[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 87 (Thursday, June 29, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7169-S7173]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--H.R. 810, S. 2754, S. 3504
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time
determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the
Democratic leader, the Senate proceed en bloc to the following bills
under the following agreement:
H.R. 810, Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, discharged from the
HELP Committee; S. 2754, Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies
Enhancement Act, discharged from the HELP Committee; S. 3504, Fetus
Farming Prohibition Act of 2006.
I further ask consent there be a total of 12 hours of debate equally
divided between the two leaders or their designees; provided further
that no amendments be in order to any of the measures; further, that
following the use or yielding back of time the bills be read a third
time and the Senate proceed to three consecutive votes in the following
order with no intervening action or debate: S. 3504, S. 2754, H.R. 810.
[[Page S7170]]
Finally, I ask unanimous consent that any bill that does not receive
60 votes in the affirmative, the vote on passage be vitiated and the
bill be returned to its previous status on the calendar or in the HELP
Committee; and further, other than as provided in this agreement, it
not be in order for the Senate to consider any bill or amendment
relating to stem cell research during the remainder of the 109th
Congress.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is my
understanding that if any one of these three bills or all of them
receive 60 votes, they would be passed.
Mr. FRIST. That is correct. Each of these bills will have a 60-vote
threshold.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, let me say, first of all, that I extend my
appreciation to the distinguished majority leader. This has been
difficult. I know that. I would rather that we would just be going
forward with H.R. 810, but we will take what we have.
I think this bill is going to be bring peace and comfort to Nancy
Reagan and many people just like Nancy Reagan who believe that what we
are going to do next month, I hope--is that right?
Mr. FRIST. In all likelihood, but at some mutually agreeable time.
Mr. REID. Will be something that will give comfort to Nancy Reagan
and people like her about treatment and maybe cures which can come from
some of these dread diseases.
I think it is an important day for the Senate.
Again, I tell the leader how much I appreciate this and I speak for
every Democrat and I speak for people throughout the country. I know
this has not been easy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I thank the Democratic leader. As he knows,
we have been working a long time to bring, in an appropriate fashion,
these bills to the floor. The unanimous consent agreement that we just
obtained says that we will address three bills--I will have more to say
about those shortly--over the course of the 12-hour period and then
have the 60-vote threshold on each of those.
It was several weeks ago that I reiterated my commitment to work with
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to bring the debate about
Federal funding for stem cell research to the Senate floor. We have
been working very hard in meeting after meeting to do just that.
I just propounded a unanimous consent request which was agreed to
that had three pieces of legislation--the Alternative Pluripotent Stem
Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act,
which is H.R. 810, and the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act of 2006.
I will have a little bit more to say about each of these.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will be very quick because I know the
leader has things to do.
In entering this agreement, which we have just done, I am relying on
the leader's good faith--basically his word and reputation--that we
will do this before we get out of here by the October break. Is that
his intention?
Mr. FRIST. It is my intention, as it is worded in here, that the two
of us will agree upon a time. It is my intention after getting over
this first hurdle to do this in the not too distant future before we
leave.
Mr. REID. I hope we can arrive at a time and agree that we can get
this done.
Mr. FRIST. We will.
Mr. President, I would like to comment a little bit on the approach
and the rationale behind these bills which have been a long time in
coming. This is a very similar to the approach that we tried about a
year ago, but because of timing and a whole host of reasons we couldn't
get a unanimous consent agreement. So I am pleased that we are there.
I am pro-life. I personally believe that human life begins at
conception in large part because it is the moment that the organism is
complete--immature, yes, but complete.
An embryo is nascent human life. It is genetically distinct as that
individual; 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 matter of science.
Our development is this continuous process; it is gradual; it is
chronological; and at one point in time all of us in this room were
embryos. That embryo is human life at that very earliest stage of
development, which is continuous, which again is chronological over
time. And accordingly, that embryo has more significance, it has more
moral value, and thus it deserves our utmost respect and dignity.
I also believe, as do other scientists--I would say countless other
scientists, clinicians, and doctors--that all stem cells, but
specifically embryonic stem cells, hold a very specific, unique promise
for some therapies and potential cures: diabetes, Parkinson's disease,
Alzheimer's, Lou Gehrig's disease, and spinal cord injuries. Stem cells
offer hope for treatment that other lines of research simply haven't
offered.
Embryonic stem cells are what we call ``pluripotent,'' adult stem
cells. You have embryonic stem cells, and these embryonic stem cells
are ``pluripotential.'' What that means is that they have two
remarkable qualities that really no other cell in the human body has.
