[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 87 (Thursday, June 29, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6731-S6735]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           STEM CELL RESEARCH

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I stand to deliver some good news today 
to the Senate and hopefully contribute to the debate we are going to 
have probably in July on the overall issue of stem cells, embryonic 
stem cells, human cloning, adult stem cells, and cord blood.
  I wish to start by saying I think everybody is of good heart and good 
mind in this body and that they want to try to do something to help 
people in this country. While we have some differences of opinion on 
embryonic stem cells and on human cloning, there is strong bipartisan 
support in the adult stem cell and cord blood area.
  The differences come down to the basic view of the youngest of human 
life. This is a long debate. It has been going on for some time. We 
have differences of opinion. I view human life as sacred at all of its 
stages and all of its places. Period. It is unique, it is beautiful, it 
is a child of the living God. It deserves our respect and protection 
under law at the very earliest stages of life and at the very latest 
stages in life. It is life in this country and a life in other 
countries. It is life seeking to come to this country in whatever form 
it may be. This life is unique and sacred.
  We can try to divide it under law. We can say it is property at this 
stage of life; it is not worth living at that stage of life. All of 
those, I think, are false distinctions. Life is sacred, period, per se 
because it is human and it is sacred, period, because it is human. That 
is the point of view from which I come. That is the point of view from 
which I think a lot of Americans come.
  When people think about it, when they look at this issue they say: 
How else would you divide a baby? It is pretty hard to do unless you 
start where life begins and you end where life ends and you don't draw 
distinctions in between.
  Others are willing to draw that distinction in between and say a 
human life is not sacred, per se, at certain early stages, or if it is 
so decrepit at other stages of life. I think those are false 
distinctions. I don't think they stand the test of science. I don't 
think

[[Page S6732]]

they will stand the test of time. I don't think they will stand the 
test of reason if one really thinks it through.
  That is really where we get to the point of distinction on this 
debate, on human embryonic stem cells, on cloning humans for stem 
cells. Scientifically, it may be doable. Ethically, is it moral? Is 
this human life a person or a piece of property? In our jurisprudence 
system, they are one of the two: They are either a person or a piece of 
property. Everything in this room--the Presiding Officer is a person; 
what he has on is property. People in this room are people, everything 
else is property.

