[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 106 (Friday, July 29, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9323-S9330]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
              APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 
2361, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     2361) making appropriations for the Department of the 
     Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, 
     having met, have agreed that the House recede from its 
     disagreement to the amendment of the Senate and agree to the 
     same with an amendment, and the Senate agree to the same, 
     signed by a majority of the conferees on the part of both 
     Houses.

  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of July 28, 2005.)


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.


                                Schedule

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we have several unanimous consent requests 
with respect to our schedule today. Following the time for the two 
leaders, we will consider the Interior appropriations conference report 
under a 20-minute time limit. Following that debate, we will return to 
the energy conference report for final closing remarks. At the 
conclusion of that debate, we will have a series of rollcall votes on 
these measures. I would anticipate those votes occurring sometime 
around 10:45 or so this morning.
  After those votes are completed, we will return to the gun 
manufacturers liability bill. We have an agreement for a limited number 
of amendments, with time agreements on each of those. Therefore, we 
will have votes throughout the afternoon until passage of that 
legislation.
  Finally, we will also consider the highway conference report when it 
becomes available from the House. It is not yet here. All Senators 
should be aware that we will have a substantial number of rollcall 
votes today, as many as 13 over the course of the day. Therefore, we 
ask that Senators remain close to the Chamber throughout the day to 
facilitate the votes and our remaining business.


          Vitiation of Unanimous-Consent Agreement--H.R. 2985

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order with 
respect to the Legislative branch appropriations conference report be 
vitiated.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.


                           stem cell research

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, since 2001 when stem cell research first 
captured our Nation's attention, I have said many times the issue will 
have to be reviewed on an ongoing basis--and not just because the 
science holds tremendous promise, or because it is developing with 
breathtaking speed. Indeed, stem cell research presents the first major 
moral and ethical challenge to biomedical research in the 21st century.
  In this age of unprecedented discovery, challenges that arise from 
the nexus of advancing science and ethical considerations will come 
with increasing frequency. How can they not? Every day we unlock more 
of the mysteries of human life and more ways to promote and enhance our 
health. This compels profound questions--moral questions that we 
understandably struggle with both as individuals and as a body politic.
  How we answer these questions today--and whether, in the end, we get 
them right--impacts the promise not only of current research, but of 
future research, as well. It will define us as a

[[Page S9324]]

civilized and ethical society forever in the eyes of history. We are, 
after all, laying the foundation of an age in human history that will 
touch our individual lives far more intimately than the Information Age 
and even the Industrial Age before it.
  Answering fundamental questions about human life is seldom easy. For 
example, to realize the promise of my own field of heart 
transplantation and at the same time address moral concerns introduced 
by new science, we had to ask the question: How do we define ``death?'' 
With time, careful thought, and a lot of courage from people who 
believed in the promise of transplant medicine, but also understood the 
absolute necessity for a proper ethical framework, we answered that 
question, allowed the science to advance, and have since saved tens of 
thousands of lives.
  So when I remove the human heart from someone who is brain dead, and 
I place it in the chest of someone whose heart is failing to give them 
new life, I do so within an ethical construct that honors dignity of 
life and respect for the individual.
  Like transplantation, if we can answer the moral and ethical 
questions about stem cell research, I believe we will have the 
opportunity to save many lives and make countless other lives more 
fulfilling. That is why we must get our stem cell policy right--
scientifically and ethically. And that is why I stand on the floor of 
the U.S. Senate today.
  Four years ago, I came to this floor and laid out a comprehensive 
proposal to promote stem cell research within a thorough framework of 
ethics. I proposed 10 specific interdependent principles. They dealt 
with all types of stem cell research, including adult and embryonic 
stem cells.
  As we know, adult stem cell research is not controversial on ethical 
grounds--while embryonic stem cell research is. Right now, to derive 
embryonic stem cells, an embryo--which many, including myself, consider 
nascent human life--must be destroyed. But I also strongly believe--as 
do countless other scientists, clinicians, and doctors--that embryonic 
stem cells uniquely hold specific promise for some therapies and 
potential cures that adult stem cells cannot provide.
  I will come back to that later. Right now, though, let me say this: I 
believe today--as I believed and stated in 2001, prior to the 
establishment of current policy--that the Federal Government should 
fund embryonic stem cell research. And as I said 4 years ago, we should 
Federally fund research only on embryonic stem cells derived from 
blastocysts leftover from fertility therapy, which will not be 
implanted or adopted but instead are otherwise destined by the parents 
with absolute certainty to be discarded and destroyed.
  Let me read to you my fifth principle as I presented it on this floor 
4 years ago: No. 5. Provide funding for embryonic stem cell research 
only from blastocysts that would otherwise be discarded. We need to 
allow Federal funding for research using only those embryonic stem 
cells derived from blastocysts that are left over after in vitro 
fertilization and would otherwise be discarded (Cong. Rec. 18 July 
2001: S7847).
  I made it clear at the time, and do so again today, that such funding 
should only be provided within a system of comprehensive ethical 
oversight. Federally funded embryonic research should be allowed only 
with transparent and fully informed consent of the parents. And that 
consent should be granted under a careful and thorough Federal 
regulatory system, which considers both science and ethics. Such a 
comprehensive ethical system, I believe, is absolutely essential. Only 
with strict safeguards, public accountability, and complete 
transparency will we ensure that this new, evolving research unfolds 
within accepted ethical bounds.
  My comprehensive set of 10 principles, as outlined in 2001 (Cong. 
Rec. 18 July 2001: S7846-S7851) are as follows: (1) ban embryo creation 
for research; (2) continue funding ban on derivation; (3) ban human 
cloning; (4) increase adult stem cell research funding; (5) providing 
funding for embryonic stem cell research only from blastocysts that 
would otherwise be discarded; (6) require a rigorous informed consent 
process; (7) limit number of stem cell lines; (8) establish a strong 
public research oversight system; (9) require ongoing, independent 
scientific and ethical review; (10) strengthen and harmonize fetal 
tissue research restrictions.
  That is what I said 4 years ago, and that is what I believe today. 
After all, principles are meant to stand the test of time--even when 
applied to a field changing as rapidly as stem cell research.
  I am a physician. My profession is healing. I have devoted my life to 
attending to the needs of the sick and suffering and to promoting 
health and well being. For the past several years I have temporarily 
set aside the profession of medicine to participate in public policy 
with a continued commitment to heal.
  In all forms of stem cell research, I see today, just as I saw in 
2001, great promise to heal. Whether it is diabetes, Parkinson's 
disease, heart disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, or spinal cord injuries, 
stem cells offer hope for treatment that other lines of research cannot 
offer.
  Embryonic stem cells have specific properties that make them uniquely 
powerful and deserving of special attention in the realm of medical 
science. These special properties explain why scientists and physicians 
feel so strongly about support of embryonic as well as adult stem cell 
research.
  Unlike other stem cells, embryonic stem cells are ``pluripotent.'' 
That means they have the capacity to become any type of tissue in the 
human body. Moreover, they are capable of renewing themselves and 
replicating themselves over and over again--indefinitely.
  Adult stem cells meet certain medical needs. But embryonic stem 
cells--because of these unique characteristics--meet other medical 
needs that simply cannot be met today by adult stem cells. They 
especially offer hope for treating a range of diseases that require 
tissue to regenerate or restore function.
  On August 9, 2001, shortly after I outlined my principles (Cong. Rec. 
18 July 2001: S7846-S7851), President Bush announced his policy on 
embryonic stem cell research. His policy was fully consistent with my 
ten principles, so I strongly supported it. It federally funded 
embryonic stem cell research for the first time. It did so within an 
ethical framework. And it showed respect for human life.
  But this policy restricted embryonic stem cell funding only to those 
cell lines that had been derived from embryos before the date of his 
announcement. In my policy I, too, proposed restricting number of cell 
lines, but I did not propose a specific cutoff date. Over time, with a 
limited number of cell lines, would we be able to realize the full 
promise of embryonic stem cell research?
  When the President announced his policy, it was widely believed that 
78 embryonic stem cell lines would be available for Federal funding. 
That has proven not to be the case. Today only 22 lines are eligible. 
Moreover, those lines unexpectedly after several generations are 
starting to become less stable and less replicative than initially 
thought; they are acquiring and losing chromosomes, losing the normal 
karyotype, and potentially losing growth control. They also were grown 
on mouse feeder cells, which we have learned since, will likely limit 
their future potential for clinical therapy in humans (e.g., potential 
of viral contamination).
  While human embryonic stem cell research is still at a very early 
stage, the limitations put in place in 2001 will, over time, slow our 
ability to bring potential new treatments for certain diseases. 
Therefore, I believe the President's policy should be modified. We 
should expand federal funding--and thus NIH oversight--and current 
guidelines governing stem cell research, carefully and thoughtfully 
staying within ethical bounds.
  During the past several weeks, I have made considerable effort to 
bring the debate on stem cell research to the Senate floor, in a way 
that provided colleagues with an opportunity to express their views on 
this issue and vote on proposals that reflected those views. While we 
have not yet reached consensus on how to proceed, the Senate will 
likely consider the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which passed

