’m a

little bit concerned about, and it has to do with this price thing.

You had—and you correct me if I’m wrong, because I very well

may be—you had negotiated an agreement with Dr. Jones——

Ms. FREDERICKS. Yes, sir.

Mr. COBURN. When AFG—AGF left, or you separated from them

under which he would essentially take over what was happening

at your clinic.

Ms. FREDERICKS. Correct.

Mr. COBURN. And you also negotiated with him certain prices for

pathologic work that he was licensed to do and was doing it?

Ms. FREDERICKS. Yes.

Mr. COBURN. And is it your testimony that you were paying the

same price to Dr. Jones for that pathologic work as you were paying prior with the previous contractor for your clinic for the same

pathology?

Ms. FREDERICKS. Slightly lower, but not significantly.

Mr. COBURN. I want to delve into this, because I know what pathology services cost.

Ms. FREDERICKS. Right.

Mr. COBURN. Is it your testimony that for a cervical biopsy you

would pay approximately $20?

Ms. FREDERICKS. I don’t remember. I’d have to check.

Mr. COBURN. Could you please supply that information to this

committee if, in fact, you have that information?

Ms. FREDERICKS. Before—what was negotiated to Dr. Jones or

before?

Mr. COBURN. In other words, what your clinic was paying before

versus what you were paying afterwards.

Ms. FREDERICKS. If the clinic would be willing to provide it for

me. I am not—I am no longer employed there and I don’t have access to that information.

Mr. COBURN. And so you would not have that information?

Ms. FREDERICKS. No.

Mr. COBURN. That could be a question for a different hearing.

Basically, in what I think I have seen is approximately 40 percent reduction in pathological surgical fees for what I know is the

going rate in the Kansas City area for like services from Dr. Jones

to your clinic, and the reason that is important is that is another

way of paying the clinic for the access for that tissue, and that’s

the only reason I waive that. And it may not be true.

Ms. FREDERICKS. I don’t believe it is, from the information I was

provided at the time when I was instructed to type up that agreement. I did not negotiate the laboratory contracts and I did not pay

the bills.

Mr. COBURN. Okay. I want to get to one other area before my

time is out.

112

It is your testimony that you all had a package for women who

underwent procedures there, who made the difficult choice of terminating the pregnancy, and in that package you had an informed

consent for tissue donation.

Ms. FREDERICKS. Correct.

Mr. COBURN. At any time in your recollection were there any

women who went through who might have had tissue collected

from them who were 18 years of age or under?

Ms. FREDERICKS. I honestly don’t know. I was not a counselor.

Mr. COBURN. Okay.

Ms. FREDERICKS. I was not——

Mr. COBURN. Is there a tissue log in your clinic that might show

that, or would there normally expect to be a tissue log, either that

Mr. Alberty would have had, based on what the patient’s age was,

or that your clinic might have had that would answer that question?

Ms. FREDERICKS. I am not——

Mr. COBURN. And I want to tell you why I’m asking the question.

Under the Uniform Anatomic Gift Act, State of Kansas, no one

under 18 can ever give a body part away, whether it is their fetus

or anything else, and I have great concerns as to whether or not

this clinic violated the Kansas laws as well as Federal laws in

terms of minors giving consent for tissue donations which they are

not able to do.

Ms. FREDERICKS. The clinic was very conscious of getting a signature of a parent or guardian on all Kansas documents, which are

extensive. I do not know if that particular form had a parental consent on it.

Mr. COBURN. Thank you very much.

I see my time has expired.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Strickland to inquire.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to say a word to Ms. Samuelson. I want to thank

you for being here. I want to thank you for your testimony. And

I want to say to you how sorry I am that for 6 long years you were

deprived of the possible benefit of this vital research. And I want

to say that I am sorry my friend, John Leach, who recently died

with Parkinson’s, was kept from the ability to have benefit from

those 6 years of research, and that my physician friend who lost

his young child to SIDS was also troubled by this cessation of vital

research. It was intolerable, unconscionable, and I think human

lives have been lost as a result of the actions that were taken to

prevent that vital research.

Mr. Alberty, you know, I have been sitting here and I have been

listening to you, and I want to be honest with you—my heart has

gone out to you, because, reading your testimony, I can sense that

you have been a tortured individual. You talk in your testimony as

if you were. And I want to ask you if you can share with us why

it is that you said what you said to Life Dynamics that would cause

you now to have to come back and, in a sworn affidavit, contradict

so much of what you said. Can you explain that to us?

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes, I can.

I guess the reason why, it kind of—it does contradict, you know,

the video—parts of the video are accurate, and others may be a litVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:43 Sep 14, 2000 Jkt 065720 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\63102 pfrm07 PsN: 63102
113

tle embellished, and I did that because I wasn’t thinking. I was

nervous. I was scared being down there, not knowing what was

going to happen to me. That’s my first time, you know, going to do

this. I’ve never done an undercover videotape or hidden videotape.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Do you feel as if you were being used for a purpose other than to expose the possible sale of fetalAFTER 6 P.M.

tissue in an illegal way?

Mr. ALBERTY. Was I being used? I think I was being used by everybody.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Well, were you——

Mr. ALBERTY. But was I being used by Life Dynamics——

Mr. STRICKLAND. Yes.

Mr. ALBERTY. [continuing] is your specific question?

Mr. STRICKLAND. Yes. I’m just trying to explore what would

cause you to do what you’ve done and then have to come before this

committee—and I think it has been very difficult for you.

Mr. ALBERTY. Right.

Mr. STRICKLAND. And I appreciate that. What was the compelling

reason that you have done what you’ve done to find yourself in

these circumstances?

Mr. ALBERTY. The reason why I went to Life Dynamics?

Mr. STRICKLAND. No.

Mr. ALBERTY. Why I did everything?

Mr. STRICKLAND. The reason that you said things that you now

have to swear that were not true.

Mr. ALBERTY. Because I’m under oath. Is that what you’re getting at?

Mr. STRICKLAND. Well, you’re under oath now.

Mr. ALBERTY. Right.

Mr. STRICKLAND. But you weren’t under oath then.

Mr. ALBERTY. Right.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Why did you say those things then?

Mr. ALBERTY. I think that’s what they wanted to hear.

Mr. STRICKLAND. And that’s why I asked do you—if you felt that

they were using you.

Did ‘‘20/20’’ know about the affidavit before they showed the program last night to the American people?

Mr. ALBERTY. Do they know about the affidavit?

Mr. STRICKLAND. Yes.

Mr. ALBERTY. They never saw it.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Did they know about it?

Mr. ALBERTY. I believe they did.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Did they know that many of the things that

were in the affidavit contradicted things that you had said previously?

Mr. ALBERTY. I don’t know.

Mr. STRICKLAND. I’m just really curious that ‘‘20/20’’ would admit

that information if, in fact, they had that information. It is quite

sad, if they had that and did not share the full story with the

American people.

Mr. ALBERTY. Right.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Because much of what they shared with the

American people last night was based upon information which they

had secured from you, and one of our colleagues here today has

114

said that you had lost credibility certainly with this committee, and

I think the American people were mistreated by ‘‘20/20’’ if they had

this information and they did not share it.

Mr. ALBERTY. There was a lot of information that ‘‘20/20’’ did not

share and I felt that it should have been shared. And whether your

colleague thinks I am not a credible person, let me put it to you

this way: how credible is it that I came here without an attorney,

that I come here on my free will standing, trying to bring forward

something that I did. And I cannot excuse myself if I sat here and

talk to you lovely people because I am nervous as hell, my blood

pressure, as you can probably see, is up, and I’ve never done this

before, but I——

Mr. STRICKLAND. And, Mr. Alberty, I have expressed to you at

least my personal feeling that I think this has been difficult, and

I appreciate that.

One real quick question.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Real quick.

Mr. STRICKLAND. When you shipped these tissues to major universities, as one of my colleagues has asked you, do you know that

those universities paid exorbitant prices or prices that would be

considered illegal for that tissue? Do you have any direct knowledge that they did?

Mr. ALBERTY. They paid for X amount of dollars. All I know is

what I shipped them. I’m not really sure what they were charged.

Mr. STRICKLAND. So you do not know if these major universities

were aware that the law potentially was being broken?

Mr. ALBERTY. I don’t believe they were aware of it. No. No, sir.

And if they did, I don’t think the universities would be using it.

And, to go back to a question that was earlier that was not presented to me, the doctors on our panel, they do not—are not aware

of the prices and stuff that’s going on, because usually there is a

representative before it gets to them.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Thank you very much.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. We’re going to have to break. There are two votes.

I’m going to say 6:30. Thank you.

[Brief recess.]

Mr. BILIRAKIS. In view of the fact that a few people who are

clearly first up are not here, we’ll recognize the gentleman from

Tennessee for questions.

Mr. BRYANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a number of

issues, and I’m going to try to cover as much ground as I can.

Let’s see. We’re missing a witness.

Mr. Alberty, I have just a few questions for you that I might ask

you.

As I understand, you were a technician. Were you in the—were

you physically located in the clinic?

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes.

Mr. BRYANT. Okay. And this is the clinic where the abortion

would be done?

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BRYANT. You were not physically in the room when that procedure was done?

115

Mr. ALBERTY. Not physically in the room when that procedure

was done. When the doors would open, if the patient was under sedation they’d wheel the cart, if they were too rushed, and they’d

say, ‘‘Come and get it’’ or hand me the syringe.

Mr. BRYANT. Would the actual removal of the parts, dissecting,

occur in that same building?

Mr. ALBERTY. They would have—in the same building in a special—underneath a hood.

Mr. BRYANT. And this would be the same doctor who performed

the abortion can come out, in the case of Dr. Jones, and then go

into another room and do the——

Mr. ALBERTY. No. Dr. Jones never did abortions.

Mr. BRYANT. He did not?

Mr. ALBERTY. No, he did not.

Mr. BRYANT. But he would be in the other room to do the——

Mr. ALBERTY. Dr. Jones was never there. He only came in to

bring me supplies, to see how things were going. That was it. He

was never there to witness an abortion. He was never there to

coach the doctors.

Mr. BRYANT. Tell me what your part in that—once the doors

swung open and they gave you a fetus or——

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes.

Mr. BRYANT. All right. What was your job?

Mr. ALBERTY. My job was to look on my list of the piece of paper

to see what the daily schedule was, which researchers needed what

tissue, and it was to dissect those tissues out and put them in a

special medium and send those to the researchers at the end of the

day to their specifications.

Mr. BRYANT. I noticed in the handwritten document—and I can’t

lay my hand on it now—you had a process for different procedures,

and then you had a rejection. What was the——

Mr. ALBERTY. Yeah, a rejection criteria.

Mr. BRYANT. All right. The rejection criteria that had on there

specimen rejection criteria, and, regarding the donor, donor rejection, age 8 to 22-plus. Tell me what that is. That is——

Mr. ALBERTY. Okay. Donor—what page are you on?

Mr. BRYANT. Eight months, 22-plus months.

Mr. ALBERTY. Okay. Donor rejection criteria specimen, age 18 to

22-plus. I don’t think I really completed this form out totally. It

probably should have had something at the top why it was being

rejected.

Mr. BRYANT. Okay.

Mr. ALBERTY. For that reason, 8 to 22.

Mr. BRYANT. Did you have access to the age of the mother?

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes.