  What is the youngest of human life? Is it person or property? We have 
had this debate before in this country. We have looked at it; we have 
drawn distinctions. At points in time, even in our Constitution, we 
have said a person was only three-fifths of a person, and yet we knew 
at that time: How can you be three-fifths of a person? That didn't 
stand the test of time and reason then, and it doesn't stand the test 
in this country now.
  Some will say that the youngest of human life is property and at some 
point in development it becomes a person. Yet in our jurisprudence 
system, we don't recognize the transition that you can go from property 
to personhood and, if so, where on Earth would you draw that line? When 
would it happen?
  The biology is quite clear on this point. If you start out a person, 
you end up a person. If you start out a human being, you don't become a 
plant. If you start out a human being, you don't become a desk. If you 
start out a human, you end up a human. The biology on this is clear. If 
you are a human embryo and you are given nurture, you end up, by 
anybody's definition, a full-scale human being. You don't transition. 
You don't start out as a piece of property or an egg that is going to 
become an eagle and end up a person. It is one person.
  At one point in time, we have all started out as an embryo. Whether 
you are Sam Brownback, the Presiding Officer, or anybody in this room, 
we all started out being a human embryo. We didn't start another way. 
If you destroy us at the earliest stage, you never end up with us at 
this stage. That is a basic fundamental of the argument.
  It is an old, old, old debate for human societies. We have had this 
debate. Typically, in fighting around the world, people try to 
dehumanize the other side.
  I remember watching a film on Rwanda, ``Hotel Rwanda,'' about the 
Rwandan genocide. I was just in Rwanda last year and in the Holocaust 
Museum. The one side persecuting the other side, killing nearly 800,000 
in 3 weeks, in the very typical fashion of human beings demonizing the 
other side and calling them less than human, they were subhuman--they 
were roaches is what they actually referred to them as.
  One can look at old war propaganda and typically one side tries to 
demonize the other side, calling them something less than human, they 
are subhuman. That is a very old human debate about whether this is 
really a person.
  The truth is, the debate never stands up under any examination. Of 
course, the Hutus and Tutsis are humans. Of course, in our earliest 
Constitution, a slave was treated as three-fifths of a person; they are 
a full person. They are entitled to personhood. They are entitled to 
legal status in this Nation.
  Of course, any time in the history of mankind when we have deemed 
somebody less than a full person, we have always lived to regret it, 
and we always said later on: Wasn't that a horrific episode in human 
history where somebody was treated less than a human?
  Now we are back at that old debate. People are of different minds. 
They are not of ill will toward anybody. Many are seeking cures to very 
difficult diseases, to very difficult problems and human maladies and 
saying: If we can only go here, if we can only research on human 
embryos that are just frozen; they are not going to come out of the 
Cryovac; they are going to stay frozen; if we can only do that, if we 
can just take an egg and fuse it with a cell from my body and create a 
clone just for a little period of time, we are going to be able to 
solve all these human maladies; we are going to solve cancer, and we 
are going to fix Parkinson's disease, and we are going to solve spinal 
cord injuries.
  Then, it comes back, back, back to the same old debate: What is the 
human embryo that is frozen? Is this a human embryo created by the 
cloning process? Is it a person or piece of property?
  People of good will differ on that division. It is an old debate, and 
I think the only place to stand is that this is a person and deserves 
our respect.
  That debate is renewed in this bioethics issue. We have been going at 
it about 6 years now. In August of 2001, the President articulated a 
strategy of funding both embryonic stem cell research and adult and 
cord blood research, funding both of them. We have since that time 
funded embryonic stem cell research to the tune of half a billion 
dollars, $500 million. So this isn't something people can say we 
haven't done. We have. Those are Federal funds. No private or State 
money is included in that money. This is just Federal money, half a 
billion dollars.
  When we started this debate 6 years ago, I stated that for us to 
research on young human beings is illegal under our law, immoral under 
our rationale, under our legal system and, really, the law we know in 
our hearts and unnecessary because we have another way. We can go 
through adult stem cell work, we can go through cord blood work, and we 
can come at conclusions that will be successful in treating these human 
maladies.
  The illegal and immoral remain today. We do not allow people to 
research on the youngest of human beings. It is immoral how you treat 
the youngest of human beings because if you destroy me at that stage of 
embryo, I never get to become a full-scale human and realize the 
potential I have or other people have.
  Today, I want to emphasize the unnecessary part of this debate. When 
we started this debate in 2000, they said there was a lot of promise 
with adult cord blood, but we don't know if you are right. We actually 
think we are going to be able to come up with conclusions and solutions 
using embryonic stem cells or cloning, but you can't come up with them 
using adult stem cells. There is not enough malleability. They are not 
what they call in the terminology, pluripotent. In other words, if it 
is a nerve adult stem cell, it can't make bone. It can't make fat 
tissue.
  It turns out there is a lot more pluripotency or plasticity to these 
adult stem cells than originally thought, to the point where we have 70 
peer-reviewed publications, treating 70--we just celebrated this 2 
weeks ago--70 different human maladies with adult stem cells or cord 
blood.
  My good news today is on the illegal, immoral, and unnecessary, we 
now have a lot of information on the unnecessary side of this debate so 
that we can go forward full scale in saying we are going to 
successfully treat these human maladies, and we have 70 treatment 
areas. Some of these are nothing short of miraculous.
  I have a very busy chart here, but that is because this is very busy 
subject. This is a chart indicating 70 current human--these are not 
animals--human clinical applications using adult stem cells today. 
These are the various areas: anemias, autoimmune diseases, bladder 
diseases. We now have people growing bladders from their own stem 
cells, taking them out of the body--I believe this is a Florida 
researcher--putting them on a skeleton and then growing artificial 
bladders so that people, instead of having pouches on their side, can 
now have their own bladder grown. This is really taking place.
  Cancers, cardiovascular: I want to talk about a group having their 
hearts regenerated by their own stem cells, but will save that for 
another day.
  Immune deficiencies, liver diseases, neural degenerative diseases, 
including spinal cord injuries--I will talk about a specific example 
today: a young lady walking again with the use of braces.
  Ocular, wounds and injuries, and metabolic disorders: Those are the 
general categories that I want to put forward to show the unnecessary 
side of embryonic stem cells. This is a good news topic with which we 
can move forward. I have been challenged by some of my colleagues about 
the scientists who oppose embryonic stem cell research. I have 
submitted a list of 57 scientists and doctors for the Record

[[Page S6733]]

in a previous speech who oppose destructive human embryonic stem cell 
research--oppose it. Embryonic stem cell research is not the right way 
to go, as a moral issue, for a number of reasons, but there are also a 
number of reasons why it is unnecessary for us to move forward in this 
particular category.