[[Page S9325]]

the House in May by a vote of 238 to 194, at some point this Congress. 
This bill would allow Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research 
for cells derived from human embryos that: (1) are created for the 
purpose of fertility treatments; (2) are no longer needed by those who 
received the treatments; (3) would otherwise be discarded and 
destroyed; (4) are donated for research with the written, informed 
consent of those who received the fertility treatments, but do not 
receive financial or other incentives for their donations.
  The bill, as written, has significant shortcomings, which I believe 
must be addressed.
  First, it lacks a strong ethical and scientific oversight mechanism. 
One example we should look to is the Recombinant DNA Advisory 
Committee--RAC--that oversees DNA research. The RAC was established 25 
years ago in response to public concerns about the safety of 
manipulation of genetic material through recombinant DNA techniques. 
Compliance with the guidelines--developed and reviewed by this 
oversight board of scientists, ethicists, and public representatives--
is mandatory for investigators receiving NIH funds for research 
involving recombinant DNA.
  Because most embryonic stem cell research today is being performed by 
the private sector--without NIH Federal funding--there is today a lack 
of ethical and scientific oversight that routinely accompanies NIH-
Federal funded research.
  Second, the bill doesn't prohibit financial or other incentives 
between scientists and fertility clinics. Could such incentives, in the 
end, influence the decisions of parents seeking fertility treatments? 
This bill could seriously undermine the sanctity of the informed 
consent process.
  Third, the bill doesn't specify whether the patients or clinic staff 
or anyone else has the final say about whether an embryo will be 
implanted or will be discarded. Obviously, any decision about the 
destiny of an embryo must clearly and ultimately rest with the parents.
  These shortcomings merit a thoughtful and thorough rewrite of the 
bill. But as insufficient as the bill is, it is fundamentally 
consistent with the principles I laid out more than four years ago. 
Thus, with appropriate reservations, I will support the Stem Cell 
Research Enhancement Act.
  I am pro-life. I believe human life begins at conception. It is at 
this moment that th organism is complete--yes, immature--but complete. 
An embryo is nascent human life. It is genetically distinct. And it is 
biologically human. it is living. This position is consistent with my 
faith. But, to me, it isn't just a matter of faith. It is a fact of 
science.
  Our development is a continuous process--gradual and chronological. 
We were all once embryos. The embryo is human life at its earliest 
stage of development. And accordingly, the human embryo has moral 
significance and moral worth. It deserves to be treated with the utmost 
dignity and respect.
  I also believe that embryonic stem cell research should be encouraged 
and supported. But, just as I said in 2001, it should advance in a 
manner that affords all human life dignity and respect--the same 
dignity and respect we bring to the table as we work with children and 
adults to advance the frontiers of medicine and health.
  Congress must have the ability to fully exercise its oversight 
authority on an ongoing basis. And policymakers, I believe, have a 
responsibility to re-examine stem cell research policy in the future 
and, if necessary, make adjustments.
  This is essential, in no small part, because of promising research 
not even imagined four years ago. Exciting techniques are now emerging 
that may make it unnecessary to destroy embryos--even those that will 
be discarded anyway--to obtain cells with the same unique 
``pluripotential'' properties as embryonic stem cells.
  For example, an adult stem cell could be ``reprogrammed'' back to an 
earlier embryonic stage. This, in particular, may prove to be the best 
way, both scientifically and ethically, to overcome rejection and other 
barriers to effective stem cell therapies. To me--and I would hope to 
every member of this body--that's research worth supporting. Shouldn't 
we want to discover therapies and cures--given a choice--through the 
most ethical and moral means?
  So let me make it crystal clear: I strongly support newer, 
alternative means of deriving, creating, and isolating pluripotent stem 
cells--whether they are true embryonic stem cells or stem cells that 
have all of the unique properties of embryonic stem cells.
  With more Federal support and emphasis, these newer methods, though 
still preliminary today, may offer huge scientific and clinical pay-
offs. And just as important, they may bridge moral and ethical 
differences among people who now hold very different views on stem cell 
research because they totally avoid destruction of any human embryos.
  These alternative methods of potentially deriving pluripotent cells 
include: (1) extraction from embryos that are no longer living; (2) 
non-lethal and nonharmful extraction from embryos; (3) extraction from 
artificially created organisms that are not embryos, but embryo-like; 
(4) reprogramming adult cells to a pluripotent state through fusion 
with embryonic cell lines.
  Now, to date, adult stem cell research is the only type of stem cell 
research that has resulted in proven treatments for human patients. For 
example, the multi-organ and multi-tissue transplant center that I 
founded and directed at Vanderbilt University Medical Center performed 
scores of life-saving bone marrow transplants every year to treat fatal 
cancers with adult stem cells.
  And stem cells taken from cord blood have shown great promise in 
treating leukemia, myeloproliferative disorders and congenital immune 
system disorders. Recently, cord blood cells have shown some ability to 
become neural cells, which could lead to treatments for Parkinson's 
disease and heart disease.
  Thus, we should also strongly support increased funding for adult 
stem cell research. I am a cosponsor of a bill that will make it much 
easier for patients to receive cord blood cell treatments.
  Adult stem cells are powerful. They have effectively treated many 
diseases and are theoretically promising for others. But embryonic stem 
cells--because they can become almost any human tissue 
(``pluripotent'') and renew and replicate themselves infInitely--are 
uniquely necessary for potentially treating other diseases.
  No doubt, the ethical questions over embryonic stem cell research are 
profound.They are challenging. They merit serious debate. And not just 
on the Senate floor, but across America--at our dining room tables, in 
our community centers, on our town squares.
  We simply cannot flinch from the need to talk with each other, again 
and again, as biomedical progress unfolds and breakthroughs are made in 
the coming years and generations. The promise of the Biomedical Age is 
too profound for us to fail.
  That is why I believe it is only fair, on an issue of such magnitude, 
that senators be given the respect and courtesy of having their ideas 
in this arena considered separately and cleanly, instead of in a whirl 
of amendments and complicateliamentary maneuvers. I have been working 
to bring this about for the last few months. I will continue to do so.
  And when we are able to bring this to the floor, we will certainly 
have a serious and thoughtful debate in the Senate. There are many 
conflicting points of view. And I recognize these differing views more 
than ever in my service as majority leader: I have had so many 
individual and private conversations with my colleagues that reflect 
the diversity and complexity of thought on this issue.
  So how do we reconcile these differing views? As individuals, each of 
us holds views shaped by factors of intellect, of emotion, of spirit. 
If your daughter has diabetes, if your father has Parkinson's, if your 
sister has a spinal cord injury, your views will be swayed more 
powerfully than you can imagine by the hope that cure will be found in 
those magnificent cells, recently discovered, that today originate only 
in an embryo.
  As a physician, one should give hope--but never false hope. 
Policymakers, similarly, should not overpromise and give false hope to 
those