That is why they are so unique. The embryonic stem cells have the
capacity to become any other type of tissue that is unique to them.
Second, they have this remarkable capacity of being able to renew
themselves--copy themselves again and again and again and again
indefinitely.
It is those two properties, the ability to copy itself over time and
to become any sort of tissue, which makes it specifically unique and so
remarkable. That is why we have so much potential hope for cure and for
therapy.
Right now, there is the challenge; there is the ethical challenge.
This is why it is so hard for us and for people all across this country
as they listen to the debate; that is, to derive these embryonic stem
cells using the technology that we know today. The embryo itself has to
be altered in some way or destroyed.
That is the heart of the ethical concern. That is why I have made it
clear that while I strongly support Federal funding for embryonic stem
cell research, that Federal funding should only be provided within a
system, a comprehensive system of ethical oversight, strict safeguards
in this ethical system that are overseeing this financial investment.
That comprehensive oversight has to have strict safeguards and public
accountability. It has to have complete transparency so we ensure that
this new research, this evolving research unfolds over time within
accepted ethical bounds.
It is interesting. I came to this floor about 5 years ago. It was 5
years ago sometime around either June or July. At that time, I laid out
a comprehensive proposal to promote stem cell research within this
ethical framework.
That is interesting because I talked about adult stem cells and
embryonic stem cells. At that point in time, embryonic stem cells were
only 3 years old in terms of discovery. They had been around a long
time, but we only discovered them really in about 1998. At that point
in time, I proposed 10 specific interdependent principles.
At this juncture, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record those principles.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Frist Principles on Human Stem Cell Research
Stem cell research holds tremendous potential for treating
serious illness and disease. Because the embryonic stem cells
derived from five to six day-old blastocysts are
``pluripotent'' (appearing capable of indefinite self-renewal
and differentiation into all cell types), research conducted
with embryonic stem cells derived from the roughly 20-30
cells contained in the inner cell mass of the blastocyst has
the potential to help advance treatments for diabetes,
Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, leukemia, spinal
cord injuries and a number of other diseases and conditions.
Research using adult stem cells also holds great promise,
although there may be characteristics of adult stem cells
that limit the medical potential of this research.
Embryonic stem cell research--and the derivation of stem
cells from blastocysts--raises significant ethical and moral
questions. Many believe that these days-old embryos are human
life and should not be used for research purposes under any
circumstance. Others believe that, because such
[[Page S7171]]
embryos exist outside the womb at this early developmental
stage, they are not yet life. Still others believe that,
regardless of whether such embryos are life, the potential of
embryonic stem cells should outweigh moral or ethical
concerns about their use for potentially life-saving
research.
These competing concerns make it extremely difficult to
reach consensus on a federal policy in this area.
Nonetheless, because both embryonic and adult stem cell
research may contribute to significant medical and health
advancement, research on both should be federally funded
within a carefully regulated, fully transparent framework
that ensures respect for the moral significance of the human
embryo.
The unique interplay of this promising but uncharted new
science with the ethical and moral considerations of life,
disease and health is continually evolving and presenting new
challenges. Therefore, we must ensure a strong,
comprehensive, publicly accountable oversight structure that
is responsive on an ongoing basis to moral, social and
scientific considerations.
Federal funding for stem cell research should be contingent
on the implementation of strict new safeguards and public
accountability governing this new, evolving research. The
following 10 points are essential components of a
comprehensive framework that allows stem cell research to
progress in a manner respectful of both the moral
significance of human embryos and the potential of stem cell
research to improve health.
1. Ban Embryo Creation for Research: The creation of human
embryos solely for research purposes should be strictly
prohibited.
2. Continue Funding Ban on Derivation: Strengthen and
codify the current ban on federal funding for the derivation
of embryonic stem cells.
3. Ban Human Cloning: Prohibit all human cloning to prevent
the creation and exploitation of life for research purposes.
4. Increase Adult Stem Cell Research Funding: Increase
federal funding for research on adult stem cells to ensure
the pursuit of all promising areas of stem cell research.
5. Provide Funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research Only
From Blastocysts That Would Otherwise Be Discarded: Allow
federal funding for research using only those embryonic stem
cells derived from blastocysts that are left over after in
vitro fertilization (IVF) and would otherwise be discarded.
