[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 88 (Monday, July 10, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7279-S7280]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           STEM CELL RESEARCH

  Mr. DORGAN. My understanding is that perhaps next week the Senate 
will take up something called stem cell research, several pieces of 
legislation dealing with stem cell research. I want to talk for a few 
moments about that issue.
  It has been just over 1 year now since the U.S. House of 
Representatives has passed a piece of legislation called the Stem Cell 
Research Enhancement Act, with very broad bipartisan support.
  Those of us in the Senate and those across this country who have lost 
loved ones, and most of us have, to some dread disease--Alzheimer's, 
Parkinson's, heart disease, diabetes--the list is endless--cancer--
understand that the urgency to do the research to find the cures for 
these diseases really must be preeminent.
  I am not suggesting that urgency should suggest to us there are no 
ethical boundaries to research. There are ethical boundaries. But I 
also want to make certain that this Senate moves in a way that is 
expeditious and does the right thing.
  I want to show a picture. This is a picture of a young girl I have 
met a good number of times. She is in the middle. Her name is Camille. 
Camille is 13. She was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes when she was 4 
years old. I have met with Camille's mother and Camille a good number 
of times. I have told her story once before on the Senate floor, but it 
is worth retelling because Camille and her parents and so many others 
across this country are very concerned that we move forward on stem 
cell research and try to find ways to unlock the mysteries of this 
disease called juvenile diabetes. But not just diabetes; ALS and 
Parkinson's and Alzheimer's and so many more.
  Type 1 diabetes, also called juvenile diabetes, occurs when a body's 
immune system attacks and destroys certain cells in the pancreas called 
beta cells. As a result, those beta cells that normally would produce 
insulin are not producing insulin. So when the beta cells are destroyed 
and no insulin is produced, the glucose stays in the blood and can 
cause serious damage to the organs of the body. So Camille, like many 
who have juvenile diabetes, will have to take insulin to stay alive. 
She has to maintain a carefully calculated diet. She checks her blood 
glucose level several times a day and takes insulin injections, as many 
as six a day, just to say alive.
  Her parents have told me about Camille and her schedule. They live by 
the clock. They wake up in the middle of the night every night to check 
on her, make sure her insulin levels are normal.
  Every hour of every day in this country someone is diagnosed with 
type 1 diabetes. With Camille, she has had some very close calls. She 
has been in the hospital a great deal. Her diabetes has been pretty 
devastating, and she has had a lot of close calls.
  This young girl and her parents really want Congress to move forward 
on stem cell research. There is so much promise in stem cell research. 
I want to describe why this is necessary. We are talking about human 
embryonic stem cell lines available for use in Federal research. In 
August of 2001 when the President said he will make lines available, he 
made 78 lines available. Now there are only 22 of those lines available 
and all of these approved lines are contaminated in certain ways. That 
means that all of these stem cell lines will actually never be able to 
be used for human clinical trials.
  This August 9, 2001 deadline that the President had on research using 
these 78 lines is simply an arbitrary deadline. Let me describe that 
these cells, these stem cell lines come from discarded embryos, 
fertilized eggs that have been cryogenically frozen at an in vitro 
fertilization clinic. We had a person testify before the Senate 
Commerce Committee some years ago who believed that it was just wrong 
that there should be eggs that are fertilized in a test tube or in a 
Petri dish and then implanted in the mother, something called in vitro 
fertilization. That is just wrong, he said. That should never ever have 
happened. It should never have been done.

  There are now 1 million people living among us who were born as a 
result of in vitro fertilization, giving couples the ability to have 
children. Couples who previously have not been able to have children 
now are able to have children through in vitro fertilization.
  At these in vitro clinics, more eggs are fertilized than are actually 
implanted and used. There are roughly 400,000 of embryos that are now 
cryogenically frozen at these clinics. Somewhere between 8,000 and 
10,000 each year are simply discarded. They become waste. They are 
thrown away.
  Those who say that the use of those embryos is the equivalent of 
murder, then, I believe, also probably say that the discarding of 
embryos that are not going to be used any longer, that have been 
cryogenically frozen--my guess is they believe those represent 8,000 or 
10,000 murders a year.
  I don't believe that. Those embryos can never and will never become a 
human being unless implanted into a uterus. The question is: Can we use 
these embryos to create stem cell lines to try to find cures to dread 
diseases? Here is what has happened in stem cell research since the 
President announced the limitation.
  Here is what President Bush said in 2004:

       Embryonic stem cell research requires the destruction of 
     life. I'm the first President ever to allow Federal funding 
     for embryonic stem cell research. I did so because I, too, 
     hope that we'll discover cures from the stem cells. But we've 
     got to be very careful in balancing the ethics and the 
     science. And so I made the decision we wouldn't spend any 
     more money beyond the 70 lines, 22 of which are now in 
     action, because science is important, but so is ethics, so is 
     balancing life.