[[Page S9326]]

suffering from disease. And we must be careful to always stay within 
clear and comprehensive ethical and moral guidelines--the soul of our 
civilization and the conscience of our nation demand it.
  Cure today may be just a theory, a hope, a dream. But the promise is 
powerful enough that I believe this research deserves our increased 
energy and focus. Embryonic stem cell research must be supported. It is 
time for a modified policy--the right policy for this moment in time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Isakson). The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, before the distinguished majority leader 
leaves the floor, I want to, through the Chair, express to him my 
appreciation for the courageous statement he made. It was a moral 
decision made by the majority leader of the Senate. His decision will 
bring hope to millions of Americans who face these terrible diseases, 
and it has even more meaning as a result of the medical background the 
Senator from Tennessee has.
  I know there is still a long way to go legislatively, but a large 
step has been taken by the majority leader today to give hope to the 
people of Nevada who suffer from these diseases, the people from 
Georgia, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and all over America. I admire the 
majority leader for doing this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I congratulate my distinguished 
colleague, Senator Frist. I believe the speech which he has made on the 
Senate floor is the most important speech made this year and perhaps 
the most important speech made for many years because this issue of 
embryonic stem cell research is the difference between life and death.
  When Senator Frist says what he has stated this morning, it has an 
enormous impact as to science because of his unique position and 
respected position as a scientist, as a doctor, as a medical 
researcher, but enormous impact on Government. I use the word 
``government'' instead of ``politics'' because this has an impact on 
Government when the majority leader is taking the position which he has 
taken. I believe it is especially weighty because of the 
thoughtfulness, the deliberation, and the time he has utilized bringing 
all of his abilities to bear--his considerable abilities to bear. The 
thoughtfulness and deliberation emphasizes the importance of what he 
has said.
  On a personal note, I have had an opportunity to talk with Senator 
Frist about it many times over the course of the past 4 years. I know 
how he has wrestled with this issue and how conscientious he is in his 
judgment.
  One final comment, and that is, Dr. Frist, Senator Frist, Majority 
Leader Frist's comments will reverberate far and wide, around the 
world. This is a speech which will be heard around the world, including 
at the White House. I have had the opportunity to talk with the 
President on this issue on a number of occasions. He was in 
Pennsylvania 44 times last year, and I had a good opportunity to talk 
with him in the car and on the plane. The President made a very 
important decision on August 9 of 2001 on liberating some 63 stem cell 
lines. There is some discussion as to how many there were. Sixty-three 
was the initial line. I know the President will listen to what Senator 
Frist has to say. I am not saying he is going to agree with it. But 
what Senator Frist has had to say is weighty and I think may bring us 
all together on this issue. So I congratulate my distinguished leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I, too, wish to recognize the comments 
made by the majority leader this morning and to thank him for his call 
for a ban on human cloning, which was one of the principles that he 
outlined when he spoke this morning. I am interested in bringing this 
important topic to the Senate floor for debate.
  I would note a couple of points about the different issues we face 
when we consider the many new aspects of evolving science. Yesterday 
morning's Washington Post found pluripotent adult stem cells being able 
to make eggs. Also, the June edition of the Science journal talks about 
the antibodies and the alleged problems with embryonic stem cell lines 
that are currently being developed. This article states that the 
concern with the lines being built on mouse feeder cells is overblown, 
and that those concerns are overstated. In addition, I think more of 
these lines may end up being available.
  I note for my colleagues and the Majority Leader, whom I regard very 
highly--he is a brilliant individual and works very hard--that he 
articulated 10 principles regarding ethics in research and medical 
treatment, and I appreciate them. I was there 4 years ago when the 
Majority Leader articulated the 10 principles--this is before he was 
Majority Leader--and he has stuck by them today.
  However, there is a basic principle involved that is here, and that 
is whether or not a young, living human embryo is a life or a piece of 
property. And how is it going to be treated? I think we have to deal 
with the precursor principles before we can go ahead with unrestricted 
research on this issue. Even as carefully as such research may be 
drawn, one has to make this determination: Is it life?
  Is it person or property? It is one or another. If it is person, 
respect it as a person. If it is property, it can be done with as its 
master chooses. That is the principle we have to dig into first. I hope 
we can get into that in the upcoming debate we will conduct on the 
entire range of these issues, hopefully on the entire range of human 
cloning and adult stem cell research--adult stem cell research, where 
we have 65 human treatments currently taking place.
  I appreciate the comments of my colleagues. I do differ on the need 
to expand embryonic stem cell research.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the three items that I 
referenced.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Benefits of Stem Cells to Human Patients--Adult Stem Cells v. Embryonic 
          Stem Cells (Published Treatments in Human Patients)