  There is also the problem--and we saw this on the use of tissues from 
aborted fetuses, the fetal tissue debate, and, unfortunately, when you 
use these young stem cells, embryonic stem cells, they tend to form 
tumors. Embryonic stem cells are very fast-growing, and they form 
tumors instead of the type of tissue we want. They too frequently are 
uncontrollable, and they will form tumors. That continues to be the 
problem in that particular area.
  I want to point out this chart to my colleagues regarding this issue. 
It is not necessary. It is unnecessary for us to do embryonic or 
cloning research. On the moral issue, it is illegal. But it is also 
unnecessary because we are getting human treatments to the very things 
my colleagues said that we needed to do embryonic stem cell research 
for and that they say we needed to do human cloning to get all of these 
cures. I am saying it is not necessary. We don't have to go that route, 
because we are getting the treatments using this ethical route.
  So we have this big ethical debate and quagmire, and we have a 
legitimate route with adult stem cells where we are getting successful 
treatments for people. Why would we engage in and go the unethical 
route when we have this big debate and divide? Why would we not just go 
very aggressively where we are getting human clinical trials with adult 
stem cells, especially when we are not getting any in the embryonic 
area? Why wouldn't you fully engage that and say, Well, OK, then we 
don't have to engage the moral debate. We don't have to say somebody is 
subhuman and to get to a point in our research. We can say we have a 
legitimate route to go.
  Now I want to talk about the good news highlights here. I want to put 
up some real patient stories for my colleagues. We had a press 
conference last week where we had five individuals independently 
treated with adult stem cells or with their cord blood. This is 
umbilical cord blood from mother-child that has been saved and 
preserved and people are being treated successfully in these areas.
  I want to put up a picture of Ryan Schneider from Batavia, IL. This 
is a miraculous story. A beautiful Christmas picture you can see here. 
It is a picture of him last Christmas, taken just 10 weeks after Ryan's 
stem cell treatment. There is already a noticeable improvement that he 
has. This is a young man who has an incredible story. I met him last 
week and his parents, and I want to say God bless him to him and his 
parents who really fought through a tough problem of cerebral palsy 
with him.
  His medical problems began at birth. His parents, Mary and Steve, 
noticed that he was having difficulty with feedings. He was falling 
behind in his motor skills. His mother is a very sensible woman. She 
heard the usual arguments of, ``Well, every kid is different, let's 
wait and see.'' But based on her experience, including raising Ryan's 
older sister, Katie, his mother knew that something wasn't right.
  By the age of 2 he only had two words and he was not gaining weight 
at all. She writes:

       Pointing, whining, and screaming were his only method of 
     communication. I had him evaluated through the early 
     intervention program and he started speech therapy. So she 
     starts working.
       Nine months later he had only gained 1 pound, and after he 
     started speech therapy he spoke only 40 words with no 
     sentence structure, and only close family understood the 
     words.
       His upper body strength was weakening. His hands were in 
     fists most of the time. It hurt him to straighten out his 
     hands and arms. It is the little things that only a parent 
     would notice that set the bells off ringing. I presented 
     these concerns to Ryan's pediatrician who referred us to a 
     neurologist.

  Having five children, I can just see this developing, and I can see a 
mother looking at this child and knowing something is not quite right 
here.

       On July 21, 2005, we got the diagnosis of cerebral palsy. 
     My husband and I felt like we had been punched in the 
     stomach. Who wouldn't, as a parent. Ryan Schneider was 
     diagnosed with cerebral palsy, a disease that affects close 
     to half a million Americans.

  Mayoclinic.com describes cerebral palsy as:

       a general term describing a general group of disorders 
     which affects the child's ability to coordinate body and 
     movement. These disorders are caused by damage to a child's 
     brain early in the course of development. Damage can occur 
     during fetal development, during the birth process, or during 
     the first few months after birth.
       The group of disorders range from mild to severe. Physical 
     signs of cerebral palsy includes weakness and floppiness of 
     muscles, flaccidity, and rigidity. In some cases neurological 
     disorders such as mental retardation or seizures also occur 
     in children with cerebral palsy.