Mr. BRYANT. Okay. Did you ever send out—what’s the right

term, a fetus?

Mr. ALBERTY. You mean a shipping packing list that goes to the

research company?

Mr. BRYANT. Did you ever send out tissue to Dr. Jones that came

from a young lady under the age of 18?

Mr. ALBERTY. In the State of Kansas, what I saw—and I did not

know that there was any laws governing that—yes, there was at

116

AGF and Opening Lines tissue that were consented for with people

that were under the age of 18. Yes.

Mr. BRYANT. Consented for by that person under the age of 18?

Mr. ALBERTY. Whether the mother signed it or the daughter

signed it—I think it was more likely the mother signed the consent

and the daughter also may have signed below, if I recall right.

Mr. BRYANT. Let me switch over.

On this broadcast last night—and I think you have repeated

today that you did—you realize that AGF—the procedure they used

prolonged the abortion process, a process that increased the pain

for the mother, and you know that because there was a special instrument being provided to the clinic by AGF, you mentioned.

Mr. ALBERTY. That was a syringe.

Mr. BRYANT. Okay.

Mr. ALBERTY. That was the one they showed on there and they

talked to Mr. Bardsley about it.

Mr. BRYANT. And you’re sure of that?

Mr. ALBERTY. I’m positive of that. Yes, that they used the syringe, and to get a better specimen—because if they didn’t use a

syringe, they would use the suction jar. They had a high-pressure

vacuum, and it would blow apart everything that was in there. The

liver would be fragmented beyond belief.

Mr. BRYANT. Who provided the syringe?

Mr. ALBERTY. AGF did. They would mail in boxes. If the supply

was low, I was to tell the Bardsleys, and they would order those

syringes in boxes, and there would be, like, six to twelve boxes

come whenever I called for it. And then those boxes were opened

up, the syringes were staffed in the abortion rooms to use specially

for the people that consented for early terms.

Mr. BRYANT. Back on the lawsuit, you were sued by AGF for

breach of some sort of contract?

Mr. ALBERTY. That’s correct, sir.

Mr. BRYANT. Did you counter-sue them?

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BRYANT. And there was a settlement made out of court?

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BRYANT. Did you receive any money?

Mr. ALBERTY. For settling?

Mr. BRYANT. Yes.

Mr. ALBERTY. No. The reason—you want to ask me the question

of why——

Mr. BRYANT. Yes.

Mr. ALBERTY. [continuing] I had to settle? I paid for my legal fees

out of my own pocket, where AGF received theirs for free. I didn’t

have any money to continue on the lawsuit, or I would have fought

it tooth and nail.

Mr. BRYANT. So no money was exchanged in settlement of the

lawsuit? You didn’t give them any money, they didn’t give you any

money?

Mr. ALBERTY. There was a $500 thing put in an escrow if I ever

violated my contract, and a $10,000, you know, just out there. If

I violated, that money would go to AGF. And the reason why I

signed that, because I had no other choice. I was going to go so

117

deep in debt with this lawsuit. They had the money, I didn’t. I

couldn’t get any attorney to take this pro bono or help me out.

Mr. BRYANT. So as a term of the settlement you signed a confidentiality agreement?

Mr. ALBERTY. That’s correct, saying I would never disclose.

Mr. BRYANT. And it allows you to testify before this committee

or in a court?

Mr. ALBERTY. The only reason why I’m able to be here is because

I was instructed the only way I could be here is if I had a subpoena

to appear. That’s the only way I could talk.

Mr. BRYANT. Okay.

Mr. ALBERTY. I wanted to come here and talk freely, and I would

love to have been here freely and talked without a subpoena, but

the only way I could do that is if you guys filed a subpoena. That

would prove that I could come here and at least give you my story.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I’m sorry. The gentleman hasn’t missed a minute

of this hearing and waited patiently, but really his time has expired.

Ms. DeGette?

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to clarify a couple of things.

First of all, I really want to thank Drs. Cohen and Kinney for

coming today. I think that your afternoon would have been well

spent researching diseases, and I really appreciate your coming

here and giving information, both about the protocols you use and

also about the types of fascinating research that you’re doing, and

I particularly want to thank Ms. Samuelson. Your Congresswoman

just said hello and thank you for coming today on the floor, as well.

I’m sure there are a lot of productive things you could have been

doing, and I really want to thank you.

Let me ask, first, Drs. Cohen and Kinney a question. There was

an inference made in response to a question that the researchers

never know how the fetal tissue is procured, and I’d like you to

clarify. Do you think that you would know if your organizations

were illegally purchasing fetal tissue? Dr. Cohen?

Mr. COHEN. Yes.

Ms. DEGETTE. Why do you think that?

Mr. COHEN. Well, for one thing, I trust completely the administration that we have, and also the investigators that are involved

with this, and there is absolutely no evidence that has come forward to suggest that any payment has been made. All of these individuals have made public statements because of the issue that is

before our legislature right now, and the people that keep on claiming that there have been payments have not been able to produce

any evidence to that effect.

Ms. DEGETTE. And, Dr. Kinney, what about you?

Ms. KINNEY. Because we only take institutional tissues, we go—

the post-doctoral fellow or the technician go directly to pick up the

tissues from the pathology department in our institution. That’s

how we know that it is coming directly from our institution.

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you.

And, Mr. Alberty, I believe that you said that you had shipped

fetal tissue to various research institutions and so on. Did you actually—were you involved in the billing and payment? In other

118

words, you shipped it. Do you know how much they paid for those

actual shipments of fetal tissue?

Mr. ALBERTY. No, ma’am, I do not.

Ms. DEGETTE. So, for all you know, for those particular shipments, they could have been charged nothing, they could have been

charged a nominal processing fee? You don’t know, do you?

Mr. ALBERTY. That’s correct. I do not know.

Ms. DEGETTE. You know you shipped the tissue, but you would

have no idea whatsoever what was paid for that tissue?

Mr. ALBERTY. That is correct.

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you.

Now, Mr. Alberty, let me also ask you just to clarify some testimony. There is one advantage in batting cleanup, and I just want

to clarify, for myself and for the record, you said that you tell the

truth when you’re under oath, right?

Mr. ALBERTY. That’s correct, ma’am.

Ms. DEGETTE. And so you had the deposition and you were under

oath in that deposition. You told Mr. Waxman you told the truth

in that deposition, right?

Mr. ALBERTY. That’s correct.

Ms. DEGETTE. And you signed the affidavit that we’ve all been

talking about, and you were also under oath when you signed that;

is that right?

Mr. ALBERTY. That is correct.

Ms. DEGETTE. And then today in the testimony you’re also under

oath, so you’re telling the truth to us today, correct?

Mr. ALBERTY. That’s correct.

Ms. DEGETTE. Okay. Thanks.

Now, someone asked you about this affidavit and that you had

signed it to settle the lawsuit and it was written by the attorneys

for the other side, right?

Mr. ALBERTY. I believe so. Yes.

Ms. DEGETTE. But that affidavit, nonetheless, even though it was

written by somebody else, you signed it under oath saying that it

was correct, right?

Mr. ALBERTY. That’s correct. When I signed it——

Ms. DEGETTE. And you’re going to stand by that today, right?

Mr. ALBERTY. When I signed that affidavit, I was never—you

know, those are what I said, but when I signed the affidavit there

was no one sitting there like we are today breaking that down and

explaining what each paragraph was saying to me in logical terms.

Ms. DEGETTE. But you read those words, right? You read each

one of these paragraphs——

Mr. ALBERTY. Right.

Ms. DEGETTE. [continuing] before you signed it, right?

Mr. ALBERTY. That’s——

Ms. DEGETTE. And you will stand by those words as being correct, right?

Mr. ALBERTY. That’s correct.

Ms. DEGETTE. So where you say, ‘‘I have no personal knowledge

of any instances in which an employer of mine charged any fees or

received compensation for retrieving fetal tissue in violation of any

of these laws,’’ you’re going to stand by that statement.

119

Mr. ALBERTY. Well, maybe they shouldn’t have said an ‘‘employer

of mine.’’ No, go ahead. No, I’m sorry. I was confusing my own——

Ms. DEGETTE. Is that statement correct? That’s in paragraph

four. It’s the second sentence.

Mr. ALBERTY. Okay. ‘‘I am generally familiar with the Federal

laws—’’ Ms. DEGETTE. No, the second sentence. ‘‘I have no personal

knowledge of any instances in which an employer of mine charged

any fees or received compensation for retrieving fetal tissue in violation of any of these laws.’’

Mr. ALBERTY. Right. I had no understanding of the amount of

money that was——

Ms. DEGETTE. Now you’re changing this.

Mr. ALBERTY. No.

Ms. DEGETTE. It says ‘‘any fees or received compensation.’’ It

doesn’t say the amount, does it?

Mr. ALBERTY. No, it doesn’t say the amount.

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Alberty.

Mr. ALBERTY. You’re welcome. Thank you, ma’am.

Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman, can I ask a unanimous consent request? There are two I’d like to make, if I could.

I’d like to move to admit to the record two AGF brochures and

three AGF fee-for-services schedules provided to the committee by

AGF.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Is there any objection?

Mr. BRYANT. That’s one. And the second one——

Ms. DEGETTE. Reserving the right to object. Can I look at them?

Mr. BILIRAKIS. The gentlelady is recognized.

Mr. BRYANT. The second—reserving the right to—let me go

ahead and——

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Is there something else you would like to enter

into the record?

Mr. BRYANT. Yes. She’s got a reservation on this one.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Well, I don’t know. Are we going to wait until

you’ve had time to——

Ms. DEGETTE. Mr. Chairman, as you know, your side of the aisle

has refused to agree to the introduction of either the deposition or

the videotape on the basis that——

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I have no problem with the gentlelady’s reservation or objection if that’s the case.

Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, if I could make a suggestion, if Mr.

Bryant could delay putting these in, give us time to look at them,

we’re certainly near the end of the questions.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. That really goes to the question that I asked of

the gentlelady.

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you.

Mr. BARRETT. If you could do that after we’re done, I think we

can finish up the questioning.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Yes. What we want to do is speed up the process,

if we can.

Mr. BRYANT. Go ahead and make those two and I’ll make the UC

request later.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. All right.

That being the case, Mr. Barrett, since your suggestions are—

well, you wanted to yield to Ms. Capps?

120

Mr. BARRETT. I think Ms. Capps is——

Mr. BILIRAKIS. All right. Ms. Capps is recognized.

Ms. CAPPS. I have——

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Is it our side? Oh, Ms. DeGette just questioned.

I beg your pardon.

Ms. CAPPS. It’s the first round.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. It’s still the first round.

Ms. CAPPS. It’s the first round.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Well, we didn’t have anybody on this side a moment ago. We’re still the first round. That’s right.

Ms. Capps is recognized.

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield to my colleague, Ms. Eshoo, for 15 seconds.

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I would just like a unanimous consent that the checks that I held up for the record and queried Mr.

Alberty on be submitted as part of our record today.

Mr. BRYANT. Reservation.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Is there a reservation heard?

Mr. BRYANT. I’d like to make a reservation. Can we see those?

Ms. ESHOO. Absolutely.

Mr. BRYANT. Thank you.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. All right. Let’s treat those the same way that

we’re treating these two documents, if we may.

Ms. ESHOO. W-2 forms are included, as well.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. And get back again to Ms. Capps. Please proceed.