                      ADULT STEM CELLS: 65--ESCR:0

                                Cancers

       1. Brain Cancer
       2. Retinoblastoma
       3. Ovarian Cancer
       4. Skin Cancer: Merkel Cell Carcinoma
       5. Testicular Cancer
       6. Tumors abdominal organs Lymphoma
       7. Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
       8. Hodgkin's Lymphoma
       9. Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia
       10. Acute Myelogenous Leukemia
       11. Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia
       12. Juvenile Myelomonocytic Leukemia
       13. Cancer of the lymph nodes: Angioimmunoblastic 
     Lymphadenopathy
       14. Multiple Myeloma
       15. Myelodysplasia
       16. Breast Cancer
       17. Neuroblastoma
       18. Renal Cell Carcinoma
       19. Various Solid Tumors
       20. Soft Tissue Sarcoma
       21. Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia
       22. Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis
       23. POEMS syndrome

                          Auto-Immune Diseases

       24. Multiple Sclerosis
       25. Crohn's Disease
       26. Scleromyxedema
       27. Scleroderma
       28. Rheumatoid Arthritis
       29. Juvenile Arthritis
       30. Systemic Lupus
       31. Polychondritis
       32. Sjogren's Syndrome
       33. Behcet's Disease.
       34. Myasthenia
       35. Autoimmune Cytopenia
       36. Systemic vasculitis
       37. Alopecia universalis

                             Cardiovascular

       38. Heart damage

                                 Ocular

       39. Corneal regeneration

                           Immunodeficiencies

       40. X-Linked hyper immunoglobuline-M Syndrome
       41. Severe Combined Immunodeficiency Syndrome
       42. X-linked Iymphoproliferative syndrome

                 Neural Degenerative Diseases/Injuries

       43. Parkinson's disease
       44. Spinal cord injury
       45. Stroke damage

                        Anemias/Blood Conditions

       46. Sickle cell anemia
       47. Sideroblastic anemia
       48. Aplastic Anemia
       49. Amegakaryocytic Thrombocytopenia
       50. Chronic Epstein-Barr Infection
       51. Fanconi's Anemia
       52. Diamond Blackfan Anemia
       53. Thalassemia Major
       54. Red cell aplasia
       55. Primary Amyloidosis

                            Wounds/Injuries

       56. Limb gangrene

[[Page S9327]]

       57. Surface wound healing
       58. Jawbone replacement
       59. Skull bone repair

                       Other Metabolic Disorders

       60. Osteogenesis imperfecta
       61. Sandhoff disease
       62. Hurler's syndrome
       63. Krabbe Leukodystrophy
       64. Osteopetrosis
       65. Cerebral X-linked adrenoleukodystrophy
                                  ____


                 [From Science Magazine, June 10, 2005]