  This doesn't sound like something you would want to confront in your 
family. Mayoclinic.com also cites that it is not curable--is not 
curable.
  Well, the Schneider family has a story to tell today. Thanks to their 
persistence and the work of Dr. Joanne Kurtzberg at Duke University, 
young Ryan has a new outlook on life. Thanks to the amazing work of 
cord blood adult stem cells. Ryan's mother, on the birth of Ryan, saved 
the cord blood. That is something I would urge anybody who is watching 
or thinking about it, to save the cord blood. This is a valuable asset.
  Ms. Schneider continues about what she did:

       The light went on the morning following Ryan's diagnosis. I 
     sat up in bed, looked at my husband and said, the doctor said 
     brain injury. We saved his cord blood. I wonder if they are 
     using it to treat cerebral palsy.

  This is the day after. The mother sits up in bed: We saved it. What 
can we do?

       After days of net researching and many phone calls to 
     leading researchers in stem cell therapy, I found very little 
     hope or information and a lot of, ``No, I won't do the 
     transfusion.'' No one would give my son his own cord blood. 
     You can get donated blood products from strangers in time for 
     surgery or trauma. This is absurd. I called Dr. Harris at the 
     cord blood bank where Ryan's stem cells were banked. He 
     suggested I get in touch with Dr. Kurtzberg at Duke 
     University.

  I have had Dr. Kurtzberg in to testify--an amazing lady, great 
stories, and she works with these impossible cases. Remember, cerebral 
palsy was incurable. Was--was incurable.

       She agreed to do the transfusion, and the transfusion took 
     place on October 11, 2005. Given this opportunity, I set up a 
     protocol system of my own. Pre- and post-infusion evaluations 
     and progress monitoring is being done by Easter Seals. I 
     requested extensive metabolic and chromosomal blood work to 
     be done to rule out any other possibilities with his 
     pediatrician.

  So this is a mother working with this doctor saying, OK, we are going 
to really measure it and see if this is what is happening. Ryan's 
mother continues:

       My thought was if this works for Ryan, it could change his 
     life and the lives of many other children in the future. 
     Although my efforts were applauded, this should not be the 
     job of a parent, but of the medical community and the Federal 
     Government to allocate research dollars. Until this is a 
     proven treatment, insurance companies typically will deny 
     benefits, leaving a huge financial burden on the family and 
     precious few places to receive hope.
       Six months post-infusion, the progress Ryan has made is 
     more than remarkable; it is phenomenal. He is no longer in 
     need of any physical or observational therapy, as his 
     dexterity in his hands and arms has returned. His feeding 
     issues are gone--were gone within 30 days. He is now at a 
     normal rate of growth. He speaks clearly for a 3 year old, 
     and he does so in sentences. His vocabulary is on target and 
     age appropriate, and he is totally engaged in his 
     surroundings. His pediatrician, neurologist, behavioral 
     psychologist, Easter Seals OT, physical therapist and the 
     feeding clinic are in agreement that these changes have 
     occurred post cord blood transfusion. They can offer us no 
     other explanation, yet we must all err on the side of 
     caution, preventing false hope until proper research is 
     completed.

  So you basically see a mother looking for any researcher in the 
country who will do this. When I talked to the mother last week, she 
said Dr. Kurtzberg said to her, Yes, I will do the transfusion. The 
worst thing that can happen here is nothing. This is his own cord 
blood. The worst thing that can happen is nothing. But without it, he 
is going the wrong way. Let's try it.

       The OB-GYN that delivered Ryan and collected his cord blood 
     asked me, ``What in the world made you think of that? It is 
     wonderful and very exciting news.'' I got that kind of 
     reaction from the other doctors in Ryan's case and thought, 
     ``How could I not think of it?'' When your child is in 
     trouble, you use all available resources to fix the situation 
     to the best of your ability.
       All of Ryan's doctors are given updates and progress 
     reports as they come. I have come

[[Page S6734]]

     in contact with Dr. Mindy Lipson-Aisen, the National Director 
     of the United Cerebral Palsy Foundation. She would like to 
     see a study begin with this treatment and has offered a grant 
     to make that happen. The Easter Seals Dupage have been very 
     accommodating with Ryan's needs. Based on conversation with 
     them, I am sure that additional funding would be available.