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you.

Mr. Alberty, please, if you would——

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. CAPPS. [continuing] earlier in the testimony this afternoon

you stated to my colleague, Mr. Greenwood, that procedures were

modified through the use of the AGF syringes to improve fetal——

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. CAPPS. And this statement was made under oath?

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. CAPPS. And I would like to refer to your affidavit from January 20th, the section No. 6, that sentence. ‘‘I know of no instances

in which a doctor was asked or otherwise decided to perform a different type of abortion procedure solely for purposes of obtaining

fetal tissue.’’

Mr. ALBERTY. Right.

Ms. CAPPS. Which of these——

Mr. ALBERTY. Because I knew—when this affidavit was made

with the attorneys of AGF, it was put that, ‘‘Did I hear AGF tell

the doctors to change any procedure?’’ And that states that no, I

did not hear anybody ask, otherwise decided to do that. No.

Ms. CAPPS. Which is correct?

Mr. ALBERTY. That they use the syringes to alter the procedures.

They did. But did I hear the Bardsleys or anybody tell the doctors

to use the syringes? No, I did not.

Ms. CAPPS. It says ‘‘or otherwise decided to perform.’’ If they decided to, then they would do it. Which is correct?

Mr. ALBERTY. Right. If they decided to use it for fetal tissue research, they use a syringe.

Ms. CAPPS. Which is correct?

121

Mr. ALBERTY. That’s correct. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. CAPPS. The statement you made on January 20th, the affidavit, or today?

Mr. ALBERTY. Both. Let me—this one right here that you just

read is correct.

Ms. CAPPS. But you told Mr. Greenwood that they did modify

them.

Mr. ALBERTY. They did modify it. But I didn’t hear anybody tell

anybody.

Ms. CAPPS. I don’t want to pursue that any further——

Mr. ALBERTY. I’m sorry.

Ms. CAPPS. [continuing] now, because I think it corroborates

what my colleague, Mr. Burr, said about the credibility of this witness.

I am very interested in the notion that has been said by you and

also by Ms. Fredericks—and I will turn to you, Ms. Fredericks—

about where—who is buying this tissue. We have strong testimony

from our two researchers who are here that they have no knowledge in their institution or any other institution of the procurement

at exorbitant rates of fetal tissue.

You were an administrator in a clinic and you were concerned

about costs, because of some other testimony you had given us. Can

you tell me where this tissue was shipped at prices—according to

the price list?

Ms. FREDERICKS. I’m sorry. I don’t fully understand your question.

Ms. CAPPS. Who bought the fetal tissue from the laboratory

where you worked?

Ms. FREDERICKS. I didn’t work for the laboratory. I worked for

the clinic in which——

Ms. CAPPS. For the clinic.

Ms. FREDERICKS. [continuing] from which they procured the tissue from. I was not involved in the procurement.

Ms. CAPPS. No. I know that. But you shipped it. Mr. Alberty described how he did. Somebody——

Ms. FREDERICKS. He shipped it. We did not.

Ms. CAPPS. Can you tell me, Mr. Alberty, where you shipped this

tissue?

Mr. ALBERTY. The tissue was shipped to wherever it was going

to go, I mean, on that day——

Ms. CAPPS. Well, which institutions?

Mr. ALBERTY. Researchers, institutions.

Ms. CAPPS. Can you name me one?

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Would the gentlelady yield for just one moment?

We have an agreement on both sides of the aisle, it was my understanding, that we would not name specific institutions.

Ms. CAPPS. Sorry. Then I will withdraw that.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I’ll be happy to give you the list of the institutions

if you’d like to see it.

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you very much. I would like to see, because

there is apparent discrepancies in the assumptions that many institutions were buying, are buying this tissue at exorbitant cost,

and then the testimony of both the private institution and the pubVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:43 Sep 14, 2000 Jkt 065720 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\63102 pfrm07 PsN: 63102
122

lic one that they don’t know anyone reputable who is buying this.

It has got to be some underground kind of place.

But I really want to make a statement now and make a statement of an acknowledgement of Ms. Samuelson and tell you how

betrayed I feel by this hearing today, because I believe that the testimony of some of our witnesses is—has demeaned a very, very important topic and issue, which affects your life directly.

This is tragic to me that, in the beginning of this hearing, there

was a lot of attention being paid by the media to this fact. It was

on ‘‘60 Minutes’’ last night. Everybody was tuned to it. And

throughout the process of this afternoon, we have seen testimony

destroyed, witnesses unable to support the statements they have

made in other ways that can cause and probably have inflamed the

topic which to you is a life-saving topic.

My sister has Parkinson’s, so I know what you’re talking about

and I understand and respect so completely the research that is

going on in the institutions that are vulnerable to this Congress,

because during the years that it was banned there were lives, I

would dare say, that were lost, and I feel responsible for this body

that does this in such a manner as to add to an inflammatory situation.

We need to be focusing on authentic testimony—testimony that

is about what happens in our NIH-sponsored institutions over

which we have directly——

Mr. BILIRAKIS. The gentlelady’s time—that’s a long one question.

Ms. CAPPS. I’m sorry.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. The gentlelady’s time has long expired.

Ms. CAPPS. And it has expired, and I apologize. I wanted to give

Dr. Cohen an opportunity to tell us one or two topics for which

there is very direct impact on disease.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. We will have a second round.

Ms. CAPPS. All right. I will reserve my——

Mr. BILIRAKIS. We will have a second round.

Ms. CAPPS. [continuing] question for Dr. Cohen until the second

round.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I appreciate that.

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you. And I apologize.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. We’re still in the first round.

Mr. Barrett?

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. And you will be the last person, I trust, unless

somebody else walks in, for the first round.

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you very much.

Mr. Alberty, you indicated, at least in the document that you

submitted, your testimony, that there was a traumatic event involving twins. Was that the event that sort of triggered your

change of mind?

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BARRETT. And that was the time, then, when you contacted

this organization?

Mr. ALBERTY. That was the sole reason why I contacted the organization.

Mr. BARRETT. And how long did you continue to work for your

employer after that?

123

Mr. ALBERTY. I don’t have a day.

Mr. BARRETT. A week? A month? Four months? A year?

Mr. ALBERTY. It may have been, like, 3 or 4 months that I continued to work.

Mr. BARRETT. And did you receive payment from both your employer and this organization at any time? We’ve seen the check

stubs that talked about your getting payments in 1997 and 1998.

Was there a time when you were receiving payments from both?

Mr. ALBERTY. I believe so. Yes.

Mr. BARRETT. We’ve heard a lot here—and this has been a very

emotional day—about this issue. I’m curious as to what your view

is. And I understand your view about late-term abortions. But first

trimester abortions and even second trimester abortion, I’m interested in your view on the morality of tissue research and the

fetal—the whole underlying fetal tissue involvement here.

Mr. ALBERTY. Right. The panel that is sitting right beside me, I

totally support and understand what they are going after and what

they are doing. But I think, on the other hand, that even people

here in Congress should also be held accountable for knowing that

what is going on out there in the field, because no one is following

up, no one is going out there. Why does it take my testimony to

come forward and say this is going on, when it clearly must have

been going on——

Mr. BARRETT. But that’s not my question. My question is to the

morality of what was occurring—again, in first trimester abortions,

a very controversial issue. Do you think it is morally wrong?

And we’ve heard from Ms. Samuelson. I watched her earlier in

the day sitting there very emotional about the impact it has on the

lives that she is working for.

Do you think it is immoral for us to have this fetal tissue research go to help save people’s lives with Parkinson’s disease?

Mr. ALBERTY. No. It’s going to really actually help to save their

lives. It is not immoral.

Mr. BARRETT. Ms. Fredericks——

Mr. ALBERTY. As long as there is an informed consent.

Mr. BARRETT. [continuing] I’d ask you the same question.

Ms. FREDERICKS. Most definitely. I think it is more than moral.

I’m very much for fetal tissue research. I think it is important.

Mr. BARRETT. So your objection, obviously, is to the business tactics that have been used——

Ms. FREDERICKS. Yes.

Mr. BARRETT. [continuing] more so than the fact that this is

being used to save people’s lives.

Ms. FREDERICKS. It’s the business tactics totally. It is not the use

of the tissue.

Mr. BARRETT. Okay. And I ask that question because I think we

might get off track at some points during this hearing, and obviously I think the three researchers have testified that they feel it

is important to do that, and that there is a difference between the

research and there is a difference between fetal tissue research,

and there is a difference between abortion, as well.

I am again curious, Mr. Alberty. During the time that you were

employed by this organization, we’ve seen stubs that total $11,000,

124

or something like that. Were you doing other work for them, or

what exactly were you doing? Do you recall?

Mr. ALBERTY. The other work would be just going to meetings,

like NAF meetings.

Mr. BARRETT. When you say ‘‘meetings,’’ were these meetings for

the pro life movement? There’s nothing wrong with this. I’m just

curious.

Mr. ALBERTY. No. The other meetings would be pro choice movement, NAF, National—you know what NAF stands for. I’m not sure

if I can say that.

Mr. BARRETT. All right. And I understand that. And let me ask

you one other question here—and we’re almost done. You stated

earlier today that during the taping, when you were wearing the

wig—you couldn’t recall whether you wore the dress—that you

were stressed.

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes.

Mr. BARRETT. I want you to just talk a little bit. What made you

stressed, again?

Mr. ALBERTY. I’ve never done that before. Going there on a

whim, not really fully thinking——

Mr. BARRETT. Did you think it was wrong? It’s not like you——

Mr. ALBERTY. I didn’t think it was wrong.

Mr. BARRETT. [continuing] went on a show to marry a millionaire, but——

Mr. ALBERTY. I don’t think it was wrong. I had a lot of concerns

about my safety, my identity being kept secret. That’s—I had a lot

of concerns about that. I had a lot of concerns——

Mr. BARRETT. Did you feel wrong when you were saying statements that you knew weren’t true?

Mr. ALBERTY. I think, when I was making the statements, when

they were coming out and I was talking about—and we’d have to

dissect, like, in the thing, which statements are true and which

statements are not true. That’s where we’d have to go. Do you have

a specific——

Mr. BARRETT. I don’t, but I think we’ve heard enough testimony

today, and I don’t feel——

Mr. ALBERTY. Right.

Mr. BARRETT. [continuing] I have to drag you over the coals

again, but I think there has been a general acknowledgement that

there were statements that weren’t true. But, again, I just was curious as to whether you—and I think my time is up, so I’d yield

back the balance of my time.

And I want to thank all of you for being here today.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. All right. I thank the gentleman.

That does complete the first round.

Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I was going to—if we’re going back

to the documents, I had a document, but I think that there were

a couple documents and——

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Well, there are a number of documents here, and

if you have a document I would suggest you put it on the pile, because I’ve asked the both staffs to work on getting together on

these things.

Mr. BARRETT. It is a letter from a Fay Clayton Chemskene at

‘‘20/20’’ talking about the problems that she has with Mr. Alberty’s

125

testimony, and I would ask unanimous consent that that be placed

in the record.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I would——

Mr. BARRETT. Yes, I’ll give it to you. I understand what

you’re——

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Why don’t we just add it to this.

Mr. BARRETT. Fine. I understand.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. People have gotten hungry and I’d like to break

for an hour to give you all an opportunity to get something to eat.