          Ready or Not? Human ES Cells Head Toward the Clinic

       Shortly before Congressman James Langevin cast his vote 
     last month to relax federal rules on funding of stem cell 
     research, the Rhode Island Democrat told his colleagues, ``I 
     believe one day I will walk again.'' Langevin, who has been 
     paralyzed since a gun accident at age 16, pleaded with his 
     colleagues to vote with him. ``Stem cell research gives us 
     hope and a reason to believe. . . . We have a historic 
     opportunity to make a difference for millions of Americans.''
       With impassioned pleas like this, high-stakes battles in 
     Congress, and billions of private and state dollars pouring 
     into research on human embryonic stem (hES) cells, it often 
     seems their therapeutic applications must be just around the 
     corner. But a careful parsing of the claims from even the 
     strongest advocates reveals the caveat ``someday.''
       How soon that someday might arrive is far from clear. 
     Scientists are nearly unanimous that the study of hES cells 
     will illuminate human development and disease. But whether 
     the cells will actually be used to cure patients like 
     Langevin is less certain. Cell therapies are more complicated 
     than drugs, and hES cells, which have the potential to become 
     any cell type in the body, carry special risks.
       ``The most sobering thing about [hES] cells is their 
     power,'' says neuroscientist Clive Svendsen of the University 
     of Wisconsin, Madison, who works with both fetal and 
     embryonic stem cells. The extreme flexibility and capacity 
     for growth characteristic of ES cells makes them ideal for 
     producing large quantities of therapeutic cells to treat, 
     say, diabetes or spinal cord injuries. But these same traits 
     also increase the risk that renegade cells could, as they 
     have in animal studies, cause unwanted side effects, 
     ending up in the wrong place or even sparking cancerous 
     growth. ``You have to learn to control that power in the 
     dish'' before thinking about putting the cells into 
     patients, says Svendsen.
       For that reason, most groups say they are at least five or, 
     more likely, 10 years away from clinical trials. But one 
     company is challenging that timeline. Geron in Menlo Park, 
     California, says its animal studies suggest that stem cell 
     therapy can be safe and might be effective for a select group 
     of patients. The company hopes to start clinical trials of 
     hES cells to treat spinal cord injuries as early as summer 
     2006. Already, the company is in discussions with the Food 
     and Drug Administration (FDA), which is attempting to set 
     safety standards for the field. Potential treatments with 
     human ES cells face the same difficulties as all cell 
     therapies, notes Malcolm Moos of FDA's division of cellular 
     and gene therapies: There are few standardized techniques to 
     measure the purity or potency of a cell population that would 
     be delivered to a patient.
       Most stem cell researchers view Geron's plans with hefty 
     skepticism and caution that a premature rush to patients 
     could seriously damage the already-controversial field. And 
     it is far from clear whether FDA will allow the trial to 
     proceed. But Geron, which funded the researchers who isolated 
     the first hES cells in 1998, has several reasons to push 
     ahead; the company holds a number of patents and exclusive 
     licenses that give it more freedom--and more incentive--to 
     develop possible products from hES cells. And whatever the 
     outcome, scientists agree, Geron's ambitious plans will offer 
     a test case of the hurdles scientists will have to overcome 
     to prove that hES therapies are both safe and effective.
       Even the skeptics say Geron chose a plausible target for 
     the first trial, as spinal cord injuries may be significantly 
     easier to tackle than diseases such as diabetes or 
     Parkinson's. The trials would be based on work led by Hans 
     Keirstead, a neuroscientist at the University of California, 
     Irvine, who proved a persuasive spokesperson for the field 
     during the campaign for California's Proposition 71, which 
     provides $3 bil1ion in funding for hES cell research.
       During last fall's campaign, Keirstead described his then-
     unpublished work, showing videos of rats with spinal cord 
     injuries that had regained some mobility after injections of 
     cells derived from hES cells. ``I am extremely 
     enthusiastic,'' Keirstead says. ``I am past the point of 
     hope. In my mind the question is when. What we are seeing in 
     these animal models is tremendous.''
       Keirstead and his colleagues, with funding and technical 
     support from Geron, have developed a protocol that encourages 
     hES cells to differentiate into cells called oligodendrocyte 
     precursors. These cells can form oligodendrocytes, the cells 
     that, among other functions, produce the protective myelin 
     sheath that allows neurons to send signals along their axons. 
     This sheath is often lost during spinal cord injuries.
       In a paper last month in the Journal of Neuroscience, 
     Keirstead's team reported that these precursors, when 
     injected into the spinal cord, could help improve recovery of 
     rats that had suffered spinal cord injury. The cells aren't 
     replacing injured neurons, Keirstead says, but are 
     encouraging the natural healing process, presumably by 
     restoring some of the myelination. Earlier studies in mice 
     (Science, 30 July 1999, p. 754) showed that injecting mouse 
     cells destined to form oligodendrocytes into injured or 
     diseased animals could restore some myelination; Keirstead's 
     team is the first to show that human ES cells can have 
     similar effects.
       For newly injured rats, the results are promising. In 
     animals that received oligodendrocyte precursors 7 days after 
     their injury, the cells survived and apparently helped repair 
     the spinal cord's myelin. Within 2 weeks, treated rats scored 
     significantly better on standardized movement tests than 
     control animals, which had received human fibro-blasts or a 
     cell-free injection.
       But when the researchers injected cells 10 months after the 
     injury, they saw no effect-sobering news for people 
     like Langevin suffering from old injuries. The cells 
     survived but were apparently unable to repair the long-
     term damage. For that reason, Keirstead says, Geron's 
     proposed clinical trial would target newly injured 
     patients.
       The phase I trial, if it goes forward, will probably 
     include only a handful of patients and, most importantly, 
     Keirstead emphasizes, will not cure anyone. Its primary goal 
     is to show that the treatment can be safe. ``The public and 
     scientists must realize that these are the first attempts,'' 
     Keirstead says. ``No one is expecting them to cure. We are 
     expecting them to treat, but we have no idea what the level 
     of response is going to be.''
       Proving safety is a tall enough order. In numerous animal 
     studies, ES cells from mice and humans have proved difficult 
     to control, differentiating into the wrong kind of cell, for 
     instance, or migrating away from the injection site.
       In its spinal cord trial, Geron plans to inject ES-derived 
     cells that can form just a single cell type, an approach that 
     may circumvent some of these problems. For a full recovery, 
     patients are likely to need new neurons as well as other 
     support cells called astrocytes, but using precursors that 
     differentiate into all three types of nerve cells can be 
     problematic. In several rodent studies, partially 
     differentiated mouse ES cells injected into the spinal cord 
     have formed neurons, astrocytes, and oligodendrocytes and 
     have helped animals recover from spinal cord injuries. But 
     more recently, neural stem cells derived from adult animals 
     which also differentiate into the three cell types-have 
     caused problems. As Christoph Hofstetter of the Karolinska 
     Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, and his colleagues reported 
     in Nature Neuroscience in March, neural stem cell treatments 
     led to some recovery in rats' paralyzed hind legs, but the 
     animals also developed a chronic pain sensitivity in their 
     forelegs, which had been unaffected by the injury. In other 
     experiments, preventing the formation of astrocytes seemed to 
     eliminate the side effect, highlighting the importance of 
     proper differentiation, Svendsen says.
       Perhaps the biggest worry is that hES therapies will spur 
     tumor formation. One of the defining characteristics of ES 
     cells is that they form disorganized tumors, called 
     teratomas, when injected in undifferentiated form under the 
     skin of immune-compromised mice. ``The ES cell is basically 
     a tumor-forming cell,'' says neuroscientist Anders 
     Bjorklund of Lund University in Sweden. ``This aspect has 
     to be dealt with seriously before the cells are applied in 
     the clinic.'' Even a benign tumor in the central nervous 
     system would be serious, says Svendsen: ``Any sort of 
     growth in the spinal cord is not good news.''
       But Keirstead believes he has solved those problems. The 
     key, he says, is a differentiation procedure that he claims 
     produces cell populations in which 97% of cells express genes 
     typical of oligodendrocyte precursors. ``Teratomas are a real 
     possibility if you put in naive stem cells,'' he 
     acknowledges. ``But that is the science of yesteryear. No one 
     is even considering putting in any naive ES cells.'' 
     Keirstead and his colleagues say in their paper that they 
     found no evidence that their specialized cells formed 
     astrocytes or neurons after injection. The team is also 
     checking whether any of the injected cells leave the spinal 
     cord. So far, Keirstead says, they seem to stay close to the 
     site of injection.
       Keirstead's paper is promising, Svendsen says, but he's not 
     convinced the work is ready for patients. ``It didn't go into 
     the detail you'd like to see before a clinical trial,'' he 
     says. The catch is that it's hard to be sure that a 
     population of several million cells is free of any 
     undifferentiated stragglers. To evaluate the risk of tumors, 
     Keirstead and his colleagues are testing the differentiated 
     cells in nude mice: animals bred to lack an immune system. If 
     the animals live for a year without signs of teratomas, then 
     Keirstead says he will feel confident that the cells are safe 
     to try in humans.
       Several teams are making headway addressing another 
     problem: possible animal contamination. To date, almost all 
     human ES cell lines have been exposed to animal products. 
     Cultured cells are often kept alive with fetal calf serum, 
     for instance, and most hES cell lines have been grown on 
     layers of mouse cells called feeder cells, which provide the 
     key proteins that prevent ES cells from differentiating.

[[Page S9328]]

       These techniques have sparked worries that hES cell 
     therapies could introduce exotic animal viruses into 
     patients. In response, several teams, including Geron, 
     have recently developed ways to grow new cell lines either 
     on human feeder layers or without feeder cells at all.
       But the older cell lines have the advantage of being better 
     characterized, says Geron CEO Thomas Okarma. That's why the 
     company plans to use one of the original lines derived by 
     James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, in its 
     first clinical trial. To reduce the risk of contamination, 
     the company has been growing these cells for more than a year 
     without any feeder cells. That may suffice for FDA, which has 
     said that past exposure to animal cells does not disqualify 
     ES cell lines from clinical use as long as certain safety 
     standards are met.
       Okarma says Geron can demonstrate that its cells are 
     uncontaminated. His claim is bolstered by a paper by another 
     group published last week in Stem Cells. Joseph Itskovitz-
     Eldor of Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa and 
     his colleagues tested five hES cell lines and several 
     cultures of mouse feeder cells for signs of murine 
     retroviruses, which lurk in the genome of all mouse cells. 
     Although the team identified receptors for the so-called 
     mouse leukemia viruses, they found no evidence that the virus 
     had infected any of the human cells, even after growing on 
     mouse feeders for years. Animal products still may pose a 
     risk, says Itskovitz-Eldor. But the new work shows that ``the 
     cells can be tested, and we believe it will be possible to 
     use them clinically.''
       More recently, researchers identified another potential 
     downside to using mouse feeder cells. In February, Fred Gage 
     and his colleagues at the Salk Institute for Biological 
     Studies in La Jolla, California, reported that hES cells 
     grown with mouse feeders expressed a foreign sugar molecule 
     on their cell surface. Because humans carry antibodies to the 
     molecule, the researchers suggested that it might tag the 
     cells for destruction by the human immune system. If so, then 
     any therapy created with existing cell lines was unlikely to 
     succeed. But Keirstead, Okarma, and others now say that those 
     concerns, widely reported, may have been overstated. Gage and 
     his noted that the sugar gradually disappears once cells are 
     removed from the feeder layers. Keirstead says that once 
     cells are removed from mouse feeder layers for several 
     months, the sugar disappears. Okarma adds that cells in 
     Geron's feeder-free cultures have no sign of the foreign 
     molecule.
       Finally, some scientists worry that ES cells might acquire 
     harmful new mutations in culture, a common phenomenon with 
     almost all cultured cells. Although ES cells ``are probably 
     100 times more stable than adult stem cells in culture, 
     they're not perfect,'' cautions Mahendra Rao of the National 
     Institute on Aging in Baltimore, Maryland. Such mutations 
     would be particularly hard to detect ahead of time.
       FDA, meanwhile, is trying to set safety standards for this 
     burgeoning field. The agency announced in 2000 that cell 
     therapies involving stem cells from embryos or adults would 
     be regulated as drugs, not as surgical techniques. That means 
     that researchers will have to meet certain standards of 
     purity and potency. For most drugs, those standards are 
     straightforward to set and easy to measure. Cellular products 
     are much more complicated, * * *
                                  ____