6. Require a Rigorous Informed Consent Process: To ensure
that blastocysts used for stem cell research are only those
that would otherwise be discarded, require a comprehensive
informed consent process establishing a clear separation
between potential donors' primary decision to donate
blastocysts for adoption or to discard blastocysts and their
subsequent option to donate blastocysts for research
purposes. Such a process, modeled in part on well-established
and broadly accepted organ and tissue donation practices,
will ensure that donors are fully informed of all their
options.
7. Limit Number of Stem Cell Lines: Restrict federally-
funded research using embryonic stem cells derived from
blastocysts to a limited number of cell lines. In addition,
authorize federal funding for embryonic stem stem cell
research for five years to ensure ongoing Congressional
oversight.
8. Establish A Strong Public Research Oversight System:
Establish appropriate public oversight mechanisms, including
a national research registry, to ensure the transparent, in-
depth monitoring of federally-funded and federally-regulated
stem cell research and to promote ethical, high quality
research standards.
9. Require Ongoing, Independent Scientific and Ethical
Review: Establish an ongoing scientific review of stem cell
research by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and create an
independent Presidential advisory panel to monitor evolving
bioethical issues in the area of stem cell research. In
addition, require the Secretary of Health and Human Services
to report to Congress annually on the status of federal
grants for stem cell research, the number of stem cell lines
created, the results of stem cell research, the number of
grant applications received and awarded, and the amount of
federal funding provided.
10. Strengthen and Harmonize Fetal Tissue Research
Restrictions: Because stem cell research would be subject to
new, stringent federal requirements, ensure that informed
consent and oversight regulations applicable to federally-
funded fetal tissue research are consistent with these new
rules.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I also said at the time that policymakers
and the public must often reassess the research, this new research,
this evolving research and the circumstances under which it is
conducted.
As I said then--and I believe now--we must do all we can to pursue
promising alternative strategies that hold the same potential, the
potential for developing the pluripotent stem cell lines without
damaging the embryo, without altering the embryo, without destroying
the embryo or nascent human life.
Shortly after that time--that was 5 years ago--the President
announced his policy for embryonic stem cell research. That was
remarkable at the time. I think it was August 11. It was Federally
funded embryonic stem cell research for the first time ever. It did so
within that ethical framework. It showed respect for human life.
That is why I believe it is important for us to have this debate on
the floor of the Senate.
The policy also restricted the embryonic stem cell funding only to
those stem cell lines that had been derived prior to his announcement.
That was the cutoff line. At that time it was widely believed that
there were 78 such embryonic stem cell lines that would be available
for Federal funding; 78 we thought at the time when President put forth
his proposal. Unfortunately, over time we have learned that had not
been the case. What we thought would have been 78 lines today we
realize only became 22 cell lines--22 lines--that are eligible.
Moreover, those lines unexpectedly--we didn't know it at the time.
That is why it is so important to constantly come back and modify, if
necessary, but reevaluate policies. Those lines unexpectedly after
several generations are starting to became less stable and less
replicative than we had initially anticipated.
Science is fascinating. Just as an aside, they seem to be acquiring
and losing chromosomes. They are losing what we call the normal carrier
type. They are potentially losing growth control, all of which means
these cell lines out there are less useful in terms of research, in
terms of opening up that potential, those possibilities, that hope for
cures.
Also, another complication which we didn't realize at the time--some
scientists did but we didn't know what the impact would be--all of
these cell lines were grown on mouse-feeder cells, which we have
learned since will limit their future potential for using those
clinically or in clinical therapy in humans. There are concerns, for
example, about viral contamination.
These are limitations we didn't realize at the time but we do know
today, 5 years later.
While embryonic stem cell research is still in the very early stage,
we have to be careful not to over-promise. And when people look at
these bills coming through, although we want to open up that
possibility for hope, we cannot over-promise.
The limitations we put in place in 2001 will over time show our
ability to investigate new treatments for certain diseases--the mouse-
feeder cells, the changes that we are seeing in the initial cell lines,
the fact that there are fewer cells lines.
Therefore, I think it is the responsible thing for us to do, to come
to the floor and consider modifying that policy, updating that policy
based on what we have learned, which is why, with reservation, I
support the House-passed embryonic stem cell research bill, H.R. 810.
Let me be clear on this particular bill. Because again and again
people come forward saying there are so many deficiencies in the bill.
And I see deficiencies in the bill. If circumstances were different, I
would seek to ensure that a much stronger ethical and scientific
oversight mechanism be in place, which is not part of that particular
bill. Things like a clear prohibition on financial or other incentives
between science and fertility clinics, more explicit requirements
around informed consent, all of which is not in that particular bill.