I know Dr. Coburn wants a second round, and I think Mr. Stupak indicated that he wants a second round. I think we’re going

to have to come back.

We’ll be here to late tonight. And I don’t mean that we should

keep you here that long, but——

Ms. KINNEY. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Yes?

Ms. KINNEY. I need to go, too. I need to go——

Mr. BILIRAKIS. You need to go? All right, Dr. Kinney. Well, we’ll

release whoever has to be released. All right. Drs. Kinney and

Cohen are released—are relieved. I shouldn’t use that term ‘‘released’’—and with our thanks.

There ordinarily are additional questions that have not been

asked because of the 5-minute rules, and so are you willing to respond to those or get them in writing from the committee?

Mr. COHEN. Actually, if you want, I can stay here tonight. It’s

not that urgent that I get back.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. But the weather is pretty good here.

Mr. COHEN. Yes, the weather is a lot better than it is back home.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. It’s up to you, Dr. Cohen. I’ll leave it in your

hands. Okay?

We’ll be back at 7:45.

[Brief recess.]

Mr. BILIRAKIS. The hearing will come to order.

In view of the fact that the other subcommittee members are not

here yet and Ms. Cubin is, even though we did decide to go and

shift into the second round, we’ll go ahead and recognize you to inquire.

Ms. CUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Please proceed.

Ms. CUBIN. And I don’t know if this is the appropriate time to

ask for unanimous consent to enter some documents for the record,

so I’ll just hold that.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Believe me, it is not very appropriate.

Ms. CUBIN. I would like to ask Ms. Fredericks this question.

Did any AGF representative ever tell you that they were seeking

a profit?

Ms. FREDERICKS. No. I never had a discussion of that nature

with them, and I have never met them face-to-face.

Ms. CUBIN. How about Dr. Jones. Was your impression—or did

he ever say that he wanted to make a profit from the sale of these

body parts?

Ms. FREDERICKS. I don’t believe he ever used those words, but I

think it was implied.

Ms. CUBIN. In what way?

126

Ms. FREDERICKS. Just the nature of the fact that he is a businessman.

Ms. CUBIN. Mr. Alberty, did the physicians who performed the

abortions at the facility where you worked review the researcher

request before they performed the abortion procedures?

Mr. ALBERTY. It varied. On some days they would, some days

they wouldn’t.

Ms. CUBIN. And did any physicians that performed the abortions

at the clinic where you worked ever ask you what type of tissue

that you needed that day or that requests had come in for what

kind of tissue that would be best to harvest that day?

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes, ma’am. They would basically come in, look at

the list, and they would tell me what kind of gestational weeks

were coming up.

Ms. CUBIN. Did you ever take tissue from a woman that did not

consent to donate the tissue for research purposes?

Mr. ALBERTY. On that, I was instructed by my attorney to take

the Fifth on that question.

Ms. CUBIN. I had some other questions for the doctors that were

here about their sources.

Let’s see. Ms. Fredericks, I read somewhere—and I don’t see it

right here—where you said that AFG paid rent of $600 per month.

And what else did they pay on top of that?

Ms. FREDERICKS. I had been told that it was $10 an hour, although I was never able to find a contract or any documentation

spelling out that that was truly what the agreement was. I was

told by staff members who had been there for a long time.

Ms. CUBIN. That it was $10 an hour. And what services consumed the hour?

Ms. FREDERICKS. I was never able to find anything delineated as

to what they expected for——

Ms. CUBIN. What services were actually provided?

Ms. FREDERICKS. As far as I know, the lab technician provided

a vial of blood—we drew blood on most patients—provided one of

them that they drew. They drew multiple vials. And the counselors

included the consent in the packet of information that was given

to the woman that was gone over prior to the procedure.

Ms. CUBIN. Did they go over that procedure with the woman? Do

you know?

Ms. FREDERICKS. Our counseling staff?

Ms. CUBIN. Right.

Ms. FREDERICKS. In the times that I sat in with them to observe,

they would answer any questions or go get someone from AGF to

ask the questions, but it was basically there for them to make up

their own mind on.

Ms. CUBIN. Okay. Let me just go back. Miles Jones never told

you that he was seeking a profit?

Ms. FREDERICKS. Not in those words. No.

Ms. CUBIN. How about you, Mr. Alberty?

Mr. ALBERTY. That he was seeking a profit?

Ms. CUBIN. Yes.

Mr. ALBERTY. His goal was $50,000 for the first, I believe, quarter, whatever a quarter to him is, so, basically, if you’re seeking

127

$50,000 your first go-through, that could be construed as making

a profit.

Ms. CUBIN. But you really don’t have any cost figures to base

that on or anything like that?

Mr. ALBERTY. No, ma’am, I don’t. And, due to the question that

you asked earlier, did any—maybe you would like to—the

doctors——

Ms. CUBIN. Could I restate the question?

Mr. ALBERTY. Yeah.

Ms. CUBIN. Did you ever take tissue from an abortion wherein

the woman did not consent to donate the tissue for research purposes?

Mr. ALBERTY. Well, if you had—if the question was put, ‘‘Did the

doctor ever ask me—’’ meaning Dr. Jones—‘‘to take tissue that was

non-consented-for’’——

Ms. CUBIN. Yes.

Mr. ALBERTY. [continuing] the question would be yes.

Ms. CUBIN. The answer would be yes?

Mr. ALBERTY. But then if you asked me did I take the tissue that

day that Dr. Jones—no, I did not.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. The gentlelady’s time has expired.

Ms. CUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. We are going into a second round, and I don’t

think you’ll have to wait too very long for your turn, from the way

it looks.

Ms. CUBIN. Thank you.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Let’s see. First, a little bit of housekeeping.

When we broke, there was a little bit of a controversy among the

staffs regarding the admission of certain documents into the record,

and we instructed them to get together and work things out. And

so there has been agreement. There is a document here that’s subject to further staff review and agreement. It is entitled, ‘‘Black

Tape,’’ and it is clips from a tape made by Life Dynamics and Mr.

Alberty titled, ‘‘Black Tape,’’ and that is, without objection, made

part of the record.

[The information referred to follows:]

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Additionally, there is a document here. The cover

sheet is, ‘‘Arnold & Porter,’’ and it consists of a letter from the law

firm of Arnold & Porter, to Mr. Brown and me, dated March 9,

2000, entitled, ‘‘Authentication of Planned Parenthood Documents.’’

That is subject to redaction, and a better copy is being prepared.

And then there are a number of other documents here which

both sides have agreed to.

I understand Ms. Cubin has documentation that both sides have

agreed to. Is that taken care of?

Mr. BILIRAKIS. They are included in here.

So, without objection, then, all of this documentation will be

made a part of the record. I have not identified the rest of it in the

interest of time, but I know both staffs are aware of what they are.

[The information referred to follows:]

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Okay. That being the case, we’ll go into the second round at this point. And I just have something very quickly,

and then I’m going to yield the rest of my time to Dr. Coburn.

Ms. Fredericks, you haven’t been subpoenaed to be here.

Ms. FREDERICKS. No, sir.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Why are you here?

Ms. FREDERICKS. When I was contacted by ‘‘20/20’’ and I found

out that they had letters that I had written and the spreadsheet

that I had done that I did not provide for them, I was very concerned that—I basically kind of wanted to make sure that if documents that I prepared were out there, that I wanted to make sure

that everyone knew what was behind them and stand up for myself

in saying——

Mr. BILIRAKIS. So you offered to testify before this committee for

those reasons?

Ms. FREDERICKS. Yes, I did. Yes.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Alberty, you’ve gone through a pretty tough

time.

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I know that things have been rocky for you, somewhat inconsistent—I’m sure you’re the first one to admit that——

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. [continuing] between maybe statements you made

previously and statements you have made here today under oath.

And you were subpoenaed because you entered into that agreement

and you couldn’t——

Mr. ALBERTY. I wanted to be subpoenaed.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. You wanted to be subpoenaed because you wanted

to come here to——

Mr. ALBERTY. I wanted to come here. Yes, sir.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. You wanted to come here to share your experience

with us.

Mr. ALBERTY. That’s very true.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. And we appreciate the fact that you both wanted

to do that for what I consider to be the right reasons.

Mr. ALBERTY. I appreciate the fact that you’re letting us come

here, sir.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Well, I thank you, sir.

I know we’re all terribly disappointed that Dr. Jones is not here.

Mr. ALBERTY. I am, too.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I think he could have added an awful lot to this

hearing. I think that’s an under-statement.

In any case, the Chair yields the balance of his 31⁄2 minutes to

Dr. Coburn.

Mr. COBURN. Thank you.

Would the staff please give Mr. Alberty a copy of the Anatomic

Gift Foundation ship-out reports?

Mr. Alberty, did you prepare these documents?

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COBURN. And are they a true recollection of the procedures

that you performed on those days?

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes, sir. My initials are the tech, ‘‘LDA,’’ Lawrence

D. Alberty.

Mr. COBURN. I would ask you to turn to the one dated 2/8/96.

264

Mr. ALBERTY. Okay.

Mr. COBURN. And look at donor ID 113968. It’s about two-thirds

of the way down the table.

Mr. ALBERTY. That’s 113968?

Mr. COBURN. Yes.

Mr. ALBERTY. Twenty-one weeks?

Mr. COBURN. Yes, 21-week, 220 gram fetus.

Mr. ALBERTY. Right.

Mr. COBURN. If we look at what you have written over to the

side, what I see here is a lung, two legs, two arms, a liver, two kidneys, an adrenal gland, and two eyes; is that correct?

Mr. ALBERTY. That’s correct, but the weight was the patient’s

weight, 220 pounds, not the fetus.

Mr. COBURN. Okay. Let me ask you something. If, in fact, the

clinic was paid $600 a month for a site fee, and these, according

to Anatomic Gift Foundation prices, $80 a pop, I get $800 here for

one group of fetal parts. Is that a correct assumption?

Mr. ALBERTY. I have never seen, sir, their price list.

Mr. COBURN. Okay. I have seen their price list. But there is, in

fact, ten organs or pieces of tissue that are being shipped separately, and under one container, ten separate items that are being

shipped?

Mr. ALBERTY. That’s correct. You also have to indicate that they

were doing blood testing and charging for blood testing.

Mr. COBURN. So, in fact, there’s $800 worth of revenue off of one

fetus at this time?

Mr. ALBERTY. Yeah. And then you have to also indicate special

handling fees, whatever that might be.

Mr. COBURN. So—but let’s forget that.

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes.

Mr. COBURN. Let’s say that there’s no charge for blood, there’s

no charge for tissue typing, there’s no charge for an HIV test,

there’s no charge for any of this. Just on this one fact, one fetus

out of several done that day more than covers both your rate at $10

an hour and what the clinic was paid for the entire month?

Mr. ALBERTY. Absolutely.

Mr. COBURN. So if we were to take all the sheets for February,

what we would see is there is a significant amount of billing potential out of everything that is listed here. And you do agree that

these are your sheets and that you did produce them?

Mr. ALBERTY. That is 100 percent correct.

Mr. COBURN. All right. And this is Anatomic Gift Foundation,

this is not the other company which—Opening Lines?

Mr. ALBERTY. That’s correct.

Mr. COBURN. And there is a significant difference between Opening Lines. And I would ask the staff to also give you Opening

Lines’ price list, which you said you were involved in developing.

Is that a correct statement?