                        Still Waiting Their Turn

       Even enthusiasts agree that Geron's goal--to begin testing 
     a human embryonic stem (hES) cell therapy in patients with 
     spinal cord injury within a year--is a long shot. Prospects 
     are more distant for using stem cells to treat other 
     diseases, such as diabetes, Parkinson's disease, amyotrophic 
     lateral scleroris (ALS), and multiple sclerosis (MS). None is 
     likely to reach the clinic for at least 5 to 10 years, most 
     scientists in the field agree. And that's assuming abundant 
     funding and faster-than-expected scientific progress.
       Some of the strongest advocates for hES cell research are 
     those hoping to find a cure for type 1 diabetes. The driving 
     force behind California's Proposition 71, Robert Klein, says, 
     for example, that his primary motivation is to find a cure 
     for his diabetic son. Diabetes kills the pancreas's B cells, 
     which regulate the amount of insulin in the blood. Patients 
     have to take frequent insulin injections and face many 
     complications, including kidney failure and blindness. 
     Replacing the missing cells could cure the disease. Initial 
     trials using B-cell transplant from cadavers have shown 
     promise, but side effects and the transplants' limited life 
     span has dampened enthusiasm (Science, 1 October 2004, p. 
     34). And even if the therapy worked perfectly, each 
     transplant requires cells from multiple cadavers. So 
     researchers are looking for renewable sources of cells that 
     could treat the millions of patients who might benefit.
       In theory, hES cells fit the bill nicely. In practice, 
     however, although several groups have managed to coax mouse 
     ES cells to differentiate into cells that make insulin, no 
     one has yet managed to derive bona fide B cells from either 
     mouse or human ES cells. One reason may be that unlike nerve 
     cells or heart muscle cells, pancreatic cells are some of the 
     last to develop during pregnancy. In mice, the cells appear 
     on day 15 or 16, just a day or two before birth, and in 
     humans, they appear in the 5th or 6th month. ``If the road is 
     longer, the possibility of getting lost is much higher,'' 
     explains Bernat Soria of Miguel Hernandez University of 
     Alicante, Spain, who has tried to produce B-like cells from 
     both mouse and human ES cells. Fortunately , says Soria, the 
     cells may not have to be perfect; several types of insulin-
     producing cells have helped alleviate diabetes symptoms in 
     mice.
       But there is no leeway when it comes to safety. Diabetes is 
     a chronic but not inevitably deadly disease, so any cell 
     therapy must be safer and more effective than insulin shots. 
     ``We don't have a cure, but we have a treatment,'' Soria 
     says. ``Despite the strong pressure we have from patients and 
     families, the need for cell therapy is not as strong.
       Scientists have already attempted to use cell therapies to 
     treat Parkinson's disease, which attacks neurons in the brain 
     that produce the neurotransmitter dopamine, leaving patients 
     increasingly unable to move. In a handful or clinical trials 
     in the last decade, physicians implanted dopamine-producing 
     cells from fetal tissue--with decidely mixed results. Whereas 
     some patients showed significant improvement, others show 
     little or none. And some developed serious side effects 
     including uncontrollable jerky movements. Scientists 
     aren't yet sure what went wrong, although some suspect 
     that patients may have received either too many or too few 
     fetal cells, which are difficult to characterize in the 
     lab.
       Dopamine-producing neurons derived from ES cells could 
     provide an unlimited and well-characterized source of cells. 
     And a trial in monkeys from a team at Kyoto University found 
     that dopamine-producing neurons grown from monkey ES cells 
     could improve animals' symptoms. But before ES-derived cells 
     are tested in Parkinson's patients, scientists need to 
     understand more about how the transplanted cells are behaving 
     in the brain, says neuroscientist Anders Bjorklund of Lund 
     University in Sweden. ``The knowledge is just not good enough 
     yet to justify any clinical trials'' with hES cells, he says.
       Patients and doctors facing the nightmare of ALS may be 
     willing to accept higher risks associated with early hES cell 
     treatments. There is no effective treatment for this 
     invariably fatal disease that kills motor neurons, and 
     patients usually die within 5 years of a diagnosis. But ``ALS 
     is an order of magnitude harder than other diseases'' to 
     treat with cell therapy, says motor disease specialist 
     Douglas Kerr of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, 
     Maryland. Doctors still aren't sure what causes the disease, 
     and even if scientists could coax stem cells to replace the 
     lost motor neurons--``a pretty tall order,'' Kerr says--any 
     new neurons could be subject to the same deadly assault. More 
     promising, he says, would be a cell or a mixture of cells 
     that might somehow help slow the damage, but no one is sure 
     what that might look like.
       Treating MS has similar challenges, says Hans Keirstead of 
     the University of California, Irvine, who is working with 
     Geron on its possible spinal cord injury trial. ``We're much 
     farther away from treating MS with stem cells,'' he says. 
     Like spinal cord injuries, the disease attacks the myelin 
     sheath around nerve cells, and injected oligo-dendrocyte 
     precursors have shown positive effects in animal models. But 
     the human situation is more complicated, Keirstead says. 
     Nerves damaged by MS are already surrounded by 
     oligodendrocyte precursors, but something stops the cells 
     from working. Indeed, Keirstead, who is relentlessly 
     optimistic about the prospects of helping spinal cord injury 
     patients, sounds much more sober about the prospects for 
     other patients. ``When I look at the work with Parkinson's, 
     MS, and stroke, I think spinal cord injuries are very 
     amenable to these strategies. The rest of the central nervous 
     system is not.''
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, July 28, 2005]

       Scientists Claim To Find Cells That Restore Egg Production

                             (By Rob Stein)