But I have said that we should debate and vote on that House-passed
bill. I, thus, have asked that it be included in the package of bills
that we put forward for consideration on which we just got by unanimous
consent agreement to debate and vote.
Moreover, as we consider embryonic stem cell research, we shouldn't
diminish in any way the promise or slow the progress of research on
adult stem cells or cells that have pluripotential capability but
aren't strictly embryonic stem cells.
To date, adult stem cell research is the only type of stem cell
research that is actively used in humans for treatment, for therapy, to
cure diseases.
As a transplant surgeon--I transplant hearts and lungs--today we can
transplant these adult stem cells. It is life-saving. It has saved the
lives of thousands and thousands of people. Part of that is that we
have much longer experience with adult stem cells. We have probably
three decades of experience
[[Page S7172]]
with the adult stem cells. We only have about 8 years of experience
with the embryonic stem cells.
With more Federal support and emphasis, newer methods of deriving the
pluripotential cells are being developed and have proven themselves in
animal models--not yet in humans--fully developed, and we need to
continue to support that research. It will have huge scientific and
clinical payoffs.
Just as important, they may bridge the moral and ethical differences
among people who now hold very different views on stem cell research
because these newer alternative methods avoid the destruction of any
human embryos. It is these forms of research which may offer not only a
way forward to these new treatments and these new cures but also a way
out of these ethical dilemmas posed by other forms of research.
That is why in this package I asked the Senate to also continue
legislation to enhance this support for alternatives to embryonic stem
cell research. I am very pleased that Senators Santorum and Specter
have joined together and crafted the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell
Therapies Enhancement Act, S. 2754, which is similar to legislation I
worked on with a number of our colleagues--most specifically Senator
Isakson from Georgia--last year. I do encourage every Senator to
support these new alternative ways of reaching pluripotency in cells.
It is very exciting research. There is no reason this legislation
should not truly unite us as a body and be something everyone can
support.
The third bill that has been included in this unanimous consent
request is the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act of 2006, S. 3504. One may
ask, what is fetus farming? It is the implantation and gestation of an
embryo in a human or animal for the purpose of aborting for research.
As far as I am aware, fetus farming is not a method that is currently
employed but a method that has been proposed. It is not out of the
realm of possibility. Therefore, Senators Brownback and Santorum have
proposed legislation which would draw a clear line which should not be
crossed.
Those are the three bills which we will be debating. Several of my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have come to the Senate over
the last several weeks and months to suggest we take up H.R. 810 or
that we immediately take it up. However, I am absolutely convinced that
all three bills I have mentioned address the profound ethical questions
surrounding the promise of stem cells, the hope that these stem cells
will lead to cure and therapy. That is why I believe it is only fair on
an issue of this magnitude that Senators be given the courtesy and
respect of addressing all three of these very different ideas, these
areas which are surrounded in some ethical concern but also are
important to medicine, science, and health.
The other proposals for handling this include taking a bill out and
seeing what happens. Because these bills are so complex and Members
have so many potential amendments, we have taken this course of having
3 bills with the 60-vote thresholds.
I thank my colleagues. We covered the spectrum. It has actually taken
several months to pull together this unanimous consent request and
agreement. I am very pleased we now have a process in place, the timing
of which we can determine or I will determine in consultation with my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I support the unanimous consent agreement
on stem cell research legislation propounded by our majority leader,
Senator Frist.
Overall, this is a fair proposal and it is certainly a matter that
this Senate should be prepared to debate and vote upon as soon as
possible.
It is over a year since the House of Representatives acted in a
bipartisan fashion to adopt legislation, H.R. 810 that would increase
the number of stem cell lines eligible for Federal funding if those
stem cell lines were derived from embryos no longer needed for in vitro
fertilization.
This is a good bill that Senators Specter and Harkin have urged on
this body since 2001. It is time to debate and vote upon this proposal.
The unanimous consent agreement also accommodates the interests of
other Senators by including two other bills in this package.
I believe I can support these other two measures which are designed
to outlaw so-called fetal farming and to encourage alterative means of
devising new stem cell lines.
While I do not think that the alternative measure can or should be
thought of as a replacement for the new cell lines that will be derived
if H.R. 810 is passed, I am supportive of this type of research.
The stem cell issue is ripe for debate and resolution and I think
that this unanimous consent agreement will move us down the road in a
constructive fashion.
While this unanimous consent agreement does not address the issue of
cloning, or somatic cell research as it is known in the language of
science, we will have ample time to debate these matters in the future.