  Clearly, more adult stem cell work in this area is something that we 
need to do, with half a million CP patients in the country and more 
coming all the time. Why not head this off?

       We owe our thanks to the mice and men that helped us get 
     this far, but it is not about them, it is the children and 
     others that may benefit. The resource and treatment 
     accessibility needs to be changed. Funding research for 
     children in need who have access to their cord blood in 
     either a private or public bank will be a low-risk, high-
     yield and ethical place to start. Ryan and others should not 
     be referred to as an anecdotal response as a society. We all 
     deserve better than that.

  Part of my point in mentioning Ryan's story is that as we divert 
resources from these areas that are working in adult cord blood 
research and putting half a billion dollars in very speculative, 
embryonic stem cell research that is still producing tumors, or even in 
more speculative cloning research, kids like Ryan don't get the 
treatment from a protocol that has been developed and is actually 
working. So why do we take a half a billion dollars from Ryan to put it 
over here in this speculative area that has moral questions as well, 
and kids like Ryan don't get treatment or we don't develop a protocol 
or we don't expand it across the country? What sense does that make 
that we would do that? For the sake of research?
  I am for research, but I am more for treating kids like Ryan and 
getting more of them cured from CP and other diseases. Funding adult 
stem cells which are working is more important than saying, OK, we are 
going to prove that something doesn't work over here. We are going to 
prove that this doesn't work with embryonic stem cells or we are going 
to prove that this doesn't work with cloning when I could instead be 
really treating a bunch of kids like Ryan. Why would we do that?
  Ryan was on the cover of The Hill newspaper last week flexing his 
muscles. His mother said his arms used to retract. Now he is on the 
front cover of The Hill, he has his arms outstretched, and he is 
showing his muscles like a good 3-year-old. His sister complains that 
he bugs her all the time, which to a parent is usually a very healthy 
sign that this is working. These are real people getting real 
treatments and real cures.
  I want to go now to an example that is another miraculous example of 
a treatment area. I am only giving you two stories of the five that 
were in last week, and these are only two areas in the 70 that are 
getting treated with adult cord blood.
  This is Jacki Rabon, a paraplegic, an amazing case and amazing young 
lady. She lives in central Illinois. I have a picture of Jacki here. 
This is a picture after her adult stem cell treatment. I want to give 
you the background on her.
  Jacki Rabon is an 18-year-old paraplegic. She was on Capitol Hill 
last week with her mother and sister touting adult stem cell advances 
in the area of spinal cord injuries. Three years ago, Jacki was a very 
active 16-year-old who played volleyball in school, and was an 
outstanding player. In fact, she had hopes of going to college on a 
volleyball scholarship. All that changed.
  She was riding in an SUV on a gravel road when it flipped multiple 
times. She landed on her back on that country road. She spent the next 
month in the hospital. Jacki writes:

       That day changed my outlook. I was living a nightmare after 
     this tragedy. I really thought my life was over. I couldn't 
     imagine not playing volleyball anymore, jumping on my 
     trampoline with my young nephew, chasing after my niece, or 
     just taking a walk around my small community. Not only does 
     something like this change the victim, but it also seriously 
     disrupts and affects your family. I am a paraplegic with no 
     feeling below the belly button. I had to learn to become 
     independent again; to dress, bathe, transfer from place to 
     place, and take care of my personal hygiene and toiletry 
     issues. It was so difficult, and I struggled with these once 
     simple tasks. After I accomplished these, I was released and 
     allowed to come home. I was simply told, You will never walk 
     again. That was my prognosis.
  A 16-year-old paraplegic, an accident, ``You will never walk again.''
  Jacki continues:

       I got back to school a few months later and that was 
     another adjustment. Everything looks and works differently 
     when you are sitting in a wheelchair. I had to deal with a 
     lot of depression and sadness, but I tried to continue with 
     my life the best that I could. I truly believe that my faith 
     got me through. If it wasn't for this amazing love of God, my 
     strong will and determination, I don't know if I could have 
     proceeded with what my life had become. But I have great 
     determination along with the comforting faith and I didn't 
     intend on giving up that easily. I wanted to give life 
     another opportunity with my new ``lifestyle.''