Mr. ALBERTY. That is a correct statement. I sat down with him

over a dinner and he went over the pricing and asked me if I

agreed or disagreed, and——

Mr. COBURN. And so you have seen this price list before?

Mr. ALBERTY. That is correct, sir.

265

Mr. COBURN. And if one were to imagine this price list that we

could collect from one baby all these different things, as outlined

in that price list, that totals $14,000 for one baby.

Mr. ALBERTY. That would be correct. The math is correct.

Mr. COBURN. So I don’t believe that, even if your testimony, in

terms of not being consistent with what you’ve said both by affidavit, by deposition, and what you’ve said here, the fact is that you

did write these, these collection sheets.

Mr. ALBERTY. The shipping and procurement. Yes, sir.

Mr. COBURN. And that if we contrast just one baby in 1 day, that

there is a significant profit being made, both by Anatomic Gift

Foundation and Opening Lines.

Mr. ALBERTY. You are correct, sir.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. My time has expired for this gentleman.

Mr. COBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Of course, his own time will be coming.

Ms. Eshoo to inquire?

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, might I—Mr. Alberty has acknowledged that these, in fact, are his sheets, his working sheets, and

I would ask unanimous consent that this be entered in.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. That is not a part of the group that we just had?

Mr. COBURN. No.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Is there an objection?

[No response.]

Mr. BILIRAKIS. There being none, that is the case.

[The information referred to follows:]

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Ms. Eshoo?

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just a quick question relative to the last round. These are fees.

Do you have any knowledge of these amounts actually being paid

by anyone?

Mr. ALBERTY. No, ma’am. I have no——

Ms. ESHOO. So this is just a list?

Mr. ALBERTY. That’s just a list.

Ms. ESHOO. Just a list. Okay.

Mr. Alberty, you told ‘‘20/20’’ that you helped put together Opening Lines’ price list in 1998. Now, you already knew that it was illegal to profit from the sale of fetal tissue. In fact, until Dr. Jones

hired you to retrieve and market tissue, he had never been in this

business, had he?

Mr. ALBERTY. I have no idea.

Ms. ESHOO. You have no idea, or no?

Mr. ALBERTY. I have no idea if he was ever in this business.

Ms. ESHOO. Lynn Fredericks told our staff earlier this week that

Dr. Jones was hired mostly because of his pathology services, and

that fetal tissue was just an extra he threw in. So Dr. Jones didn’t

have any contact with the researcher community or any sense of

what the cost of procuring the tissue; is that correct?

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes, that’s correct.

Ms. ESHOO. But you did, because at the time you had been in

this business for 3 years, since 1995. You knew how long each retrieval took, what the preservation and shipping costs were, and

you knew the researchers, didn’t you?

Mr. ALBERTY. I know the researchers. I didn’t know the preservation cost. Those fees were handled especially by AGF, and they

could vary. So I never saw the billing.

Ms. ESHOO. So you weren’t aware of any preservation costs or

shipping costs at all?

Mr. ALBERTY. If they sent in the material, or if they——

Ms. ESHOO. What does that mean? Is it yes or no?

Mr. ALBERTY. No. That would be no.

Ms. ESHOO. All right. One of the reasons that AGF let you go

was because there were allegations that you were giving the names

of researchers to others. Is that correct?

Mr. ALBERTY. That the names I was giving to others? No, that

is not correct.

Ms. ESHOO. Well, what was the reason that they let you go?

Mr. ALBERTY. I was tardy coming to work. I was totally sick and

tired of coming there and doing my job, so I was very sick. I embellished my hours because I basically charged them for being on the

road in the morning till I——

Ms. ESHOO. I want to remind you that you are under oath.

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes.

Ms. ESHOO. There is a letter to you from the AGF, the Anatomic

Gift Foundation, to you, Lawrence Dean Alberty, your address.

‘‘Dear Mr. Alberty—and this letter constitutes 30 days termination

notice of your agreement,’’ and it goes on to state why, which is not

what you just said. So I’d like unanimous consent to place this in

the record.

Mr. ALBERTY. I would like to see that, please.

285

Ms. ESHOO. Certainly. It is addressed to you, December 4, 1997.

Let me just go on.

Based on your knowledge——

Mr. COBURN [presiding]. Does the gentlelady have a unanimous

consent request?

Ms. ESHOO. I will ask for it, but I want to continue on with my

questions.

Based on your knowledge, you helped Dr. Jones price tissue, did

you not?

Mr. ALBERTY. I helped him price the tissue. I told him, when we

were sitting down for dinner, once again, that I repeated this.

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. I just wanted that for the record and make it

very clear.

Mr. ALBERTY. Right.

Ms. ESHOO. In fact, according to your deposition, you told him at

one point that he could bring in $50,000 a month from fetal tissue.

That’s on page 248 of your deposition.

I’m not going to defend Dr. Jones, of course, if these allegations

are true, but it appears that you were quite an enabler and perhaps a co-conspirator. Were you or were you not?

Mr. ALBERTY. No, I was not.

Ms. ESHOO. But you did help him price?

Mr. ALBERTY. I sat there——

Ms. ESHOO. You deny——

Mr. ALBERTY. Once again, I deny that I sat there and gave him

the prices.

Ms. ESHOO. Do you deny what is on page 248 of your deposition

relative to this question?

Mr. ALBERTY. I don’t have 248 of the deposition in front of me,

so I cannot see that.

Ms. ESHOO. All right. Well, we’ll provide it for you. How’s that?

Mr. ALBERTY. That would be wonderful.

Ms. ESHOO. Let’s look at your salary for a moment. When you

worked for AGF, you were guaranteed $200 or $20 an hour a week;

is that correct?

Mr. ALBERTY. That is not correct.

Ms. ESHOO. What were you paid?

Mr. ALBERTY. Ten dollars an hour.

Ms. ESHOO. Well, that figure is——

Mr. ALBERTY. It never came. Well, $10 an hour. There was never

a negotiation saying, ‘‘Oh, well, we’ll give you $200 a week, whether you meet it or not.’’ No.

Ms. ESHOO. So what were you paid, $10 an hour?

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes, $10 an hour.

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. That’s what I——

Mr. ALBERTY. But it would never——

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. All right. But you testified in your deposition

that for Opening Lines you received $1,000 per week, or about $25

an hour. You weren’t just a technician, you were doing marketing

for Opening Lines, were you not?

Mr. ALBERTY. I was paid $1,000 an hour, but was I doing marketing for them?

Ms. ESHOO. No, not $1,000 an hour, $1,000 a week.

286

Mr. ALBERTY. I mean, no, I wish it was $1,000 an hour. That is

correct, $1,000 a week. But was I doing marketing for them? No,

I was not.

I was contacting, under the supervision, and giving names to Dr.

Miles Jones so he could contact researchers.

Ms. ESHOO. Were you calling researchers——

Mr. ALBERTY. But did I contact——

Ms. ESHOO. Let me just——

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes, I did.

Ms. ESHOO. Were you calling researchers and telling them about

your services?

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes, I did.

Ms. ESHOO. All right. It appears that with your higher salary you

were also profiting from Dr. Jones’ higher prices. Does that—do

you agree with that or do you disagree with it?

Mr. ALBERTY. Was I profiting from him, but he never made anything to pay me. I mean——

Ms. ESHOO. No, I didn’t ask you that.

Mr. ALBERTY. Okay. Restate your question then.

Ms. ESHOO. I said: it appears that with your higher salary you

were also profiting from Dr. Jones’ higher prices.

Mr. ALBERTY. No, because he was in the red.

Ms. ESHOO. I’m not talking about him. I’m talking about you.

Mr. ALBERTY. Well, I made $1,000 an hour. Was I profiting——

Ms. ESHOO. That’s $1,000 a week.

Mr. ALBERTY. [continuing] from Dr. Miles Jones? Yes, I was.

Ms. ESHOO. All right. Now, you didn’t tell Life Dynamics——

Mr. COBURN. The gentlelady’s time has expired.

Ms. ESHOO. All right.

Mr. COBURN. We’ll let you finish this question, if you’d like.

Ms. ESHOO. Please. You didn’t tell Life Dynamics about what you

were doing on the side with Dr. Jones, did you?

Mr. ALBERTY. No, I did not. Not until probably December 1st or

somewhere in December.

Ms. ESHOO. Of what year?

Mr. ALBERTY. Of 1999.

Ms. ESHOO. Because there were a lot of checks from——

Mr. ALBERTY. Of 1999.

Ms. ESHOO. Of 1999?

Mr. ALBERTY. Of 1999.

Ms. ESHOO. All right.

Mr. Chairman, I’d like to ask unanimous consent that this letter

from AGF signed by James Bardsley, Jr., the administrative director and vice president——

Mr. COBURN. Without objection.

Ms. ESHOO. [continuing] be placed in the record. Thank you.

[The information referred to follows:]

287

288

Mr. COBURN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Greenwood?

Mr. GREENWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Alberty——

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes, sir?

Mr. GREENWOOD. [continuing] I’m looking at a document that is

on Life Dynamics, Incorporated’s stationery that says, ‘‘During his

association with us, we have made payments to Dean Alberty totaling $10,150 in remuneration and $11,276.04 reimbursement for expenses—hotel, travel, food, audiotape purchases, conference registration, association dues, etc.’’

Of the $10,150 which was essentially salary, what were you

doing for them to earn that salary?

Mr. ALBERTY. Going to NAF conferences.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Were you what——

Mr. ALBERTY. Documents to them.

Mr. GREENWOOD. You were selling documents to them?

Mr. ALBERTY. I was—they asked me if I had anything of AGF or

in that realm that I could supply to them, and I did, and they paid

a certain amount of money. Yes, we did.

Mr. COBURN. Would the gentleman yield for a second? Could we

have a clarification of what NAF is, if you wouldn’t mind?

Mr. ALBERTY. National Abortion Federation.

Mr. COBURN. Thank you.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Were the documents—did you obtain the documents that you sold to this organization legally?

Mr. ALBERTY. They were in my midst. Yes, they were legally.

Mr. GREENWOOD. You had them legally, but you just—you provided them to——

Mr. ALBERTY. They were confidential material.

Mr. GREENWOOD. They were confidential. You violated the confidentiality in providing them to your employer at the time, which

was Life Dynamics. You were receiving pay from both outfits, right,

at the same time?

Mr. ALBERTY. I believe so. Yes.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Were you what—were you referred to as a ‘‘life

spy’’? Have you heard that term?

Mr. ALBERTY. I’ve heard the term before.

Mr. GREENWOOD. What does that mean?

Mr. ALBERTY. Someone that might be spying for a while, but

never able to come out, because we didn’t know when or how I

would be able to come and present my face to anybody.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Okay.

Mr. ALBERTY. Because I was terrified for my life.

Mr. GREENWOOD. The organization that you were working for, for

whom you were a life spy, is, as I understand it, founded by a fellow whose name is Crutcher, who has as his stated goal, ‘‘To make

abortion unavailable by any means necessary.’’ Have you ever

heard that phraseology?

Mr. ALBERTY. No, sir.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Okay. That’s from his book. That’s a direct

quote, for the record, from his quote called, ‘‘Firestorm: a Guerilla

Strategy for Pro-Life America.’’

You told me earlier and you’ve said to other members today that

when you were making the videotape you lied.