And as much as Senator Feinstein and I and others would like to debate
and vote on our bill to ban reproductive cloning and to erect ethical
safeguards to govern therapeutic cloning that advances the science of
regenerative medicine, we can agree to have this somewhat different
debate on a different day.
It is time for the Senate to vote on the Castle-DeGette bill that
passed the House last year. Scientists tell us that there is great
advantage to expanding the number of stem cell lines eligible for
Federal funding.
Here is what one Nobel Laureate, Paul Berg of Stanford University,
has said about the importance of passing this legislation:
Dear Senator Feinstein,
The Senate will shortly be considering legislation to
permit the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to fund
research with additional and new and existing human embryonic
stem cell (hESC) lines. As a staunch supporter of biomedical
research and particularly research with hESCs, I trust that
you will exert your influence to ensure passage of H.R 810.
Scientists engaged in ESC research are counting on you and
like-minded Senate colleagues to assure its passage. The
President must also be persuaded not to veto this legislation
for if we continue on the path he set five years ago United
States investigators will be out of the running in converting
embryonic stem cells into important new therapies. It is
especially frustrating and demeaning that American scientists
are prohibited from using their NIH grant funds for research
with the hundreds of hESC line generated outside the United
States or generated in this country with private funding.
Paul Berg
When our Nobel Award winning scientists, like Dr. Berg, are telling
us how important this research is, we should all pay careful attention.
Many among the American public agree that the time has come for the
Senate to take up and pass the legislation that the House has already
passed over a year ago.
Let me just share with you a letter that I received from Nancy Reagan
on this important issue.
Office of Nancy Reagan,
Los Angeles, CA, May 1, 2006.
Hon. Orrin Hatch,
Washington, DC.
Dear Orrin, Thank you for your continued commitment to
helping the millions of Americans who suffer from devastating
and disabling diseases. Your support has given so much hope
to so many.
It has been nearly a year since the United States House of
Representatives first approved the stem cell legislation that
would open the research so we could fully unleash its
promise. For those who are waiting every day for scientific
progress to help their loved ones, the wait for United States
Senate action has been very difficult and hard to comprehend.
I understand that the United States Senate is now
considering voting on H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research
Enhancement Act, sometime this month. Orrin, I know I can
count on friends like you to help make sure this happens.
There is just no more time to wait.
Sincerely,
Nancy Reagan.
I think that Mrs. Reagan has it exactly right.
We need to debate and vote on this issue and we need to do it now.
That is what I understand that the unanimous consent agreement proposed
by Senator Frist will accomplish. I am pleased that all of my
colleagues have agreed to this unanimous consent agreement.
This agreement is acceptable to some of the staunchest opponents of
H.R. 810. For example, I do not think that anyone has been as outspoken
in their opposition to H.R. 810 than my friend from Kansas, Senator
Brownback. But I understand that this unanimous consent agreement is
acceptable to him.
Both Senator Brownback and I--and many others--might have crafted a
[[Page S7173]]
slightly different unanimous consent agreement--but I think that most
would agree that what is being proposed by Senator Frist gives a fair
series of votes that could be accomplished in a reasonable amount of
floor time in a part of the year when floor time is becoming a precious
quantity.
Stem cell research presents a great opportunity for scientists to
gain knowledge that can help those families in America and around the
world in which loved ones suffer from currently incurable diseases such
as cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's, diabetes and Parkinson's to name
a few.
In order to develop a better understanding of the causes and cures of
many diseases tomorrow, we must conduct a vigorous research program
today.
And let me be clear, cures will not happen overnight or will come
easily. We have years of hard work ahead of us. But we have much work
to do today to bring about these future advances.
In my view, what this unanimous consent agreement does is to move the
ball forward. I am pleased that no one appears to be objecting to this
agreement so we can give this matter the debate and votes that it
deserves.
The House has acted on an important bill and, in this case, I believe
that the Senate should give the American people a simple, an up-or-down
vote on this measure.
I think that each of these three bills can gain substantial
majorities.
I support the unanimous consent agreement. I am prepared to vote and
hope my colleagues will support this agreement that will allow us to
debate and have votes in a manner that does not allow parliamentary
tactics to unduly delay or otherwise obstruct debate on this important
legislation.
This unanimous consent agreement is a step in the right direction and
I look forward to the debate on these three bills which can benefit the
American public so much down the road.
This is good news for individuals like young Cody Anderson of Utah,
who suffers from juvenile diabetes. This is good news for many
individuals.
I commend the majority leader and my colleagues for tonight's
agreement on a way to move forward.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________