  But these lines themselves were from in vitro fertilization clinics 
and would have been discarded and are being discarded routinely in this 
country, 8,000 to 11,000 a year. This is just an arbitrary decision.
  So let me just make a couple of additional points. This is my former 
colleague, Senator Jack Danforth, a former Republican colleague, as a 
matter of fact, and ordained Episcopal priest. He wrote this in the New 
York Times:


[[Page S7280]]


       It is not evident to many of us that cells in a Petri dish 
     are equivalent to identifiable people suffering from terrible 
     disease. I am and have always been pro-life. But the only 
     explanation for legislators comparing cells in a Petri dish 
     to babies in the womb is the extension of religious doctrine 
     into statutory law.

  This from an Episcopal priest, a former Republican Senator.
  Finally, this from Nancy Reagan:

       Science has presented us with a hope called stem cell 
     research, which may provide our scientists with answers that 
     have so long been beyond our grasp. I just don't see how we 
     can turn our backs on this--there are just so many diseases 
     that can be cured or at least helped. We have lost so much 
     time already, and I just really can't bear to lose any more.

  I believe that we ought to proceed with thoughtful, ethical 
guidelines on stem cell research. I understand that is a controversial 
position for some. In fact, in the last campaign for office for me, my 
opponent ran a television advertisement that was novel and fairly 
disgusting. In it was a fellow who was sitting around a campfire with 
some little children. One of the little children said to the camp fire 
leader: Tell us a scary story.
  And the camp fire leader said: Well, there is this man named Dorgan 
and he has a plan to put embryos inside the womb of a mother and grow 
them for body parts to be harvested later.
  An unbelievable television commercial, bearing no relationship to 
what has been discussed under any set of circumstances. But the 
controversy that exists these days with stem cell research, I 
understand; I am respectful to those who disagree with me on this 
subject.
  I am mindful that there should be solid ethical guidelines in terms 
of how it is dealt with. But I don't believe this is about harvesting 
body parts. This is about giving life. This is about giving hope. This 
is about unlocking the mysteries of dread diseases--to tell those who 
live with Alzheimer's or heart disease or cancer or juvenile diabetes 
or ALS or Parkinson's that we are doing everything we can to find ways 
to cure these diseases. That is what this research is about. I really 
believe it is about giving life--providing opportunity for those who 
are suffering from these dread diseases.
  That is why I am a cosponsor of the Senate companion bill to the 
House bill called the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which has 41 
cosponsors. It is a bipartisan group of Senators who has cosponsored 
this legislation.
  I take some hope with the statement of the majority leader that it 
appears we will begin debating this issue within the next week or two.
  It is important to be clear that this bill only deals with stem 
cells--embryos that were created for fertility purposes by in vitro 
fertilization clinics that would otherwise be thrown away. That is all 
that is being discussed. As I indicated, there are about 400,000 of 
those embryos that are now frozen at in vitro fertilization clinics.
  I know there will be great controversy when we discuss this. However, 
I am comforted, as well, that there is a bipartisan group of Senators 
who believes this ought to be done and supports the legislation. It is 
a fact that sometimes those of us who serve here lament that we are 
taking lightly things that should be taken seriously, or taking 
seriously things that are light. This is a serious issue. And bringing 
this to the floor of the Senate means that we are sinking our teeth 
into a piece of public policy that is very important and that we 
recognize is controversial but nonetheless very important for us to 
make decisions about.
  I look forward to being a part of that discussion and that debate 
when it comes to the floor of the Senate, hopefully, next week if the 
information I have is correct, if not within a week or so following.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Are we in the parliamentary procedure of 
morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. The Senator is recognized for 
10 minutes.

                          ____________________