289

Mr. ALBERTY. I didn’t lie. There were certain things that were

not totally adequate.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Well, some things——

Mr. ALBERTY. Well, I mean, yes, okay, you can say that certain

parts of it may not have been totally truthful, as in——

Mr. GREENWOOD. We call that lies.

Mr. ALBERTY. What?

Mr. GREENWOOD. You intentionally told something that—stated

something in the video that you knew not to be true. Is that true

or false?

Mr. ALBERTY. Well, an example would be in the video it’s something where it states 30 weeks. No. Not 30 weeks. That’s

always——

Mr. GREENWOOD. So you knew it wasn’t a gestation period of 30

weeks, and yet you said it was——

Mr. ALBERTY. It was a guess that it was 30 weeks.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Were you—why do you think you did that?

Were you coached at all to say certain things during that? As I understood, it took 5 hours to make that videotape, and then it was

distilled down to about 14 minutes. Were you coached as to what

to say?

Mr. ALBERTY. No, I wasn’t coached on what to say. Basically, I

went there just to say what I had to say. They were—sometimes

Dentra would give me a question and I would answer the question.

Mr. GREENWOOD. And then would you—did you answer the same

question repeatedly? Did you try to give one answer, and then they

asked you, ‘‘Let’s try that answer again?’’ and ask the question

again and you’d give a different answer——

Mr. ALBERTY. I’m not sure on that.

Mr. GREENWOOD. [continuing] until you got it right? You’re not

sure about that? Did they find you, or did you find them?

Mr. ALBERTY. I contacted, after a failed attempt with the FBI, a

pro-life group in the State of Kansas, and the State of Kansas referred me to Life Dynamics. At that point, Life Dynamics wanted

me to come forth, say what I had to say, tell everything I had seen,

and basically expose myself, but I told them I would not do that.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Do you think that the fact that you were paid

in excess of $21,000 by this organization had any influence on the

fact that you intentionally made deceptive and untrue remarks on

the videotape?

Mr. ALBERTY. That I was paid? Did I make——

Mr. GREENWOOD. Earlier you said today you did the videotape.

You only, at that time, acknowledged $400 payment from them, but

you said that you did it because you needed the money. Were you

pretty desperate for money at the time?

Mr. ALBERTY. When I was going through—let me phrase and get

you clarified on this.

When I was working with AGF, pay checks were never on time.

It wound me almost into bankruptcy. And then I wound up working for a lawn and garden service. Even though I was very disgusted with myself, and because I was not being very successful,

and due to the fact that I saw the late-term abortions with the

twins being killed, that very upset me.

Mr. GREENWOOD. It should.

290

Mr. ALBERTY. And that led me to probably 6 months at Suburban

Lawn and Garden. And after that is when I was contacted by Miles

Jones to come forward and do some stuff. And the whole time while

I was with Jones, Life Dynamics never knew I was doing it.

The reason why is I did not want a pro life group or any outside

influence telling me or, you know, prodding me like, ‘‘Hey, you

know, why don’t you see what’s going on here?’’ I didn’t want that.

I wanted to be able to some day come forward with my testimony

to whoever it may be, God or whoever, and say, ‘‘Hey, I did this

on my own for $1,000 a week working for Dr. Miles Jones, and I

proved that his organization was as bad as this organization was.’’

And the comparisons—it’s a very fine line.

Mr. GREENWOOD. His organization was as bad as what organization?

Mr. ALBERTY. AGF.

Mr. COBURN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

The gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You know, this is an extremely serious issue before us on whether fetal tissue is being bought and sold for profit, and that’s why

you see Members of Congress still here, because we’re really trying

to get to the bottom of this. It has to be bought and sold for profits,

so let me ask some questions again along those lines. I still haven’t

heard any evidence of that yet today and am still perplexed as to

why we haven’t.

In this protocol that you said, Mr. Alberty, on the back of your

written things that you wrote out, and there is some typed-up stuff,

that was all part of your protocol.

Mr. ALBERTY. Right.

Mr. STUPAK. It says on here, ‘‘Always insure contents of package in amount of $1,000 or higher.’’ Why would you do it for $1,000 if—

now, that sounds like there would be some profit there if your

insurance——

Mr. ALBERTY. What page are you on?

Mr. STUPAK. I don’t know. They’re not numbered. Page four. Bottom of page four.

Mr. ALBERTY. Bottom of page four. Give me a minute.

Mr. STUPAK. It says ‘‘tibia.’’ Bottom of it says, ‘‘Always insure—

or higher if instructed by IIAM.’’

Mr. ALBERTY. Oh, IIAM is not Anatomic—that was AGF. That’s

not Miles Jones. IIAM was a company that they were before AGF.

Mr. STUPAK. But why insure for $1,000? If it is worth $100, why

not just insure it for $100?

Mr. ALBERTY. You know, I don’t know. I guess they felt like if

they could insure it for $1,000—and FedEx would lose packages—

that they could be fully compensated.

Mr. STUPAK. Doesn’t the insurance usually reflect the value of

the contents of the package?

Mr. ALBERTY. I would think so.

Mr. STUPAK. In your dinner that you had with Dr. Jones, where

you talked about what the prices should be, what was your arrangement? Were you paid strictly salary? Was there any other

compensation for you?

Mr. ALBERTY. It was $1,000 a week, sir.

291

Mr. STUPAK. Pardon?

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes, $1,000 a week.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. It was $1,000 a week, no matter how much came

into the clinic?

Mr. ALBERTY. The long-term goal that Dr. Miles Jones set forth

was eventually, if he exceeded $50,000—and I believe his words

were a quarter, whatever a quarter turns out to be in his phrase—

then he would give me a nice little bonus.

Mr. STUPAK. Okay. So when you were setting these prices, then,

or the fee schedule, ‘‘Fee for Services Schedule,’’ it says here, by

Opening Lines, then what you’re setting is—was that $50,000 figure—were these prices inflated to reach that $50,000 figure?

Mr. ALBERTY. When I sat down with Miles Jones over this price

list——

Mr. STUPAK. Right.

Mr. ALBERTY. [continuing] everything you see on here he inflated. When I would say one thing, he goes, ‘‘Okay.’’ He would——

Mr. STUPAK. Well, the inflated price was to get to this goal of

$50,000, correct?

Mr. ALBERTY. Say what?

Mr. STUPAK. The inflated price was to get to this $50,000 per

week [sic] goal that you are trying for?

Mr. ALBERTY. That he was trying for. Yes.

Mr. STUPAK. Okay. That Opening Lines was trying for.

Mr. ALBERTY. Opening Lines. Yes.

Mr. STUPAK. And you didn’t really object to it, because if you

make it you got a bonus, too?

Mr. ALBERTY. We would never reach that, and I knew they never

would.

Mr. STUPAK. But if they reached it, you got a bonus?

Mr. ALBERTY. That was Miles Jones’ understanding, but whether

I would have seen it, probably not.

Mr. STUPAK. Okay. But it was your understanding you’d get a

bonus?

Mr. ALBERTY. That was my understanding.

Mr. STUPAK. Okay.

Ms. Fredericks, in response to a question from Congressman

Burr, you said you saw a lot of revenue in looking at AGF revenue,

and then you examined maybe—I take it your clinic was giving

your fetal tissue right to AGF, right?

Ms. FREDERICKS. Yes.

Mr. STUPAK. And you saw the revenues, and you said your clinic

was having a little difficulties, it would be a way to develop revenue if you could deal directly, cut out AGF, right?

Ms. FREDERICKS. Yes.

Mr. STUPAK. And you said that you looked at it, looked at the

law, and decided you couldn’t do that?

Ms. FREDERICKS. Correct.

Mr. STUPAK. And you went to the CEO of the company?

Ms. FREDERICKS. Yes.

Mr. STUPAK. What did the CEO, he or she, say when you said,

‘‘We’ve got a problem here,’’ or, ‘‘I think there is a revenue stream

here that is rather questionable. That looks a little high’’?

292

Ms. FREDERICKS. Well, when I initially went to her with, ‘‘Look,

there is a potential revenue stream here,’’ it was, ‘‘We need to research this further,’’ because there were some ethical issues and

legal issues that——

Mr. STUPAK. Sure.

Ms. FREDERICKS. [continuing] we wanted to make sure that we’re

in order before we considered it any further.

Mr. STUPAK. And you tried to get invoices and couldn’t get any,

right?

Ms. FREDERICKS. I tried to get copies of contracts and documentation, and I could not.

Mr. STUPAK. Did you ask the CEO for the contracts?

Ms. FREDERICKS. Yes.

Mr. STUPAK. He never produced them?

Ms. FREDERICKS. Yes. The person—the clinic had been purchased

from another entity——

Mr. STUPAK. Okay.

Ms. FREDERICKS. [continuing] about 3 to 6 months prior to my

getting there, and in that transition there was a lot of documents

that were misplaced and hard to find.

Mr. STUPAK. Sure. Did you then take this concern anywhere

else? Did you go to authorities or anything like that?

Ms. FREDERICKS. No. I just took it to the CEO, and that’s where

I was instructed to take it.

Mr. STUPAK. Okay.

Mr. Alberty——

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes, sir?

Mr. STUPAK. —I’ve heard a lot about this twin event or the twin

babies. Did you ever report that to the police if it——

Mr. ALBERTY. No, I couldn’t. I didn’t trust—when the police are

working there in a local city, it was my impression that the police

always protected the clinic.

Mr. STUPAK. Okay.

Mr. ALBERTY. And was I going to stand forward at that moment

and say, ‘‘Hello, my name is Dean Alberty. I’ve witnessed two

twins—’’ Mr. STUPAK. Okay. In a question from Mr. Greenwood,

you indicated that you were fearful, you were concerned.

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes, I was.

Mr. STUPAK. From who? Who would harm you?

Mr. ALBERTY. I was fearful from both sides. I didn’t trust the pro

life group or the pro choice group. If the doctors would have found

out at that point I was objecting strongly or if I was going out here

to eventually talk to someone, would it be beyond belief that they

would put a bullet in my brain? No, it would not.

You always hear about the pro life group coming after abortion

doctors, but don’t you ever hear about the pro choice and abortion

doctor coming after someone to shut him up? Did you know I got

a death threat?

Mr. STUPAK. Without using any names or things like that, other

than Dr. Jones, is there anyone else that you have knowledge or

you have reason to believe profiting from the sale of fetal tissue?

Just yes or no.

Mr. ALBERTY. No. I mean, could you rephrase that?

293

Mr. STUPAK. Sure. Other than Dr. Jones, is there anyone else

you believe—have reason to believe may have profited from the

sale of fetal tissue?

Mr. ALBERTY. Well, you know Dr. Jones had partners. Did those

partners of him, the two women that——

Mr. STUPAK. I’m asking you, do you have any reason to believe

anyone else other than Dr. Jones——

Mr. ALBERTY. No. No.

Mr. STUPAK. Okay.

Mr. COBURN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. COBURN. The gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. BRYANT. Does the chairman need some time? You know, I

can’t help but make one quick comment before us. In years of experience in civil cases and criminal cases, an old saying, you have

witnesses that turn on other people that do these things, they often

get criticized in trials and their credibility attacked, and, of course,

we always say when you do something, when you commit a crime,

you don’t do it in front of the priest and the Sunday School teachers and the Boy Scouts. And I don’t know if that applies here or

not, but I thought I’d say that and add that to the record and yield

the balance of my time to the chairman.