       A team of Harvard scientists is claiming the discovery of a 
     reservoir of cells that appear capable of replenishing the 
     ovaries of sterilized mice, possibly providing new ways to 
     help infertile women have babies.
       While cautioning that more research is needed to confirm 
     that similar cells exist in women and that they can safely 
     restore fertility, the researchers said the findings could 
     revolutionize the understanding of female reproduction and 
     the power to manipulate it.
       ``This may launch a new era in how to think about female 
     infertility and menopause,'' said Jonathan L. Tilly, a 
     reproductive biologist at Harvard Medical School and 
     Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston who led the 
     research. It is being published in tomorrow's issue of the 
     journal Cell.
       Other researchers agreed that the findings could have 
     profound implications, but several expressed caution and 
     skepticism, saying many key questions remain about whether 
     the researchers have proved their claims.
       ``This is really exciting and a revolutionary idea. The 
     implications are potentially huge,'' said Lawrence Nelson of 
     the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. 
     ``But before this could have any type of application to 
     humans, a whole lot of work has to be done. We have to be 
     careful not to get ahead of ourselves.''
       But Tilly said he was confident of his findings, which 
     could, for example, enable women to bank egg-producing cells 
     when they are young in case they have health

[[Page S9329]]

     problems that leave them infertile or they get too old.
       ``In theory, these cells could provide an insurance policy. 
     We could harvest them and store them away for 20 years. Then 
     you put them back in, and they are going to do exactly what 
     they are supposed to--find the ovaries and generate new 
     eggs'' to restore fertility, Tilly said.
       The discovery could also lead to ways to prevent, delay or 
     reverse menopause, perhaps by stimulating dormant cells in 
     the bone marrow or ``tweaking'' the ovaries to accept them, 
     Tilly said. It may also be possible to transplant them from 
     one woman to another, he said.
       In addition, because the cells appear to be a particularly 
     versatile type of adult stem cell, they could provide an 
     alternative to those obtained from embryos, avoiding the 
     political and ethical debates raging around the use of those 
     cells.
       ``The implications are mind-boggling, really,'' Tilly said.
       The research is a follow-up to results the team reported in 
     March 2004, when it claimed it had shown that mice can 
     produce eggs throughout their lives. For decades, scientific 
     dogma has been that female mammals such as mice and humans 
     are born with a finite number of eggs. To alleviate doubts 
     about their original claim, the researchers conducted another 
     round of experiments, which they said confirm the findings 
     and explain how it might work.
       First, the scientists sterilized female mice with a cancer 
     chemotherapy drug that destroyed eggs in the ovaries but 
     spared any egg-producing cells elsewhere. They tested the 
     animals' ovaries 12 to 24 hours later and found signs their 
     egg supply was rapidly regenerating. Two months later, the 
     animals' ovaries looked normal, and they remained that way 
     for life.
       After tests indicated the source of the cells may lie in 
     the animals' bone marrow, the researchers infused marrow from 
     healthy mice into those that were either genetically 
     engineered to be infertile or had been made infertile with 
     chemotherapy. Two months later, the recipients' ovaries 
     looked normal, whereas those that had not received the 
     transplants remained barren, the researchers reported. Blood 
     transfusions produced similar results, they said.
       The researchers then infused blood into infertile mice from 
     animals that had been genetically engineered so that their 
     reproductive stem cells glowed fluorescent green. Within two 
     days, green egg cells appeared in the recipients' ovaries, 
     which the researchers said indicated the cells had traveled 
     through the blood to the ovaries.
       Finally, the researchers screened human bone marrow and 
     blood from healthy women and found that both tested positive 
     for biological markers indicating the presence of immature 
     reproductive cells.
       ``Mice and humans appear to be the same--they appear to 
     have a set of genes in bone marrow consistent with . . . 
     cells that can make themselves a new egg,'' Tilly said.
       The findings could help explain previously mysterious cases 
     of women sterilized by cancer treatment who spontaneously 
     became pregnant after receiving bone marrow transplants, 
     Tilly said. This may happen only rarely because some, but not 
     all, techniques used to process bone marrow before 
     transplantation may destroy the cells in some cases, he 
     speculated.
       The research triggered a mixture of excitement, caution and 
     deep skepticism.
       ``It's quite amazing,'' said Hans Schoeler of the Max 
     Planck Institute in Germany. ``The idea that cells from bone 
     marrow may be a reservoir for egg cells would be quite 
     astonishing.''
       But Schoeler and other researchers cautioned that many 
     crucial questions remained. Several researchers had doubts 
     about some of the techniques the researchers used. Others 
     were puzzled by the speed with which the ovaries appeared to 
     be repopulated with eggs. Many pointed out that the 
     researchers had failed to show the eggs were viable, the mice 
     were ovulating or that they could give birth to healthy 
     offspring.
       ``I'm very skeptical,'' said David F. Albertini of the 
     University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City, Kan. 
     ``There are a lot of holes in the research.''
       Tilly attributed the skepticism to the radical nature of 
     the findings and said he already had work underway to address 
     the concerns, including breeding studies aimed at producing 
     healthy offspring.
       ``We hope we will have the answers very soon,'' Tilly said.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning 
business for 4 minutes.
  Mr. President, this morning, the majority leader made some comments 
regarding stem cell research. I appreciate his comments. It was a 
statement of conscience. I think for each of us in the Senate this 
issue comes down to a statement of conscience. I believe we need to 
take additional steps in support of stem cell research and control it 
in an ethical way because it has the promise of saving lives. I 
therefore support the House-passed legislation that Senator Specter and 
Senator Hatch have introduced. I support the legislation that our 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee has reported to the 
Senate for Federal support for cord blood research. I am looking 
forward to seeing more from Senator Coleman regarding his work to 
develop an alternative way of supporting Federal research for stem 
cells which already exist, but not in the future. In other words, I am 
looking for ways to support this important research because it has the 
promise of saving lives.
  I am pro-life, Mr. President. I am opposed to human cloning. I will 
vote to criminalize human cloning. But I support this legislation that 
is offered by Senator Hatch and Senator Specter. President Bush has 
already said that Federal funds may be used in some cases for research 
on some stem cell lines derived from fertilized eggs. With the help of 
fertility clinics, some prospective parents use fertilized eggs to help 
them have children. Those excess eggs that these parents do not use are 
often thrown away. I support using some of those fertilized eggs that 
would otherwise be thrown away under carefully controlled conditions 
with the consent of the donors for potentially lifesaving research that 
may help cure juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's disease, spinal injuries, 
and other debilitating diseases.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his 
statement. I think it is extremely important that he has joined a 
bipartisan effort in the Senate to make progress on a critically 
important issue.
  Senator Frist and I have our differences politically, but I respect 
and admire him very much, particularly in his humanitarian efforts as a 
doctor. All of us in the Senate know while we may be back home in our 
States, he is off in some of the poorest places in the world using his 
medical skill to save lives. It says a lot about him. It says a lot 
about his heart, as does his statement this morning.
  The fact he would come out and suggest that we need to move forward 
in stem cell research is going to give new hope to people who 
absolutely count on medical research for their future and for the life 
and well-being of members of their families.
  I have had roundtable discussions in my State. I have invited people 
who are suffering from diabetes, Parkinson's, Lou Gehrig's disease, and 
from spinal cord injuries. They have all come forward to tell me how 
critically important stem cell research could be to making their lives 
whole and better.
  Senator Frist's decision today will move us toward a goal, a very 
important goal of establishing good lines for pursuing this research. 
The Castle-Degette bill, which comes from the House of Representatives, 
provides a conscience clause. It says neither the sperm nor egg donor 
can be asked to give up anything they put into the in vitro process 
without their consent. There must be a conscience clause included in 
this process. I agree with that.
  We also must establish that we are opposed to human cloning, which I 
am, and I don't know of any Senator who disagrees. Human cloning is 
wrong, and we must draw strict ethical guidelines to make sure we do 
not cross that line.
  Also, we never want to see the commercialization of this process. 
This is about scientific research. It is not about who is going to make 
a profit, and the Castle-Degette bill is very explicit in that regard.
  My colleague from Kansas raises an important point. It is one he and 
I can debate and it can be debated for centuries about when life 
begins. I am not sure we will ever come to the same conclusion, but it 
is important we talk about it.
  The thing that troubles me about this debate is that those who oppose 
stem cell research apparently are not prepared to criminalize in vitro 
fertilization. They are prepared to allow the process to move forward 
knowing full well in the ordinary course of events in the laboratory, 
there will be stem cells that cannot be used to impregnate the woman 
who is seeking to have a baby.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Will my colleague yield for a comment on that point?
  Mr. DURBIN. When I finish my remarks, I will be happy to do so.
  The point I am making is this: I have a friend, a woman I have known 
since