  I would like to pause in the telling of Jacki's story for just a 
moment. I have asked my colleagues to imagine what goes through the 
mind of a 16-year-old in this predicament. Beyond the physical pain, 
try to imagine the mental anguish. You have your life in front of you--
endless opportunities in America--and it is taken up in a snap, in an 
accident--gone. You wake up one morning; all is normal. You get up and 
you brush your teeth, put on your clothes; you go for a jog and 
continue on with the day. The next morning you wake up and you cannot 
move, cannot brush your teeth, cannot put on your clothes or go for a 
jog. Your entire life has changed.
  You desperately long for a cure. You would follow almost anyone or 
believe almost any story if it seemed credible, if it might produce a 
cure, if the person had the right credentials and respect.
  Unfortunately, some people are putting forward stories and saying we 
are going to cure this with embryonic stem cells or human cloning, but 
these areas are not working. You hear, ``If only we have more Federal 
research money it will work.'' But I want to point out here, in Jacki's 
particular case, that she had a place to go and an area to try. I want 
to point out this work was done by a Portuguese doctor, Dr. Lima, and 
talk to you about Jacki finding Dr. Lima in Portugal and what happened.
  Jacki continued, after going through this despair and depression. She 
writes this.

       My world changed again in the fall of 2004. My pastor was 
     watching a PBS show when the special called ``The Miracle 
     Cell'' was aired. It was about a procedure called ``Olfactory 
     Mucosa Transplantation'', being done in Portugal by Dr. 
     Carlos Lima. It involved removing tissue from a patient's 
     olfactory sinus area and transplanting it into the spinal 
     cord at the initial injury site. My pastor called the house 
     and urged us to turn on the show. We did and were glued to 
     the story. I listened to amazing recovery of returned 
     sensation and even the ability to walk again with continued 
     rehab from others after having this surgery. I remember 
     thinking, ``There's my chance!'' I knew I wanted to pursue 
     this possibility for me.
       My mom and I started researching this procedure on the 
     Internet and collected as much information as we could. We 
     discovered a Spinal Cord Injury Institute getting ready to 
     open in Detroit, Michigan that summer. This institute was 
     closely associated with Dr. Lima. We called to see if we 
     could get an appointment to go and meet Dr. Steve Hinderer 
     and asked about the procedure in depth and inquire about my 
     chances of getting it done.
       I did go to Detroit and was told that I could well be a 
     good candidate. I was given the guidelines and criteria for 
     having this done. After many months of additional testing, x-
     rays, etc. I was accepted.
       This was very exhilarating for me. I had read about the 
     success stories of the individuals that have gone before me. 
     Their various success stories gave me so much hope!!
       I had so much support from my family, friends, church, 
     community and surrounding areas to raise the $50,000.00, 
     needed to have this surgery. Without this overwhelming 
     support I could not have gone forward with this incredible 
     opportunity.
       I went to Portugal in October 2005. I had the procedure 
     done on October 29th. My experience in Portugal was not all 
     pleasant. My mom and I had to deal with the language barrier 
     and the unfamiliar culture. I returned to the states on 
     November 5th. I rested at home for a few weeks, then went to 
     Detroit to the Institute for aggressive rehab. Rehab was very 
     tiring and indeed very aggressive. It was an exhausting 
     experience but a very rewarding one. It was there that I took 
     my first steps on the parallel bars. I was up!!!
       My progress since undergoing this surgery has been 
     amazing!! I have a lot of hip movement, some tingling and 
     heaviness in my legs. I have continued with my rehab regimen 
     at home. I have leg braces that were fitted to me. I can walk 
     on parallel bars and have begun walking with a walker. I am 
     up on my feet again!!!! That's the most satisfying feeling. 
     Unless you have been confined in a wheelchair for an extended 
     amount of time, you can't really know how rewarding it is to 
     be standing again.
       This brings me to the ongoing debate over adult stem cell 
     research. I did not think a lot