Mr. COBURN. Thank you.

I would like for the staff to get a copy of the Anatomic Gift Foundation payment history.

I believe, Ms. Fredericks, this is a document you’ve created. All

I would like for you to do is verify that that is the case.

Ms. FREDERICKS. This appears to be the spreadsheet that I created, but I have not had the opportunity to cross check and verify

that these are actually the numbers. They look like it, but I can’t

attest to that exactly. My memory is not that good.

Mr. COBURN. But the rent was $600 a month——

Ms. FREDERICKS. Correct.

Mr. COBURN. [continuing] for the facility fee?

Ms. FREDERICKS. That’s what I was told. Yes.

Mr. COBURN. And then you also collected fees based on the informed consent that you offered?

Ms. FREDERICKS. I did not know what the additional money was

based on, and that was my major concern. I had been told by staff

members that it was $10 an hour. That’s why the column in

there—this is $10 an hour, the number of hours that I was trying

to back into that to see how many hours that was.

Mr. COBURN. That’s a perfectly justifiable explanation.

I’d like unanimous consent to put this in the record, if I may.

Ms. FREDERICKS. I’d like to take a look at it.

Mr. COBURN. Yes. With the caveat that she’ll verify that it is.

No objection, so ordered.

[The information referred to follows:]

Anatomic Gift Foundation Payment History

Chk date Rent

$10/hr

Hours Other Total

Oct ................................................................................... 11/20/97 $600.00 $600.00 $1,200.00

Sept ................................................................................. 10/30/97 $600.00 $490.00 $223.69 $1,313.69

294

Anatomic Gift Foundation Payment History—Continued

Chk date Rent

$10/hr

Hours Other Total

Aug .................................................................................. 09/23/97 $600.00 $370.00 $970.00

July .................................................................................. 08/25/97 $600.00 $720.00 $1,320.00

June ................................................................................. 07/25/97 $600.00 $350.00 $950.00

May .................................................................................. 06/25/97 $600.00 $510.00 $1,110.00

1/2 April .......................................................................... 02/28/97 $300.00 $80.00 $380.00

March .............................................................................. 02/28/97 $770.00 $770.00

March .............................................................................. 02/28/97 $600.00 $2,900.00 $3,500.00

Feb ................................................................................... 02/28/97 $600.00 $600.00

Jan ................................................................................... 02/19/97 $600.00 $600.00

Dec .................................................................................. 01/17/97 $600.00 $600.00

Total ................................................................................ $6,300.00 $6,790.00 $13,313.69

Average ............................................................................ $572.73 $754.44

Mr. COBURN. Ms. Fredericks, I want to spend a little time. I don’t

believe anybody else in this room has delivered 2,000 babies, and

I have. Okay? I want to ask you what you know about informed

consent.

Well, I want to preface it first. In every court of law in this country a signed document does not imply informed consent. What it

says is I’ve signed a document that says somebody has attempted

to give me informed content.

Ms. FREDERICKS. Yes.

Mr. COBURN. And my question to you is—and you may not be

able to answer it—an informed consent in a court of law is that you

have identified the patient and the procedure to be performed, the

indications for that procedure, the risks associated with that procedure, the possible complications associated with that procedure,

and the possible untoward outcomes, as well as informing the patient that if you do nothing here’s the possible outcome.

Is it your feeling that that was the type of informed consent that

was given to these patients as to the Anatomic Gift tissue, as to

the fetal tissue that was being transmitted, and also as to the procedure? I’m not as interested in the procedure as I am in terms of

the tissue.

Ms. FREDERICKS. I don’t truly remember verbatim what their

consent said. We had so many consents of our own——

Mr. COBURN. Right.

Ms. FREDERICKS. [continuing] that this was one more piece of

paper in a packet of information.

Mr. COBURN. I guess the question I have for you is: who collected

the consent? Did the doctor performing the abortion collect the consent, or did those people in the clinic——

Ms. FREDERICKS. For the donation of tissue?

Mr. COBURN. No. For both the abortion and the donation of tissue.

Ms. FREDERICKS. The physician had to meet with the patient

prior to performing the——

Mr. COBURN. Right, as we would expect.

Ms. FREDERICKS. [continuing] procedure to make sure they didn’t

have any questions and to make sure they signed the consent. ‘‘Do

you have any questions? Do you understand the risk?’’

Mr. COBURN. Right.

295

Ms. FREDERICKS. The physician signed it, the patient signed it,

and a witness signed it.

Mr. COBURN. Okay.

Ms. FREDERICKS. That was one of the clinic’s consent, one of

many.

Mr. COBURN. Okay.

Ms. FREDERICKS. As far as the consent to donate, that was just

one in the packet.

Mr. COBURN. We had—Mr. Alberty stated that these tissue collections were his writings, these shipping, and in there, there were

several—over a period of a month, several individual cases with

multiple organs from one individual specimen, and also multiple

numbers of young females who had made this very difficult choice

in their life.

Is there any doubt in your mind that every one of those knew

that their—the products of their conception was going to be used—

all those that had products shipped, that they, in fact, knew that

and were informed of that? Do you feel comfortable with that at

night? That’s all I’m asking.

Ms. FREDERICKS. No.

Mr. COBURN. So there is some small amount of doubt in your

mind that they might not have had that?

Ms. FREDERICKS. Yes.

Mr. COBURN. Thank you very much.

My time has expired.

I believe, Ms. Eshoo, you’ve gone, so I’m going to go to Ms.

Cubin.

Ms. CUBIN. Mr. Alberty, I appreciate your being here. I know not

only have you had a rough day today, but it sounds like you’ve had

a rough few years. And I appreciate that your motives are that you

want to have a clean slate with your God and with yourself. I do

appreciate that.

I would like to know, in the settlement of the lawsuit that was

filed against you for breach of contract by AFG—excuse me, AGF—

did you pay any monetary settlement to them at all?

Mr. ALBERTY. No. I had to put up $500 that I barely had enough

to do, and that went into, I guess, what they call an ‘‘escrow’’ that

my attorney holds, and then I had to sign a document—and this

was all under protest, because I had no more money for legal fees.

When the Anatomic Gift Foundation, whose attorneys are the

ACLU and they’re getting free charge, and I’m suffering to try to

put dinner on the table, pay for a house, so——

Ms. CUBIN. So that affidavit that we saw earlier, that is the document that basically settled the lawsuit for you; isn’t that right?

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes. Unless I violate my document, then, you

know, but I’m under subpoena, so I have to tell everything.

Ms. CUBIN. I don’t have any more questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ALBERTY. Thank you.

Mr. COBURN. The Chair would recognize himself for 5 minutes,

and then I think we can finish up here.

Mr. Alberty, did you lie to ‘‘20/20’’?

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, can I just ask—interrupt, I’m sorry.

Will you allow another round? That’s why I’m here. I have another

question I’d like to ask.

296

Mr. COBURN. I would be happy to defer to you right now.

Ms. ESHOO. Great. Thank you very much.

I wanted to ask both Lynn Fredericks and Mr. Alberty about the

International Biological Supply. Tell me what that is.

Ms. FREDERICKS. That is Dean and I’s company.

Ms. ESHOO. So you have a business together?

Ms. FREDERICKS. Yes, we do.

Ms. ESHOO. All right. And how long have you had this business?

Ms. FREDERICKS. Since late spring of 1999.

Ms. ESHOO. Now, did it collect tissue also?

Ms. FREDERICKS. Can you be more specific?

Mr. ALBERTY. Fetal tissue, do you mean?

Ms. ESHOO. Fetal tissue. Did it collect fetal tissue?

Ms. FREDERICKS. That is basically how the company started.

Dean called me and said he was getting calls from researchers who

were asking him for tissue. I had been unable to find a job. I knew

people in the industry and I made a phone call, and we went to

a clinic that does very early abortions and I believe we did free donors, were unable to get adequate tissue to, you know, to meet the

needs of the person who wanted them. They weren’t of a quality

because of the way the procedure was done. And we changed—we

figured we couldn’t do this, so we went and we started procuring

umbilical cords and foreskins, and now we have branched into cancerous tissue.

Ms. ESHOO. Do you, Mr. Alberty, want to describe this brochure

that I have here, ‘‘International Biological Supply’’?

Let me ask you something else, because you don’t have it in front

of you. I’m sure you’re familiar with it, because either you or Ms.

Fredericks authorized its printing because it advertises your business.

When did you decide to get into this business? After you were

disgusted, before you were disgusted, before you went to Lifetime

Dynamics? When did you engage in this business together, in

terms of collecting tissue? And when did your conscience start bothering you as you’ve testified? I’m very confused about your testimony, because you say things on the one hand and then you say

things on the other.

Now, this is documented, and Ms. Fredericks has said that you

had a business together that you started, I guess, in April 1999.

So what were you doing just before this? You started this in April

1999, and when did you stop doing this?

Ms. FREDERICKS. Stop procuring this——

Ms. ESHOO. Yes.

Ms. FREDERICKS. The fetal tissue?

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. What you are here to talk about today.

Ms. FREDERICKS. Probably April 1999, the same——

Ms. ESHOO. You started it in April, 1999, or you ended in 1999,

April 1999?

Ms. FREDERICKS. It was three donors. It wasn’t working. We——

Ms. ESHOO. Well, it is a business brochure.

Ms. FREDERICKS. Right.

Ms. ESHOO. You’ve got a lot of advertising here for what you set

out to do.

Ms. FREDERICKS. Right.

297

Ms. ESHOO. Okay? And I think that’s very important to get into

the record, because I don’t think it is something that either one of

you have mentioned since 2 this afternoon that you, indeed, went

out and had your own business to do what you’ve come here to protest about today.

Ms. FREDERICKS. Can I make a comment?

Ms. ESHOO. So I think it really flies in the face of why we’re even

having a hearing today.

Credibility from witnesses means a lot in terms of an issue. It

really does. And——

Mr. ALBERTY. Credibility also comes from the part of being able

to stand up for myself and say that I saw late-term abortions being

done wrong. This is not late-term abortions. And the——

Ms. ESHOO. It’s my time.

Mr. ALBERTY. I’m sorry.

Ms. ESHOO. That’s not what we’re here to discuss today. And you

can hold that view, and in this magnificent Nation of ours you hold

yours, the people that are—the person that is seated next to you

may hold the same view, the people behind you may have an entirely different view, and that’s all right. That’s part of the blessings of this Nation.

But the hearing today was not on what you just exploded about.

It was about the profiteering——

Mr. ALBERTY. I’m sorry for my explosion.

Ms. ESHOO. [continuing] the profiteering of the sale of fetal tissue, which is against Federal law.

Now, you said an awful lot on ‘‘20/20.’’

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes.

Ms. ESHOO. I have a sense that ‘‘20/20’’ is going to have to start

retracting or make an apology for what you put out over that transom to the people of our country, because your testimony today

simply doesn’t hold up. But let the record show that you were in

this business in April 1999.

So I’ll yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

I don’t know how much money you made from the business. It

wasn’t well run. You weren’t successful at it——

Mr. ALBERTY. Let me——

Ms. FREDERICKS. May I?

Ms. ESHOO. [continuing] but you were partners in this business.

Ms. FREDERICKS. May I address—may I say something?

Ms. ESHOO. It’s up to the chairman.

Mr. COBURN. You have 5 seconds left, gentlelady from California.

