[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 112 (Friday, August 3, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Page S8914]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. ENSIGN (for himself and Mr. Brownback):
  S. 1349. A bill to provide for a National Stem Cell Donor Bank 
regarding qualifying human stem cells, and for the conduct and support 
of research using such cells; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague John Ensign 
of Nevada in proud support of The Responsible Stem Cell Research Act of 
2001, legislation aimed at committing our Nation to a bold investment 
in promising, ethical medical research with which we all can live.
  As my colleagues well know, the issue of stem cell research has been 
the subject of rigorous debate in Congress, within the medical, 
bioethical, legal, and patient advocacy communities, and on the pages 
and airwaves of the local and national media.
  Over the past several months in particular the American public has 
been witness and subject to a maddening barrage of charges and 
countercharges about how our public conscience may or may not 
countenance the deliberate destruction of a human embryo for the 
purpose of research.
  If one thing is clear on this controversial issue, it is that the 
country is divided about this wrenching dilemma, about whether or not 
the Federal Government ought to lend support--and thus communal moral 
sanction--to the speculative potential of stem cell research which 
involves the destruction of human embryos. This is a profound policy 
question which is fraught with considerable ethical, moral and legal 
questions. It requires that our body politic make the monumental 
determination that will forever brand our public conscience as to 
whether a human embryo is a life, or conversely, a property which can 
be destroyed and exploited for the advancement of science and research.
  I fervently believe that fertilization produces a new member of the 
human species, that it is a categorical imperative that human life be 
treated as an end and not a means. To use a human being, even a newly 
conceived one, as a commodity is never morally acceptable. Each person 
must be treated as an end in himself, not as a means to improve someone 
else's life.
  Indeed, current Federal law explicitly prohibits Federal funding of 
experiments that destroy embryos outside the womb precisely because 
individual human life begins at fertilization.
  But while President Bush continues to review the stem cell guidelines 
issued under the previous administration to determine whether or not 
they violate current Federal law barring the use of Federal funds in 
research that leads to the destruction of embryos, and it is my hope 
that President bush will uphold current Federal law and reject any 
semantical nuances or euphemisms with regard to what embryonic stem 
cell research is all about, the field of promising research behind 
which all Americans can unite, which is ethical and beyond controversy, 
is that which involves embryonic-type post-natal stem cells.
  Unfortunately, the opportunities for developing successful therapies 
from stem cells that do not require the destruction of human embryos 
have been given relative short shrift by the media. But adult and other 
post-natal stem cells have been successfully extracted from umbilical 
cord blood, placentas, fat, cadaver brains, bone marrow, and tissues of 
the spleen, pancreas, and other organs. They can be located in numerous 
cell and tissue types and can be transformed into virtually all cell 
and tissue types. And perhaps most important of all, these alternative 
cell therapies are already treating cartilage defects in children, 
systemic lupus, and helping restore vision to patients who were legally 
blind, just to name a few. By contrast, embryonic stem cell research 
has no equivalent record of success even in animal studies. Embryonic 
cells have never ameliorated one human malady.
  In order to move forward with and build upon the successes of this 
promising research, the Responsible Stem Cell Research Act would 
authorize $275 million for this ethical stem cell research which is 
actually proven to help hundreds of thousands of patients, with new 
clinical uses expanding almost weekly. This represents a 50 percent 
increase in current NIH funding being devoted to this stem cell 
research.

  This legislation would also establish a National Stem Cell Donor Bank 
for umbilical cord blood and human placenta to generate a source of 
versatile, embryonic-type stem cells that could be matched with people 
who need stem cells for treatment. These stem cells would be available 
for biomedical research and clinical purposes.
  No matter where one stands on the divisive issue of embryonic stem 
cell research, this issue and many others dealing with the rapid 
advancements in biotechnology are coming to define the very important 
choices which confront us as a society and the courses we must choose 
as policymakers. With stem cell research moving forward so rapidly, we 
have a duty to be well educated to be able to make informed decisions 
about these issues. For this reason, and because of biotechnology's 
prospects for affecting positive change in other areas of our lives 
such as in our agriculture community, I have recently joined as a 
member of the bipartisan Senate Biotechnology Caucus. Co-chaired by our 
colleagues Tim Hutchinson of Arkansas and Chris Dodd of Connecticut, 
the Biotechnology Caucus regularly hosts educational forums for members 
of the Senate and their staff about a broad scope of biotech issues, 
from the increasing availability of genetically-engineered products to 
research, trade, and bioethics. The group also acts as a resource for 
information about biotechnology and encourage committee hearings on the 
topic.
  The possibility that biotechnology may help improve the health 
humankind holds great promise and must be examined closely. But there 
is no reason for our Nation to lie fallow with respect to the federal 
government's support for type of stem cell research which is life-
friendly and beyond controversy. It is my hope that our colleagues here 
in the Senate and in the House will pause from the rancor that has 
surrounded the stem cell research debate and come to support the 
Responsible Stem Cell Research Act, an aggressive initiative to fund 
and develop promising medical research with which we all can live.
                                 ______