[[Page S6735]]

     about this issue before the accident but now it has sparked a 
     great interest within me. First, I am very much against 
     embryonic stem cell research and advancement. I do not 
     support this aspect at all. The killing of human life is 
     appalling to me. But with adult stem cell and non-embryonic 
     stem cell research I have become an advocate. My personal 
     experience with adult stem cell transplantation should awaken 
     the United States to the unlimited possibilities. This 
     technique is simply ``your body healing itself''. Medical 
     research in the United States has always been respected and 
     admired for the advances toward cure for cancer, arthritis 
     treatments and medication, heart disease and other well-known 
     diseases and ailments. But when it comes to spinal cord 
     injuries, the U.S. is very much in the negative category. We 
     as taxpayers pay more money in the daily care of a spinal 
     cord injury victim than we do on a cure. Now why is that???? 
     The medical society treats the injury at the onset, then 
     teaches the individual to live in a wheelchair and function 
     accordingly. Then they are sent home and told, ``You will 
     never walk again''. I experienced that first hand.
       But I am walking again. I have goals of walking by the end 
     of the year with my braces and crutches. This was made 
     possible by the procedure in Portugal and aggressive rehab. 
     But I had to leave the comfort of my home and country and 
     travel to a foreign area to get this done. Now that is sad, 
     isn't it?
       This tragedy that happened to me can happen to anyone. It 
     could be your wife, husband, son, daughter or friend. What 
     would you want for them? Simply a statement, ``You'll never 
     walk again'' or ``Never give up hope--there is a better 
     option for you.''
       Wake up, United States!!!! We are missing out. Let's look 
     at the issue in a more personal level--I can walk again.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Jacki Rabon,
                                                      Waverly, IL.

  Jacki was up last week. She now has feeling in her hips. She is out 
of the wheelchair. She can walk with braces. She needs more of these 
treatments.
  My point in saying this, why are we sending her to Portugal to do 
this procedure when this should be done in the United States and 
researched in the United States? She is probably going to need more of 
these treatments to get the spinal cord to fully fuse. They take these 
cells out of the base of the nose, grow them, put them right in the 
spinal cord area where it has broken, and they start to knit the spinal 
cord back together. But it is probably not going to be just one 
treatment. It is probably going be multiple treatments.
  She had to do fundraising to raise $50,000 to go overseas to do this. 
It was not covered by an insurance company. Why wouldn't we develop 
protocols here to get this done with adult stem cells instead of 
diverting research money into speculative areas like embryonic stem 
cells and human cloning? We should put funding into areas to help 
people like Jacki.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a table on the 
level of funding we have done on embryonic and nonembryonic areas.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                          U.S. FEDERAL TAXPAYER FUNDING--TOTAL NIH STEM CELL RESEARCH--FY 2002-FY 2006
                                                                                    [Dollars in millions] \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          FY 2002 Actual                  FY 2003 Actual                  FY 2004 Actual                  FY 2005 Actual                  Combined total
                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Non                             Non                             Non                             Non                             Non
                                  Embryonic  Embryonic    Total   Embryonic  Embryonic    Total   Embryonic  Embryonic    Total   Embryonic  Embryonic    Total   Embryonic  Embryonic    Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human Subtotal..................      170.9       10.1     181.0      190.7       20.3     211.0      203.2       24.3     227.5      199.4       39.6     239.0      764.2       94.3     858.5
Nonhuman, Subtotal..............      134.1       71.5     205.5      192.1   \1\113.5     305.6      235.7    \1\89.3     325.0      273.2       97.0     370.2      835.1      371.3   1,206.3
                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      NIH, Total................      305.0       81.6     386.6      382.9   \1\133.8     516.6      439.0   \1\113.6     552.5      472.5      136.7     609.2    1,599.4      465.7   2,064.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Decrease from FY03 to FY04 is the result of a change in methodology used to collect nonuman embryonic funding figures. This methodology change also contributed to an increase in nonhuman
  non-enmbryonic.
\2\ Numbers may not add due to rounding.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Chair for this time. I also note to my 
colleagues we are going to have, I hope, a full-scale debate on this in 
July, and I hope my colleagues would look at where the science is 
taking us. The moral questions I think are clear. To others they are 
not. This is illegal and immoral.
  The bigger question in front of us now is, is embryonic fully 
unnecessary? Why would we proceed on this route?
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, what is the order of business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in morning business.
  Mr. DURBIN. And the minority side has?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority side has 30 minutes.

                          ____________________