Ms. ESHOO. All right. Sure.

Ms. FREDERICKS. Thank you.

Ms. ESHOO. You can give the answer, but maybe comment, too,

that your business brochure says, ‘‘we are NAF members.’’

Ms. FREDERICKS. I am.

Ms. ESHOO. You are?

Ms. FREDERICKS. Yes. I became——

Ms. ESHOO. NAF. It says ‘‘we,’’ not ‘‘I.’’

Ms. FREDERICKS. Well, I was under the impression that Dean

was, but——

Ms. ESHOO. On the brochure. So you are an NAF member, as

well, Mr. Alberty?

298

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes.

Ms. FREDERICKS. I had no knowledge of any of this until Dean’s

lawsuit hit in December. I feel like I have been drug into this because I’m hearing all this. That’s one of the reasons I wanted to

be here, to get to the bottom of this. I’m hearing this, and it is, like,

‘‘Oh, my gosh.’’

Ms. ESHOO. Are you still partners?

Ms. FREDERICKS. Well, we were this morning. I don’t know if we

still are.

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. COBURN. Let me ask you a question. I’ll recognize myself for

the final 5 minutes, unless there’s——

Mr. GREENWOOD. I would like one more briefly.

Mr. COBURN. Okay. Well, I’ll yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Thank you. I appreciate that indulgence, Mr.

Chairman.

I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record

a letter from Anatomic Gift Foundation dated 7 February 2000 to

Mr. Chris Wallace, investigative reporter, ABC News, ‘‘20/20.’’

Mr. COBURN. Without objection, so ordered.

[The information referred to follows:]

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

Mr. GREENWOOD. And this goes to the issue of whether or not the

procedure was done differently in order to extract the fetal tissue

for research purposes than it would have been done otherwise, and

this letter written by James Bardsley, Jr., vice president of Anatomic Gift Foundation, reads as follows: ‘‘You also asked me about

the curettage syringes that AGF provided to the Kansas Health

Center, and I told you that I did not know why the syringes were

provided. After looking into the matter, I’ve learned that the syringes were provided because the health care did not have the ability to sterilize syringes. The clinic sterilizer would have melted the

syringes.

‘‘In order for tissue to be utilized in cell culture research, the tissue must be sterile, which means that the syringe under which it

is drawn must also be sterile.

‘‘We provided the sterile syringes to the clinic so that tissues donated could be used by the researchers. Doctors at the clinic used

identical syringes for pregnancy terminations where the woman

was not donating tissue. However, where the patient did not donate, the syringes could be washed, recycled, and re-used. In either

case, the cannula, which attaches to the syringe and comes in contact with the patient, is always sterile. The cannulas are always

provided by the clinic. There was absolutely no alteration in the

abortion procedure. It is absolutely not true that the use of syringes increased the time the procedure took by 15 minutes. It did

not increase the time at all, because the same procedure was followed. It was simply a sterile syringe instead of an aseptic one that

was used.

‘‘As an aside, many doctors prefer the procedure because it is

gentler on the woman.’’

I think there has been some——

Mr. COBURN. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. GREENWOOD. I will certainly yield.

Mr. COBURN. You just heard a quote that is absolutely medically

incorrect. A large vacuum syringe is much harder on a woman, creates a great deal of more-advanced pain, and——

Mr. GREENWOOD. The thought occurred to me as I read it that

that would seem to be the case.

Mr. COBURN. It does. And, actually, I wasn’t going to—I want

to—if the gentleman would just yield for a minute, I brought this

because I wanted the people here to see. Here’s the difference.

Here’s is what is used when they want to collect fetal tissue parts

for selling, versus an aspirator. And this is what is inserted into

the woman, versus something about half the size of a pencil regularly. And this creates—as you can see, it has a curet on the end

of it, plus it is a suction, and it is sterile, and it creates a tremendous amount of difficulty and pain when it is used. And this is

what is required—it is a number 20 syringe, curet, suction curet—

to collect a specimen that would be viable, to collect whole tissue

under 20 weeks.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Reclaiming my time, clearly the acting chairman has the medical knowledge that I don’t pretend to.

I do think it is important for the record to demonstrate that at

least Anatomic Gift Foundation had——

Mr. COBURN. Absolutely.

322

Mr. GREENWOOD. [continuing] an explanation for why it——

Mr. COBURN. Absolutely.

Mr. GREENWOOD. [continuing] and it was different than what

we’ve heard.

Mr. COBURN. And I think the gentleman would agree it is a

shame that Mr. Bardsley is not here so that we can question him

about that.

There is a unanimous consent request. Is there an objection from

Ms. Eshoo?

Ms. ESHOO. No.

Mr. COBURN. If not, so ordered.

Mr. GREENWOOD. And I would yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COBURN. I just want to finish up.

Ms. Fredericks, I think you have displayed great courage in coming here today, and I want to thank you.

Ms. FREDERICKS. Thank you.

Mr. COBURN. We may not agree on certain issues, but I recognize

your character and I want to thank you for that. I think you have

displayed the kind of courage that makes this country great.

Ms. FREDERICKS. Thank you.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Alberty, I have some questions for you. I want

to finish.

Did you lie to ‘‘20/20’’ in any way, shape, or form?

Mr. ALBERTY. I do not believe I lied to them in any shape or

form. I do not have my full thing that I talked to them, but what

I saw on ‘‘20/20’’ last night was adequate.

Mr. COBURN. Was it the truth?

Mr. ALBERTY. What they said last night on ‘‘20/20’’——

Mr. COBURN. What you said on ‘‘20/20,’’ was it the truth?

Mr. ALBERTY. What they showed last night, it was. Yes. I mean,

I didn’t see——

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Alberty——

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes?

Mr. COBURN. [continuing] what you said on ‘‘20/20’’ last night,

was it the truth?

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes.

Mr. COBURN. Have you, in fact, made statements today that have

been untruthful?

Mr. ALBERTY. No.

Mr. COBURN. Did you, in fact, make statements in your affidavit

that now you would think are untruthful?

Mr. ALBERTY. No.

Mr. COBURN. But, you know, I just have to tell you that I cannot

understand that answer, and I think all of us are perplexed about

this issue that we see conflicting evidence in that regard, and that’s

why people are saying you lack credibility here today.

Mr. ALBERTY. Right.

Mr. COBURN. And we do not have the time to let you try to explain that. I think we’ve tried to encourage that.

I want to ask you some other things.

Do you believe a profit was made from the sale of baby parts?

Mr. ALBERTY. Do I believe a profit was made from baby parts?

Mr. COBURN. Do you believe——

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes.

323

Mr. COBURN. [continuing] that profit was made from the sale of

fetal tissue?

Mr. ALBERTY. I believe there was a profit made.

Mr. COBURN. Okay. Was there a time and instance, to your

knowledge, that the clinic received additional money at the end of

the year based on the amount of volume that you performed for

that clinic in harvesting fetal tissue, to your knowledge?

Mr. ALBERTY. To my knowledge, no, not to my knowledge.

Mr. COBURN. Ms. Fredericks, do you have an answer to that?

Ms. FREDERICKS. I’m sorry. I was kind of—could you repeat the

question?

Mr. COBURN. To your knowledge, was there ever a payment

made to your clinic at the end of the year based on the amount of

volume that was transferred through your clinic in terms of fetal

tissue?

Ms. FREDERICKS. No, sir. Not to the best of my knowledge.

Mr. COBURN. All right. Thank you.

One final question. Mr. Alberty, you have said that you had seen

live-born babies.

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes.

Mr. COBURN. Did you ever inform the Bardsleys or Miles Jones

of the live births problem?

Mr. ALBERTY. I informed Brenda Bardsley on the day the twin

episode occurred.

Mr. COBURN. And what was her response?

Mr. ALBERTY. Her response was very cold, not caring.

Mr. COBURN. I didn’t ask you——

Mr. ALBERTY. She basically told me to get back in there——

Mr. COBURN. I did not ask you to characterize. I asked you——

Mr. ALBERTY. Get back in there and procure the tissue.

Mr. COBURN. Did you ever inform Dr. Jones—and I, too, use that

loosely—that there was a problem with live births?

Mr. ALBERTY. I wrote a thing, and I think it is still on there, on

a protocol which states what to do in a process if a live birth is

born. It’s on that one.

‘‘Protocol for the recovery of an intact fetus. If a fetus is intact

and not alive, call staff ASAP.’’ Right. If a fetus is intact. Right.

Basically——

Mr. COBURN. Well, I don’t have any additional questions. I’m

very dissatisfied with the answers.

Ms. Cubin, did you have one?

Ms. CUBIN. I do have a question.

Mr. COBURN. All right. Let me yield to you, and then I’ll close

up.

Ms. CUBIN. That’s great.

Mr. Alberty, what was the occasion for you to—or what was the

reason that you wrote those protocols? And when did you write

them? Did you—were those to be used in the clinic for other people

to follow instructions? Why did you write them and what are they

for?

Mr. ALBERTY. The reason why I wrote those is because Dr. Miles

Jones and his two partners, the two women, informed me that part

of my job on slow days was to make them these protocols so they

324

could put them in other abortion clinics throughout the United

States so they would have stuff to go by.

Ms. CUBIN. So when did you do that? You did that before your

employment was terminated with AGF?

Mr. ALBERTY. No. I did that when I was working with Miles

Jones.

Ms. CUBIN. Okay. But was it—so that——

Mr. ALBERTY. It was long after I was gone from AGF.

Ms. CUBIN. Okay. But I meant Open Line.

Mr. ALBERTY. Yes, Open Line.

Ms. CUBIN. It was before you were terminated?

Mr. ALBERTY. I was never terminated with Open Lines.

Ms. CUBIN. Okay. That’s right.

Mr. ALBERTY. But, to go back on that one thing, make sure the

fetus is not alive. I was looking down the wrong part. That clearly

states that if there was a fetus alive there’s a problem. So when

you do look at this——

Mr. COBURN. I have it in front of me.

Mr. ALBERTY. Okay. ‘‘Identify the fetus. Make sure the fetus is

not alive. Please call staff—support staff if there is a live fetus for

steps to take.’’

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Greenwood, I believe you have a unanimous

consent request.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask unanimous consent that the committee submit Dr. Bardsley a question

that would help us clarify the issue that you and I just had a colloquy concerning the syringes.

Mr. COBURN. Is there objection?

[No response.]

Mr. COBURN. None. So ordered.

The members of this committee know that I am adamantly pro

life, and fetal tissue research is legal in this country. That’s whether I like it or not, whether I think it’s a good way to accomplish

an end or not.

The purpose of this hearing was to look at the charges that have

been made. Unfortunately, Dr. Jones and Mr. Bardsley were not

here.

I think what we’ve seen is we’ve seen some credible witnesses

and some whose story is not consistent. It is my hope that we can

work with the minority to try to discern what is and is not worth

pursuing on this and move in a way where we can find the truth

for the American public. It is my deep concern that somebody has

made money selling baby parts. To me that is abhorrent. I believe

that is abhorrent to every Member of this body.

We will not stop until we know the facts. Dr. Jones will testify

before this committee, and so will Mr. Bardsley.

So we will corroborate some of the claims that have been made

here, and we will deflate some that have been made here based on

that testimony.

I again want to thank you for coming.

The subcommittee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 8:41 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to

reconvene at the call of the Chair.]