[[Page S9330]]

she was a young girl. She is married. She and her husband were unable 
to bring a child into this world. They went to the doctor and said: 
Could in vitro be the answer? The doctor said: We can try.
  They spent $40,000 trying unsuccessfully. Heartbroken, they went home 
and waited and saved up enough money and borrowed enough money to try 
again, and they were successful. They have a beautiful baby whom they 
love to pieces.
  They went to those extraordinary lengths because of their love for 
one another and their desire to bring life into this world together. I 
cannot believe there is anything immoral about that motive or that 
effort by this couple and hundreds or thousands of other couples across 
America.
  The Senator from Kansas knows and I know that in the course of in 
vitro fertilization for these good reasons, there will be stem cells 
that are not going to be used to impregnate the woman who is seeking to 
have the baby. Some of them are frozen for future use, many are 
currently discarded. If the argument from the Senator from Kansas is 
that they are life and, therefore, cannot be used for research, then I 
can't understand why the Senator is not calling for the criminalization 
of in vitro fertilization which necessarily leads to excess stem cells.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I will be happy to respond.
  Mr. DURBIN. Without my yielding the floor.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. If I could, Mr. President, and I thank my colleague 
from Illinois for engaging in the debate because I think that it is a 
debate that we have needed for a long time.
  It appears we have agreement that life does begin at conception. 
Senator Kerry campaigned on that running for President.
  I presume my colleague from Illinois agrees similarly. Others have 
argued, yes, an embryo is alive but it is not yet a life.
  To say that a young human embryo is alive, but it's not yet a life, 
seems to be a bit of a legal fiction--if we are going that route. A 
young human embryo is biologically and genetically distinct. It is a 
separate entity. It is alive. It should be treated as either a person 
or a piece of property.
  My colleague may know that in some countries in Europe on this IVF 
procedure, they are very careful about the number of eggs that can be 
harvested and fertilized before they are implanted. I think that would 
be a good process for us to pursue and to look at so that it is not a 
huge multiple set of lines but a much narrower group that are created--
so that they are treated with the dignity and respect that life should 
merit and that life should have.
  I think my colleague from Tennessee was saying this since he 
obviously referred to the entity in question as a nascent life. So let 
us look at that and let us start going at those areas. Would you try to 
lead to criminalization, and I recognize that may be a good point in 
the debate but that is not anywhere near where we are today. Let us 
begin with the young humans with respect and dignity that life merits.
  Mr. DURBIN. If I could reclaim my time and respond, and then I would 
respond to a question from the Senator from North Dakota. The point I 
am making to the Senator from Kansas is--and I think probably Senator 
Frist, even as a medical doctor, would say that we struggle to figure 
out at what moment this is life. When we are dealing with the sperm and 
semen and the ovum, are they live cells? Certainly, they are live 
cells. There is life in those cells. If they were not, they would have 
no value in this process.
  So to say there is life in the cells does not necessarily say we are 
dealing with a person. At what point does this become a person? This 
has been debated for as long as humans have been on Earth.
  The point I am trying to make is I believe we should protect life, 
but we better be careful that in protecting life we are not avoiding 
our responsibility to protect the living. What Senator Frist is 
suggesting--I do not want to put words in his mouth. What I believe is 
that stem cell research helps us to protect the living.
  I yield to the Senator from North Dakota for a question.
  Mr. DORGAN. I looked forward very much to having a debate on stem 
cell research in the month of July. It now appears that that will not 
be the case. Nonetheless, I compliment the Senator from Tennessee, the 
majority leader, on his statement this morning.
  I did want to make this point and ask a question of the Senator from 
Illinois. Is it not the case that those unused frozen embryos at in 
vitro fertilization clinics can become one of a couple of things? First 
and foremost, at the moment when they are unused and discarded, they 
become hospital waste. Second, and importantly, they can, if used in 
stem cell research, be used in the important medical research to 
preserve and to save lives.
  I say to my colleague from Kansas, I have lost a daughter to heart 
disease--many of us have lost loved ones. I will never, ever, on the 
floor of this Chamber, be a part of those who wish to shut down 
promising medical research, especially when the ability to provide that 
research comes from embryos that otherwise would become hospital waste.
  My colleague from Illinois asked the pertinent question, and perhaps 
when we have this debate some day we will have a greater description of 
that, but if in fact that is a human life which is now thrown in the 
waste basket as hospital waste, unused embryos that are discarded, if 
in fact that is a human life--it is not, by the way--should the 
destruction of that as hospital waste not be treated criminally? That 
would be the logical extension of some of those who are on the Senate 
floor wishing to shut down this promising area of research.
  My hope is that we can thoughtfully, with ethical guidelines, proceed 
with research that is pro-life, that will save lives, that will give a 
lot of Americans greater hope for the future who suffer from dreaded 
diseases. I look forward to this debate. I wish very much it had been 
in the month of July, but nonetheless we will have this debate. When we 
do, I hope we will have a full and open discussion about it and advance 
the cause of saving lives in this country and around the world.
  Mr. DURBIN. If I could, I will say very briefly in response, I am 
disappointed that we did not resolve this issue favorably in the month 
of July in the Senate, but I am heartened by the statement made by the 
majority leader today. It is my belief that we have set the stage to 
return in September and take up this important lifesaving issue, with a 
critical bipartisan debate on the Senate floor, for the good of medical 
research and to bring hope to a lot of people who watch every move we 
make on this issue.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, first, I appreciate the comments of my 
colleagues and the distinguished Senator from Kansas, really all of my 
colleagues who have spoken. This is a very important issue that we will 
come back and address, and I appreciate their comments.

                          ____________________